Note: I don’t actually know if this is proposal #69 because I haven’t counted the votings in discord but I’m pretty damn sure this proposal is about to make MetaGame climax so that’s what I labeled it as.
Note #2: I smoked like 10 joints with friends after 11 days of not smoking weed & I did that in the evening hours which means my brain won’t stop spinning, I feel like I see all the pieces coming together, I’m hyped as fuck & there is literally zero chance I’ll be able to fall asleep for another 5 hours even though I usually fall asleep an hour ago. So please feel free to tell me flat out if you think this proposal sucks.
Note #3 (after publishing): turns out this is the forum thread number 1000, which I thought is pretty cool. The milestones coincide!
There are quite a bit of pieces of MetaGame hanging in the air, in the process of getting restructured & revamped. I wrote about it in a bunch of places but think it would make most sense if its merged into one.
This doesn’t mean it will be voted in one piece nor implemented in one piece.
So here we go, this is, in my humble opinion, what will get MetaGame to Phase II.
Besides all the actual shit we need to do…
I’ll start with this first even though it will take longest to implement…
MetaGame’s is currently so basic a lot of people wouldn’t even call it a DAO.
For those of you new, MetaGame’s first DAO was launched on Aragon.
Some barely remember this.
The main reason for this was simply because DAOhaus didn’t have the ability to mint tokens.
In fact, Aragon was so unfit for our democratic needs, we never actually even use it to govern MetaGame.
In a way, you could argue we did - Aragon was used primarily to mint tokens. This means that once a month, there would be a proposal for minting a specific amount of Seeds determined by & distributed as calculated through SourceCred.
Actual voting for anything else besides minting Seeds was done in discord & is done in discord to this day - while token minting ability was transferred to the multisig when migrated the pool to Polygon.
Time to evolve?
I propose we launch a new DAO on DAOhaus v3
We could then make the DAO the minter of tokens instead of centralizing it in a multisig as well as actually do voting & governance on-chain, as all proper DAOs.
Besides added benefits of being seen as active on-chain on DAO platforms & aggregators as well as lending more credibility to our governance system - we would also stop being fake in praising the DAO technology but not actually using it ourselves, a pretty damn crucial bit
It would also allow us to start experimenting with governance in more meaningful ways by utilizing DAOhaus’ huge suite of features.
This might actually be the most contentious bit of the proposal…
I propose we the next version of MetaGame’s DAO should allow people to accrue voting power.
Instead of having a full democracy with all 300 members having exactly 1 vote - all members would start with a single vote but be able to earn more votes by contributing work, money or wisdom.
I’m not proposing this as the definitive solution but I think it might be necessary at least until sybil resistance technology is better, until collective sense-making & voting UI is better or at least we manage to better incentivize more people to become players, patrons or elders.
In fact, I think we should continue running MetaGame in a way that governance is minimized & autonomy maximized.
Continuing by leaning into do-ocracy would mean that players & champions are given full autonomy to do whatever they think is best as long as the community or champions call them out on their behavior.
If you’re contributing to a raid in a way that that raid’s champion doesn’t like it, they would tell you that &/or escalate to the champions ring. If the player is not happy with the decision by the champions ring, they could escalate it to the community.
- To avoid conflict, people would be encouraged to follow the advice process, seek feedback from the community etc.
- Champions would all be required to write a proposal for championing & have to be voted in by other champions or the community.
- The community could also start a vote to remove a champion & the champion could be challenged by players to be replaced.
A bit more on how all of that would work hereGiven MetaGame is more of a do-ocracy than a democracy, I think it makes sense to formalize the governance in that way as well.
People who actually do the work should be as autonomous as possible, their creativity & motivation shouldn’t be stifled by bureaucracy & voting.
Unless their decisions impact the rest of the community in a major way or aren’t easily reversible, frontlines should be able to make decisions on their own.
This, of course, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be getting in touch with affected parties or raid leaders or the #feedback-box & getting feedback on what they want to do.
If the solution is unclear or possibly contentious, the implementer should seek feedback.
If the implementer is certain of their decision & its easily reversible, feel free to experiment.
If you feel like someone is abusing their autonomy, this should be brought up.
Players are autonomous insofar as the champion of their raid isn’t strongly opposed by what they’re doing. If so, raid & guild champions’ autonomy overrides that of their raid & guild contributors.
- If the contributor doesn’t like their champion’s decision, they are welcome to escalate the case to the Champions Ring & challenge the champion.
- If the contributor is still not happy with the decision, they can put it up for vote
Voting is then pretty much only used for things that affect everyone in a major way or as a measure of last resort - when contributors just don’t seem able to get to an agreement.
There are a bunch of reasons why voting is not an optimal way for running organizations which is beyond the scope of this post but I’m happy to elaborate if anyone wants.
When contentious things are brought to a vote, both perspectives should be represented by their respective proponents & each gets to write their side of the vote so as to not have the voting set up in a biased way.
To figure out:
- How much over 50% should the vote be to get implemented
- How many “idk” votes are allowed before the proposal is paused for further discussion
- How long should the vote last
So let’s get into how the rings would work…
Rings are kind of a merge of the awkward “raids & guilds” (awkward because why do we need both project teams & functional teams but also because not scalable) system as well as the Coordinape circles that are just being started.
Rings are eventually meant to cover the 4 domains of MetaGame: Community, Technical, Content & Growth. With their champions & deputies they make up 8 - about the perfect size of an effective team - the Champions Ring 2.0.
- Champions Ring could finally focus on the strategic stuff
- It would only require 4 champions & 4 deputies vs currently where each guild & raid kind of requires both even tho work overlaps & some calls are happening together.
- This also makes it not scalable, at some point we had like 15 champions & the calls already stopped being effective.
- Problems & work could actually happen on the spot in the domain align calls instead of “lets follow up about this after the call”
- It also happens to be the simplest way of making Coordinape circle allocation flexible
- The recent vote proposed 1500 Seeds to be distributed through Coordinape. However, Coordinape already became 2 different circles, soon 3 & probably 4 not far off, so how do we decide how much each gets? Having domain champions summarizing their ring’s work would allow easy Seed allocation across domains.
- “The First Circle” (soon to be Champions Ring v2?) that is comprised of the champions, already hit the upper floor of membership for an effective team.
- “Building MetaGame” which will be comprised of anyone working on the platform side of MetaGame, basically Builders Guild, Designers Guild and MyMeta & MetaOS raids.
- “Community & Content” which will be comprised of Innkeepers, Bridgebuilders, MetaRadio, Playbooks, Newsletter & Shillers Guild
- The Octagon
I propose we keep rings capped at 8 members which is close to the maximum numbers of members recommended for effective teams by a literal shitton of experienced people & organizations.
- Only the top active 8 players in that domain will get to be a part of the circle
- Community & Content will need to be forked next month already
- Then eg. “Growth” will need to appear to absorb members from Shillers Guild, Bridgebuilders Guild & Rainmakers Guild
- This will mean all 4 Domain Rings exist, so…
- Any other raid or guild that grows too big to fit in the 8 person cap, will need someone to propose championing it & turning it into a sub-ring in that domain with the champion reporting to the Domain Ring.
As mentioned, all circles would be capped to 8 members & reserved for top 8 contributors in that tentacle. This would mean new players would go through a stage of being “XP Grinders” before proving themselves worthy of either forcing somebody to champion it into a new sub-ring or replace somebody on the existing ring.
Each circle would set a minimal activity threshold & come up with their own rules for when people get removed or replaced in a ring.
Domain Rings as well as the Champions Ring would have Coordinape epochs set to last 1 month & would be meeting on a weekly basis, where members talk about what they did, evaluate each other’s work & plan ahead.
Domain Ring Champion’s main responsibility is making sure that contributors to their domains are recognized, contributions accounted for in Coordinape & their Domain’s contributions to MetaGame summarized in the Champions Ring.
There is actually a whole post about this section already, ahem, as there is for “DAO Restructure & Relaunch” as well as “8 Months 4 Phase 2” which are all probably worth reading on their own.
My proposal is that there are basically 3 tiers of rewards + achievement NFTs.
Current system of contribution, players start by being paid only through SourceCred & doing that is the only way to grind XP. So the incentive is reputation mining but there’s also incentive to become more active contributore to join a Coordinape circle
Which would be reserved for the most active players, basically doubling their pay in exchange for more commitment, as they’d be paid through both SourceCred AND Coordinape.
Would be reserved either for the most reliable or talented people we want to retain, those who do specific predictable work on a recurring basis and/or Domain Champions.
Which people get/would get for things like completing onboarding paths, Playbooks or Great Houses, “an achievement of the month”, “player of the month”, “player of the season”, “member of specific league in early season X”, “this specific epic contribution” or whatever we come up with. We should really be making use of Chievmints & minting a lot more cool achievements to make people feel appreciated.
- As a roadmapping champion, I will champion this proposal by discussing it on the next Champions Ring, Community & Content Ring as well as the Technology Ring & Community Gathering.
- This massive proposal will be discussed at length & improvements made
- Then passed through voting & enacted in multiple phases
- We will need to have people step up to apply for Domain Ring champions
- Pushing the “Rewards 2.0” section/raid forward then falls under the domain of Community
- While other raids & guilds fall under other Domains as outlined above