Proposal #39: DAO Restructure & Relaunch (draft)

Let’s start with a bit of history & how MetaGame currently works.
It started with an Aragon DAO. The reason for this was mainly because DAOhaus didn’t have the ability to mint tokens at the time. So, we started through Aragon.
However, since we never wanted MetaGame to be a plutocracy - our Aragon DAO was only ever used for minting tokens for monthly distributions, nothing else.
Even the actual amounts & additional mintings were first decided on discord, before being put on-chain.

MetaGame was to be a democracy; on discord, it was 1 person 1 vote.
The lack of proper sybil resistance was part of the reason we capped MetaGame at 300 members & why it was a good idea to never explode in popularity or $ value.


As it currently stands, the power of minting lies within the multisig. This was done because our main pool is now on Polygon and it was both cumbersome & attack-prone to have a decent chunk of Seeds on mainnet kept only for approving proposals, which also got more expensive.

Voting itself is still done discord.

Well, we’ll have to move beyond that sooner or later.

Maybe we should build on top of the Gitcoin passport to create “Metapass”, which could basically be Gitcoin passport + member of at least 2 of the MetaAlliance DAOs.

Going forward

Besides being gameable in the virtual world, the problem with direct-democracy is a lack of context & knowledge on the part of an average voter. I think this is solved in 2 ways. First, by delegating more power to the people with domain expertise & deep knowlege of an area to do things without having to put everything up for vote and second, by giving them more weight when things do come to a vote.

This would mean a higher barrier of entry for becoming a champion (having to put a formal proposal & be voted in) but also having more power as a champion. They would still have to follow the advice process & Champions who are found abusing their power could, of course, be voted out or replaced by voting somebody else in.

Members could also accrue more voting power :eyes:
Besides making sure decisions are of a higher quality based on people with most context & skin in the game having more weight, this should also incentivize all stakeholders to take action.


To start our way towards MetaFam being only the founding guild of MetaGame, I think it would be wise to start splitting the voting power into 4 categories:

  • Players
  • Patrons
  • Guilds
  • Elders

We might want to start with each having 25% of the total voting power tho it would necessarily intertwine as a lot of players are also patrons, some guilders are also players & all elders are also patrons.

We would then need to figure out how each category earns their weight:

  • Players
    • +? votes based on total ranked league X
    • +? for every season spent in ranked league X
    • +? for an epic contribution
  • Patrons
    • +? votes based on total ranked league X
    • +? for every season spent in ranked league X
    • +? for an epic contribution
  • Guilds
    • +? votes based on whether they’re ranked common, rare or epic
    • +? votes based on how much they contributed to or collaborated with MetaGame
  • Elders
    • +? votes based on their industry expertise
    • +? votes based on their involvement or epic contribution

We could start with everyone having 1 vote & then people putting up proposals for more votes but it might be easier to rank & decide things in advance, to summon a DAO with all these stats up rather than having to process every member individually.


This would of course be neither a perfect nor a permanent solution. We might realize it doesn’t work after a while, that votes should also be decaying instead of just accruing etc.
Even if it works, we will probably still want to restructure & update again either partially or fully relaunch, once we reach Phase III :man_shrugging:


What do you think about this? Good? Bad? How many votes should each league or achievement bring? Should any other things generate votes? Should any less? Any & all feedback welcome!


I like this ideation so far. with players, patrons and elders it’s pretty straight forward but with guilds are we talking the whole guild or individual members?

Whole guild. Individual members can always become players, patrons or elders :man_shrugging:
Tho there is also “guilder” role for reps of the guilds - we should figure out how many of their members can each guild category get into MetaGame & whether they should have voting rights - maybe its the reps that should have it rather than guilds?

So like 1 vote per section and qualification?
So I could be a ranked player, ranked patron, elder, guild ambassador all at the same time to have more voting power?

Seems like a great incentive for people to be fully involved.

What do you feel about the way Gardens voting works?

I definitely think it would be great to have MetaGame showing up in DAOs for ranked players. Sad to be Platinum and not even be technically in this DAO.


Yeah. I don’t remember exactly how Gardens are working with conviction voting but I still think we shouldn’t do token governance & then maybe use Seeds for upvoting Quests/adding extra incentives for them etc.
Def about time we had a proper DAO lol

1 Like

Maybe we can schedule a call soon to discuss ideas about this? Or have someone from Gardens on as a Community Gathering guest? Maybe with someone from Token Engineering and Giveth who both seem to use it often?

Or what about dao haus?

Not sure its possible through Gardens but already in touch with DAOhaus & Dekan told me its possible to automate the process through the new features. (eg. when someone moves down a league or sells their pSeeds, it would trigger a proposal to lower their number of shares)

1 Like