the reframing from “daos” to “onchain communities” is important bc the former often revolves ard governance but the latter focuses on collective productivity

important distinction.

how are they different? 

onchain communities will also need some form of governance.

daos will also need collective productivity.

maybe you could get away with using attestations or something and move away from governance tokens if that’s the bottleneck.

but would love any clarification.

crypto user researcher /openux || 
internet-native mysticism /manansh || manansh.xyz

many DAOs tend to focus so much on the governance process that it fails to capture the creative energy of its community. 

governance should be a means to creating momentum, rather than an attention sink.

No.

Governance should define functionality - like a circuit board.

Not everything should be a ponzinomical jpeg collective.

agree. thanks for the clarification.

do you think proposals, as they’re used today, are useful? 

maybe it’s possible to make decisions without it? or in a modified way?