# CreDAO (SourceCred + Aragon DAOs)

**URL:** <https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/credao-sourcecred-aragon-daos/459>\
**Category:** Initiatives\
**Tags:** 🏗️in-progress\
**Created:** [December 25, 2019, 2:02am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/credao-sourcecred-aragon-daos/459 "2019-12-25T02:02:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![burrrata](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/burrrata/32/135_2.png) [@burrrata](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/burrrata)\
**Post date:** [December 25, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/credao-sourcecred-aragon-daos/459/4 "2019-12-25T17:17:57Z")

</div>

> [@s\_ben](#):
>
> > # Champion
> > 
> > @cslarson
> 
> Awesome to see you championing this @cslarson!

CreDAO was (mostly) a weekend project at the EthBoston hackathon in Sept so there’s no new initiatives taking place here, but as part of the [Retroactive Cred Activation](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/retroactive-cred-activation/446) we’re creating Initiatives for past work. Then once [Supernodes](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/supernodes-moving-past-raw-activity/340) are ready we can insert past work into the SourceCred graph and flow Cred to the project contributors. Due to the living nature of SourceCred if anyone wants to keep contributing to the Initiative they’ll earn even more Cred as they do 🙂

> [@decentralion](#):
>
> An idea so that we can give @cslarson and folks their appropriate share of cred: we could just incorporate `1hive/credao` directly into the SourceCred cred graph. Doing so might not be the right long-term approach for giving cred to adjacent projects, but it would be a neat + quick hack, and credao is so closely related to SourceCred that I think it makes sense for us to give SourceCred-cred for its development. What do y’all think?

Are you suggesting to add the [CreDAO GitHub repo](https://github.com/1Hive/credao) directly into the SourceCred graph along with the other SourceCred repos instead of creating a [Supernode](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/supernodes-moving-past-raw-activity/340) Initiative for it, or both?

Either way,

- If we end up using CreDAO for [SourceCred’s on-chain token management](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-erc-20-token-and-or-dao/263) then it makes sense to add the repo to the SouceCred cred graph directly as it would become part of the core SourceCred experience.
- Until then, however, it makes sense to use the [Initiatives](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/write-the-initiatives-plugin/2690)/[Supernode](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/supernodes-moving-past-raw-activity/340) system because A) we need to dogfood it, and B) we don’t want to set a precedent of manually including adjacent repos into the core SourceCred graph. We don’t want to have ongoing debates over what gets added, why, and who adds it. That’'s going to get complicated. Luckily, we don’t have to. [Cred Curators/Historians](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/cred-historians-and-curators/194) are incentivized to add [Supernodes](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/supernodes-moving-past-raw-activity/340) to the SourceCred graph via the community facing tools we provide (Initiative, Artifacts, etc…). If nodes are useful more Cred will flow to them, but if not then it won’t. Historian/curators are then incentivized to create and update Initiatives for things that are (or will be) useful. This is good for anything related to SourceCred, but that is not directly part of core development of the SourceCred protocol itself.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/credao-sourcecred-aragon-daos/459)._