DAO Proposal Activity Q

There seem to be quite a few DAOs on Alchemy with minimal proposal activity. Is this a problem? If so, what is our role in helping create vibrant DAOs, with many proposals?

Good point. I guess that the first question to ask ourselves is “does it enter the scope of the Genesis DAO’s goals?”

Given that the mission statement is:
“Genesis Alpha is the first DAO deployed using DAOstack. Its mission is to support the development of the DAOstack project and ecosystem and serve as a testing ground for early adopters to quickly iterate and improve Alchemy’s interface, protocol, reputation allocation, communication methods and human practices.”

TLDR: I’d say “yes”
Longer version: I’d say that the “support the development of the DAOstack project and ecosystem” covers the scope of other DAOs running on Alchemy.

Foremost, to me, DAOstack is a choose your own adventure, however, I think there’s two ways to interpret this Q, and both are equally valid, depending on the scope of how much or little Pollinators would like to be involved in the ecosystem.:

(1) This is an experiment and we shouldn’t go out of our way to generate activity

One thing I generally subscribe to is that we shouldn’t necessarily try to force activity across the ecosystem. If activity isn’t emerging, than I believe the product needs tweaking – not to double down on trying to get activity going.

In this regard, the most helpful thing people can do is share their feedback and insights, provide UX/UI feedback, and continue to help steer the general trajectory of the project – really, the trick here is to understand why the ecosystem’s activity is diminishing and to continue to build a top quality product that facilitates a naturally emerging ecosystem.

I firmly believe as Alchemy develops and begins to take on the qualities of a decentralized social network, and not just a budgeting application, we’ll see more and more activity being generated.

(2) As members of the Genesis DAO, we should work cross-DAO and drive activity across the ecosystem

This is a more active stance to take and it’s totally up to Pollinators to decide if they want to do this. I see a lot of advantages in engaging with other DAOs – in the instance of the DAOincubator now there’s even a formal “representative” connecting it with Genesis (@parrachia).

One thing to note is that this active stance is firmly in line with the concept of Genesis as an Alliance DAO; I see in the future Genesis actually primarily consisting of DAO Founders from within the ecosystem coming together to best manage it through Genesis’ various powers, such as the minting of GEN.

But, getting outside the scope of Genesis, I’d love to see the rise of DAO service providers: projects such as the DMO and dxDAO have the opportunity to facilitate D2D commerce, and only by engaging the rest of the ecosystem will this come to pass. One service provider could actually be a “DAO builder:” basically an agency that builds custom (or regular) DAOs to spec (similar to the web designers of old). This is similar to Dorg’s current activities.

1 Like

Addressing Pat’s points:

(1) This is an experiment and we shouldn’t go out of our way to generate activity

Disclaimer: this is an opinion based on building online communities

We definitely shouldn’t force activity. Engagement is of course a great way to make sure current members are active & happy. Activation & Acquisition can still be activities on which you can put extra effort but if your growth rate is very high, it will be very difficult to keep up on new members’ expectations (quality of onboarding & follow ups necessary to make sure they do become active members).

Alchemy is of course a big part of the equation, but it’s not the only one. The “Activation --> Acquisition --> Retention” cycle includes a lot of off-chain elements. I think that’s what Eric meant.

Having said that, I also think that making Alchemy awesome is a top prio. Actions speaking more than words: I’ve already submitted several UX feedback for that. It will probably end up in a proposal at some point.

(2) As members of the Genesis DAO, we should work cross-DAO and drive activity across the ecosystem

Totally agree. Members of the Genesis DAO have experience that’s very valuable to other DAOs running on Alchemy/DAOstack.

Actions speaking more than words: I’m part of the PolkaDAO & I’ve started onboarding a PolkaDAO contributor to the GenesisDAO. I think it’s also important to get the contributors of these other DAOs to the GenesisDAO, cross DAO activity will make the ecosystem much stronger & efficient.

(3) On attracting New Pollinators

Early days of the community matter the most. Attracting the right people is extremely important. One contributor can sometimes do more than 10 others. I could think of why someone would potentially be a “good contributor” but I might be wrong. If it’s not too early to collect data (are we enough contributors to do that?), then I’d suggest we look into who are the most active contributors & send them a poll to figure out their profile. Once we can see a pattern, we can look for that pattern in people we meet in conferences, meetups, etc and put extra energy on onboarding these people.


Maybe there is a middle ground here where we don’t have to meddle into other DAOs but we ask them (and ourselves) where are bottlenecks and then we prioritize those issues.
IMO some major bottlenecks are: 1) the preProposal process 2) Knowledge management 3) the dapp UI/UX

I’m working on proposals indirectly focused on them

  1. Monthly retrospectives - specially good for preproposals and a canary in the mine in a way
  2. Forum x dApp integration - UX and KM improvement

Even though they’re focused on our DAO, both projects are reproducible and hopefully insightful to those other DAOs as well.

1 Like

Just created a dedicated thread for the 1st proposal

And this is the thread for the 2nd one

1 Like

Great conversation!

Another thing I would add is that Genesis should play a role in ensuring DAOs are structured correctly from the beginning to ensure they have the best chance of success. Without a solid foundation, solving for bottlenecks won’t matter very much.