ted (not lasso)
@ted
i loved FC (and still do!) because it was an exciting web3 project that I could access w/o crazy crypto money. i was initially stoked about @purple — and then realized it feels just like other plutocratic DAOs where governance rights are bought, not earned. is $$ the best way for us to organize? what am i missing?
9 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
disclaimer: this is a joke https://i.imgur.com/7Roa5QM.png
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ian
@iandaos
I have some ideas on alternative models for this…
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
osama
@osama
yes so far 😞 come help us improve please … the entire thing is still being setup and very open to feedback/ideas 🙌 https://t.me/+qW3U890bRlc0NTc5
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
borodutch
@warpcastadmin.eth
crypto is for rich people talking to other rich people in rich people clubs unless it becomes democratized, the world is doomed
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Katsuya
@kn
It seems ok in this case because the governance is about deciding how to spend the $ then makes sense to require $ to buy in (skin in the game). The DAO also can decide to delegate votes to the larger community. I’m sure there are rooms for other DAOs with different goals and mechanics though!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
markus - ethOS - e/acc-d
@markus
Maybe a reasonable price cap on the nft, and first come first serve?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Juan and Only
@juan
would love to see what others think!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Chu Ka-Cheong
@kc
I am not really sure what @purple is. Is it an investment syndicate? Or is it a grant giving foundation? Being a DAO make sense for an investment syndicate. But for a foundation the traditional membership structure usually produces better outcomes.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Evan
@evnhsn
Governance tokens should earned and non transferable. If you sell voting rights you get America post Citizens United.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
