This post requests comments and feedback from the DAOhaus community on a conceptual proposal for how UberHaus might enable and drive value to the UberHaus treasury and the $HAUS token.
In short, the proposal would…
- give UberHaus a small percentage of loot shares in all DAOs summoned on/via DAOhaus V3, where
- the value of those loot shares for a given DAO would only accrue to UberHaus if that DAO decided to make their loot transferable
In my view, this approach to $HAUS value accrual and DAOhaus sustainability has strong alignment with the goals and values of the DAOhaus community.
This post is a repackaging of content originally posted for discussion within the Warcamp forum. Please see that post and responses for additional discussion.
Together, we in the DAOhaus community envision a future where any community can fulfill its collective purpose while reinforcing the full sovereignty of its individual members.
To bring about this future, our collective mission is to build cultural and technological tools empowering communities to coordinate in that manner, and to make those tools available and accessible to as many people and communities as possible.
This implies two simultaneous objectives:
(i) Our basic DAO coordination tools should be permissionless and free to use
(ii) DAOhaus development and innovation must be self-sustaining so that we can make our tools even better and usable by more people
In the new Moloch V3 DAO contracts – which is what DAOhaus V3 is built on – shares and loot are each ERC20 tokens. DAOs can turn on (or off) transferability for each of those tokens.
This proposal draws on the ability to turn on transferability for loot.
I expect that most DAOs will keep transferability turned off to mirror the dynamics of Moloch V2 and all the benefits that brings, but some DAOs will choose to turn on loot transferability for one or more of the following reasons:
- To raise funding to support their purpose
- To create a liquid market for non-voting economic stake in their DAO
- To enable anybody to participate in the value created by their DAO
- In place of launching a custom token
- And likely other reasons not listed here or that we can’t predict yet
A key thing to note is that DAOs that make this choice are explicitly choosing the introduce a financial component to their DAO, which is a step about our basic DAO coordination tooling.
The mechanism is relatively simple:
A) For every DAO launched from the DAOhaus V3 summoning factory, UberHaus would receive
X% of the total shares (shares + loot) created in that DAO as loot shares
Xparameter would be initially set to zero, with DAOhaus governance (i.e., UberHaus) having the authority to adjust it over time
C) If/while those loot shares remain non-transferable, UberHaus cannot feasibly do anything with them
D) But if/when a DAO turns on transferability for loot, those loot tokens would be controllable by UberHaus
0. UberHaus governance has set the `X` parameter as 1, i.e. 1% 1. New DAO is summoned in DAOhaus V3 2. At summoning, 100 shares are minted to members => UberHaus receives 1 loot shares 3. A new member joins, receiving 10 shares => UberHaus receives 0.1 loot shares 4. The DAO turns on loot transferability and the loot tokens end up with a market price of $10 => the value of the UberHaus treasury grows by $11
Mirroring the relative simplicity of the mechanism, this approach would also be fairly straightforward to implement:
- Add logic to the
baal.mintLootthat mints an extra
X% in loot to the UberHaus treasury (or vault)
- Read the value for this
Xparameter from the DAOhaus V3 summoning factory
- Add an “owner” role in the DAOhaus V3 summoning factory that has authority to change the
Xparameter, and set it to UberHaus
The most difficult aspect to figure out would be the multi-chain mechanics, though this is about to get easier with the Zodiac Nomad cross-chain module.
In this section, I do my best to enumerate the implications of this proposal and how they align with the Objectives from the first section.
I am almost certainly missing something, and that’s what this post is for! Please respond to this thread with any missing considerations you identify.
(1) Summoning a new DAO would remain free of charge, in alignment with Objective (i).
(2) Using a DAO on DAOhaus – including making and voting proposals, managing treasury, etc – would remain free of charge, in alignment with Objective (i).
(3) All DAOs would continue to have full access to all funds in their treasury and vaults, in alignment with Objective (i).
(4) It’s worth reiterating that there is no fee, per se. Value that accrues to UberHaus and the $HAUS token is a reflection of the underlying value of the DAOs’ loot shares, not an extraction of funds from DAO treasuries.
(5) Exit value for individual members of DAOs would be discounted by slightly less than
X were set too high by UberHaus governance, this discount would be highly unlikely to meaningfully change the game theory or behaviors relating to ragequit from, and therefore tribute into, a DAO.
(6) DAOs that turn on loot transferability would face the possibility that
X% of their loot could be ragequit – e.g., if UberHaus were to sell their loot on a DEX. But this would be the exact same possibility as with the rest of their loot, which would also be fully transferable and liable to be sold at any time.
(7) Value would accrue to UberHaus and the $HAUS token in proportion to value that accrues to DAOs on DAOhaus. In other words, UberHaus and $HAUS succeed when DAOs succeed. This is a strong alignment of incentives for success – and in alignment with Objective (ii) – and creates a lot of opportunities for driving further alignment among key DAOhaus ecosystem stakeholders via strategic distribution of the $HAUS token.
(8) DAOhaus would have a direct incentive to support other projects in building on, composing with, or integrating with DAOhaus infrastructure. Since every additional DAO summoned via the DAOhaus factory – regardless of what user interface that DAO uses – adds to the total expected value of the $HAUS token, it behooves DAOhaus to make that as easy as possible and to promote a wide variety of user interfaces (the better to address the unique needs of diverse segments). This is in strong alignment with Objective (i).
In the absence of this approach, on the other hand, DAOhaus might face a perverse incentive to make it more difficult, either to drive more demand for revenue-creating custom B2B services or to “protect” its user interface “moat”.
(9) Any project that builds on or composes with DAOhaus infrastructure (as in #8) would be giving their users access to all other tools built on or integrated with DAOhaus. This taps into the power of open infrastructure and web3 composability, and also creates a flywheel that makes DAOhaus more valuable for everyone. This is in alignment with both Objectives (i) and (ii).
(10) That said, no DAO or project would be locked in to using DAOhaus. The Moloch code and DAOhaus code would remain fully open source and fork-able.
(11) This approach would drive engagement in UberHaus governance and potentially demand for the $HAUS token, since the value of the
X parameter would be of great interest to all stakeholders in the DAOhaus ecosystem. In fact, it’s possible that even if
X were to remain at 0, $HAUS could still grow quite valuable. This aligns with Objective (ii).
(12) This approach to value accrual is fully compatible with other such mechanisms, including (B2B) services, fee-split agreements with projects building on DAOhaus infrastructure, curation w/ the $HAUS token, and even boost- or services marketplace fees. This creates maximum flexibility for DAOhaus’ ability to fulfill Objective (ii).
This concept is not yet ready for official proposal. This post is a request for comment, aiming to gauge sentiment on the idea and serve as a venue for feedback and discussion.
Please leave your feedback!
Here are a few prompts to get you started:
- Do you agree with the DAOhaus ecosystem objectives outlined in the first section?
- Do you understand the mechanism as outlined? Does anything need to be clarified?
- Do you disagree with any of the outlined implications?
- Are there any additional considerations, implications, or risks that should be considered?
- What’s your favorite ingredient to put in a burrito?