Final edit before creating on-chain proposal: April 18, 9:45pm UTC
This is a proposal to clarify and formalize the policy defining how contributors join the Warcamp DAO.
Existing “Policy”
Currently, contributors can tribute 20 HAUS to receive 200 shares in the Warcamp DAO. There is a vague sense that those HAUS – or an equivalent value – should have been earned in some fashion related to contributions to Warcamp, but there is no clear guideline for how this be measured or determined, not to mention any restrictions.
We have also been experimenting with a temporary discord role – @warcamp-temp that grants prospective members access to all the same channels as the share-pegged @warcamp role. This temporary role automatically expires after 60 days, with the idea that a contributor who deserves to keep their access because they are creating value will have earned their Warcamp shares and the full @warcamp discord role.
Proposed Policy
I propose that the new policy be roughly equivalent to the existing process, with several clarifications.
Prospective Warcamp DAO members are given the @warcamp-temp role, which automatically expires after 60 days.
The 60 day period is meant as a checkpoint, not a hard deadline. If the prospective member has not fulfilled criteria (2) and (3) within 60 days, they can request another 60 days of @warcamp-temp access from an existing member.
To receive the full @warcamp role, prospective Warcamp DAO members must tribute 20 HAUS in return for 200 DAO shares.
The 20 HAUS can come from one or a combination of the following sources:
a. HAUS received from Coordinape epoch(s) – at least 10 HAUS (50% or more) must come from this category.
b. HAUS received as tips in discord from other DAOhaus community members
c. HAUS purchased with funds earned from Warcamp compensation (e.g., wxDAI received as part of retroactive compensation)
Membership Proposals
Warcamp DAO membership proposals should take the following form.
Tribute of 20 HAUS
Request of 200 shares
Title: [Name] Warcamp Membership Proposal
Description: At the applicant’s discretion
Link: a link to a forum post with the following information
Same title as the on-chain proposal
The applicant’s 0x address, matching both the on-chain proposal as well as the recipient address in the transactions listed below
Block explorer transaction link(s) to the coordinape bonus distribution(s) where at least 10 of the tributed HAUS was received
Block explorer transaction link(s) where HAUS received via Discord tips was transferred to the applicants wallet
If any of the HAUS was purchased, block explorer transaction link(s) pointing to the HAUS purchase, as well as to the receipt of the funds use to make the purchase (eg from retroactive compensation)
If the above information does not demonstrate that the applicant earned either the HAUS or the funds used to purchase the HAUS from the approved sources listed in criterion (3), existing Warcamp DAO members should not sponsor the proposal. If it does happen to be sponsored, they should vote No.
However, fulfilling these requirements does not guarantee membership. Rather, they are minimum criteria for consideration. Existing Warcamp DAO members may still vote No, and are encouraged to do so if they are not comfortable with the applicant becoming a member.
Sounds interesting Spencer, but I have a few concerns regarding this merit based approach:
You state that 20 HAUS can be purchased with funds earned from Warcamp compensation, but technically anyone can buy HAUS on the market - no? How will you ensure that the HAUS funds purchased come from Warcamp compensation?
By enabling people to purchase HAUS tokens, aren’t you creating a system that disincentives people from doing the work/going through the learning experience?
Also by enabling people to purchase HAUS tokens, you may be at risk of creating a system that favours people with higher levels of experience since they are more likely to get higher compensation - is this what we want?
I think the HAUS tribute is good to making potential contributors have skin in the game. Also, it is not hard for contributors on the Retro track to either receive (via Coordinape) or earn to buy 20 HAUS ($~500 USD).
Initially, it might sound problematic that people can acquire their way into Warcamp and the cost to “attack” Warcamp is only 20 HAUS (i.e. $500USD). Perhaps one way we can mitigate this is to require Championing by Warcamp members (similar to Raid Guild’s). This way, entry to Warcamp is more dependent on proof of work and Warcamp recognition than $X (whatever this grows to be).
There are 2 ways we could go about this:
Direct Championing: Require >=3 Warcamp members to champion a new contributor before they join Warcamp (Similar to our Coordinape nomination process).
Indirect Championing: We use Coordinape allocation as a proof of work / soft championing by Warcamp. Here, a new Warcamp joiner needs to be at least Xth percentile in Coordinape distributions for Y epoch.
The first approach will require us to streamline the championing / nomination process, whereas the second approach will require us to streamline the Coordinape data analysis process and look at potential “bribing mechanics” (might not be relevant now)
I share your concerns 1 and 2. This is why I included a requirement that any new membership proposals include proof that the HAUS was purchased with funds earned from Warcamp. I think this succeeds in maintaining the merit-based approach while still providing a flexible and not-too-slow path for new contributors to join.
Do you have a different perspective on the effectiveness of these proof points?
This topic is a bit more nuanced. In general, I think we want to favor people who can create or are likely to create a lot of value via their contributions. A lot of times that comes down to experience, but its also related to talent/skill or even other factors. So it also benefits us to onboard promising contributors even if they don’t yet have a lot of experience. This category of contributor may not earn as much at the beginning, which may make it harder for them to join Warcamp.
However, I don’t think that is related to whether prospective members can buy HAUS or not. Since HAUS purchasing funds (eg wxDAI) are restricted to those earned by contributions to Warcamp, they are subject to similar considerations as HAUS earned. Both will be higher for contributors who created more value in the short term.
In summary, I think the feasibility of promising but inexperienced people joining Warcamp is an important consideration, but one that would likely require a different solution, such as potentially lowering the starting threshold below 200 shares and 20 HAUS. But that would come with a number of side effects itself.
I do think championing of some form is something for us to consider.
However, I think that’s separate from the question of whether to allow HAUS purchasing in the way I’m proposing. Since HAUS must be purchased with funds earned from Warcamp, it is dependent on proof of work.
In general, I don’t expect anybody to purchase all 20 of their tribute HAUS. This is largely because they will also have received at least some HAUS from coordinape.
New idea
So, drawing from your Indirect Championing concept, perhaps we can formalize this and require that X amount of the tribute HAUS come from coordinape distros.
10 feels like a reasonable number, since it would require that the contributor have earned roughly 1% of all bonus HAUS over the course of 2 months.
I’m not sure we want to over processify this. It might create a situation where people have ‘blind’ trust in member proposals. Also we already have mechanics for this stuff (sponsor and voting)
100% agreed on wanting to avoid too much process and on the risk of creating blind trust in proposals.
Sponsor and vote are indeed the mechanics, but currently we have very little guidance about how to use those mechanics. The criteria I’m proposing would provide that guidance, to both existing members as well as prospective members.
Guidance for existing members
Maybe another way to say it is that the criteria I’m proposing are meant to be minimum qualifications, not the be all end all.
If an otherwise-qualified prospective member’s proposal didn’t meet these criteria, the proposal should not pass (they would be encouraged to submit a proposal that does meet the criteria). It’s important that we maintain consistency of access so we don’t accidentally introduce bias into our onboarding.
More importantly, simply meeting these criteria doesn’t guarantee an applicant membership. Every existing member still retains the right vote No if they don’t think the applicant is an appropriate fit for Warcamp.
Guidance for prospective members
Currently, prospective members don’t really know what to do. They know they need 20 HAUS, but it’s not clear where it needs to come from or when it’s appropriate for them to make a membership proposal.
These proposed criteria clarify both of these questions (even though they are not a guarantee of membership).
Q: What happens at the end of 60 days if a prospective member has not earned enough to make a tribute to Warcamp DAO of 20 HAUS?
A: This 60-day period is intended as a check-point, not a hard deadline.
If the prospective member is still actively contributing, they can request another 60 days of access to the @warcamp-temp role from an existing member.
If the prospective member is no longer actively contributing, then nothing happens and they no longer have access to Warcamp discord channels.
Good point. This will likely need to be adjusted over time as conditions change and as we learn more. For example, I could see 20 becoming way to high if HAUS price moves in the way we want it to
