Contextualising DAOstack Biz Dev

Based on the Biz Dev resources we found or got forwarded by Pat, @ElaKagel and I would like to discuss our view on the DAOstack Biz Dev strategy, because 1 or 2 of our proposals are aiming in this direction.

Here’s an attempt to contextualize the DAOstack Biz Dev process, as far as we can understand it from an outside perspective:

Based on this contextualisation above we invite you to provide feedback on our proposal “Education material for future DAO Learning Journey hosts”:

We know from previous conversations that @papa_raw, @Felipe, @liviade, Francesca and DAO event creators such as @Luuk (Amsterdam), @AdrienDLT (Barcelona) and @philh (Paris) are interested in these learnings. We therefore would love to get your feedback!


I like it.

Some observations in relation to the contextualization infographic, in no particular order:

  • I’m not sure DAO Funding has to take place prior to Launch. Many orgs, for instance, launch and administer some asset – such as tokens, or equity – prior to having funds to play with. Additionally, funding is often a continuous process: even when a startup has funds, it often fishes for more funds – it’s not a discreet step, per say. So the “DAO Funding” step could exist quite early in this journey or quite far along, and may in fact be much more effective if a DAO can demonstrate its prowess prior to asking for funds. This all being said, if all you’re pinpointing for this step is the establishment of an aligned funding strategy, and not the acquisition of funds, I would say this is an appropriate place to put it, and you’re right to insert a red question box – I’ve identified some funding routes but I wouldn’t consider them exhaustive, or my post generally helpful, in creating a comprehensive funding strategy. One thing that might be helpful to explain at this stage is off-limits funding strategies, specifically in relation to the DAOstack ecosystem: we don’t intend, for instance, to support DAOs who fork out GEN – this is our (emphasize on collective) open-source business model.

  • It seems there’s a lack of resources at the DAO Design stage, and I’m wondering how we can remedy this. I’ve observed most folks having to make a large jump from Prototyping to Design, and this, in my opinion is due to a lack of education on DAOstack’s unique theoretical design elements earlier on in the pipeline. I think ideas such as holographic consensus, GEN staking, and prediction markets need to be clearer much earlier, but I don’t know as to “quite how” yet.


A general remark: why does that document stops at the DAO Launch (maybe I’m missing something)?

Although pre-launch focus will increase the chances of success, I think that continuous post-launch efforts is key to a successful DAO. The idea that “a DAO will run on its own” is rather unrealistic imo. For instance, we can see in the Genesis DAO that the stewarding done by Kate, Fran, Pat & other DAOstack staff is what makes the DAO so successful.


Hi Adrien, thanks for your feedback! I think the document “stops” at the DAO launch, because for now we have focused our attention on the pre-launch or conversion phase. However, fully agreed, this is not meant to suggest that a DAO can/ should run on its own.


Thx for your feedback.

Regarding the “DAO Funding”: Indeed, this “step” could be anywhere or underlying all the other steps. Here I looked from the perspective of a potential customer who brought an idea as far (meaning: is aware of DAOs, decided for DAOstack, prototyped the idea with a canvas) as one person can push it. The actual DAO design in respect to the community consensus, whereas the idea still have to be pitched to a possibly non-existing and to-be-found community (kind of first marketing activities for the idea itself), I thought would take a lot of time, resources and even an incubation process, because all parameters have to be configured. That all would require funding at this stage. I like the funding mechanisms you propose and wonder, if DAOstack is sooner or later able to provide some of those as a boost for new DAOs.

The lack of resources at the “DAO design” stage is can see as well. Even if we integrate DAOstack’s unique theoretical design elements in the Learning Journeys in the earlier stages, I guess we still need people (business developers or project managers), who guide the clients through the entire process and facilitate the DAO parameter configuration by addressing all relevant questions, outlining possibilities and respective best-practices. I’m not sure whether the DAO Guide PDF is tackling all questions to be answered for the DAO design, but if not there should be more resources being produced. In a next step those resources have to be distributed, whereas I think it can be done via online publishing and a regular call series to educate interested people and share learnings amongst them.

Other than that, I elaborated on the biz dev process for figuring out whether our proposal for the “Education material for future DAO Learning Journey hosts” is redundant or not and it seems that there are no resources yet. If there should be more DAOs being implemented, I guess we need to emphasis on increasing the inflow of people into the entire process which practically means educating more people from the DAOstack ecosystem to host Learning Journeys in their cities. What’s your stack on this?

Top-down, bottom-up, and service provider funding is all supported by Alchemy as is. However, as for the other three categories:

Continuous funding – “teal equity” using a bonding curve mechanism

Being built by dOrg. Expected release in one month per @orishim.

Subscription based – members must pay in order to exercise voting rights

I’ve opened an issue here. This should be a bounty priority imho.

Token sale – the dominant fundraising model in blockchain thus far; either STO or utility tokens.

I’ve added an issue here. This is an extremely complex implementation and would likely require a separate DAOstack application to Alchemy and the DAOcreator.

I see this as a strong Genesis proposal.

Well, in my opinion, yes and no.

Yes, this needs to be done. But it should be done by somebody who has gone through the entire process with a real client, successfully deploying their DAO and recording notes/insights throughout the entire process. While I do think you and @ElaKagel could definitely create this Learning Journey effectively, I also believe completely that you should go through the entire process yourselves before positioning yourselves as educators of the process. And this could also be funded by Genesis.


Thx for the replies, here comes mine. :slight_smile:

Interesting, but haven’t fully understood it yet. Maybe you can explain more - perhaps in another call.

That’s sounds applicable in certain cases. Nevertheless, with funding options I also had a DAOstack Fund in mind, which helps the DAOcreators bootstrap their idea before they attrack paying members or pitch it to the public. It could be an interesting opportunity to have DAOstack and its members own a stake of future DAOventures. Of course the projects would need to be examined.

Do I understand right, that evaluating the biz dev process stage “DAO design”, updating/elaborating on the DAO Guide by DAOstack with possible missing components that connect to the beforehand and later stage of “DAO prototyping” and “DAO creation” (leaving “DAO funding” out for now) and sharing the outcomes in an online call (series) is in favour of you, @papa_raw?

Great, so lets fill this puzzle piece. I actually tried to convince some parties already. Recently I was at a two day workshop of a bio/fair-trade company who had invited bloggers and connectors. At the end they wondered how to work together with the different stakeholders and I pitched the idea of creating a community DAO:

Will let you know, what’s coming out of that. I wonder though in respect to “this could also be funded by Genesis” and the work that it takes to get there, how can things like networking and endorsing opportunities, idea generation and transfer, testing, proposal making, etc. already be supported by Genesis or DAOstack (continuously). Maybe you have a suggestion, because I find it hard to frame the attempts and contributions from the last weeks in a proposal. At the end of the day it seems to require a lot of unpaid time.

Try this article.

Totally! Genesis has funded these efforts in the past (PragueDAO, CuraDAO), and the DAOfund wants to bootstrap this business model as well. I think though a very strong prior effort needs to be made by any project seeking funding from Genesis to integrate into the Genesis community and understand the DAOstack ecosystem.

I feel you. I think at this point you should submit an “invoice” to Genesis for the hours you’ve put into bootstrapping all of this, and outline next steps for moving forward. It’s been a bumpy start and I feel to blame for this. Some people might not be comfortable for paying for this type of work, but you have both a client to target, a clear plan, and next steps for creating a replicable bizdev framework – and I’m happy to point this out.

One thing I didn’t mention before about going through the whole process is I personally care more about the intent to do so, and not the results: if you walk folks all the way to DAO creation and nothing comes out of it, I don’t think it matters, but you managed to get the experience of walking them, if that makes sense. But again, this is a personal opinion – I think it’s important to emphasize again that I’m not in charge here, just offering my thoughts.

I finally did it: Alchemy | DAOstack