As they should be. The legal wrapper around the foundation protects the users, developers, and founders. It’s very important that this is a distinct and separate entity.
Yes. It’s important to be clear about what our focus is. Doing lots of things ok is not as good as doing one thing really really well.
Yes. This is why I would really like to see an MVP of SourceCred that “just works” out of the box. All the CredSperiment stuff is awesome, but most people aren’t going to want that level of complexity. They’re going to want something that just works. As someone who wants to explore integrating SourceCred into the Aragon Discourse, I can count myself as one of these people lol
Investors don’t invest in non-profit foundations. If SourceCred is a startup then it’s for-profit and needs a business model and growth plan (otherwise investors will find one for us). If SourceCred is a protocol with a foundation that stewards it, then there needs to be a viable token model (and legal framework) for investors. Assuming the later, then we would probably want defined roles and responsibilities, which brings us back to the SourceCred Directors conversation.
Note: having a foundation and a community can easily create conflicts of interest. It’s very important to design this before moving forward. Otherwise the complications snowball until it’s too late.
I thought this was how it already works, minus that the Initiatives Plugin is still a WIP?
This makes no sense - or I don’t understand what you’re saying (probably the later lol). DRI’s need to be responsible for something, with incentives and authority over that thing. You can’t just project that onto someone. Also, if one person has the ability to make a decision about something, that means that someone else does not. This is not permission-less unless you start a completely new thing. For resources/things that are already in play, how do we transfer authority from one contributor to the next as the project evolves?
Yeah this would be awesome.
Hate to be the party pooper here, but if there’s a foundation raising outside capital and Cred is redeemable for cash, the legal side of things get exponentially more complex. Not qualified to weigh in on this definitively, but this is going to require a whole bunch of research to A) protect the community, and B) make it attractive for investors.
note: there’s a high likelihood that if Cred was kept on the SourceCred side and not converted into Grain then we might be all good, but we should really look into it!
This isn’t “clicking” in my head. Can you please explain more?
Yeah we should explore this more, but as we expand to other channels this will not be enough. The more we use Web2 tools and the more we interact with the large game of the world outside of the small game of SourceCred, the more we need a meta-structure that helps us organize and collaborate.
Are you describing the “rage quit” mechanism that MolochDAO pioneered (you can exit an organization by redeeming your tokens for a proportional amount of the organizations underlying assets)?
Works for me, however I’d still like to see artifacts created for higher level initiatives (Discourse engagement, Twitter engagement, newsletter engagement, etc…) so that champions/directors/whatever of initiatives are incentivized to optimize the initiative itself vs just their participation within it - at least with things that can easily be measured.