Here’s my current model of how to evaluate what’s valuable to the DAO (you’ll notice it’s missing something…):
1. Does it help our mission, ~* INSERT MISSION HERE *~?
I think communities come together around ideas bigger than just “make our community successful.” Helping Rarible Protocol succeed is just another version of saying “make our community successful”: we really need to be asking why we care about making Rarible protocol successful here. What’s the real reason you care about that? What inspires you?
Personally, I like something like the idea of making the world better for creators: making it so anyone can throw their ideas out there and be confident they will get fair credit, opportunities to collaborate, find community, no matter their prior circumstances.
I think the way we’ll find this is for everyone to just keep suggesting what they like best, as persuasively as possible. Eventually something will stick on its own, and that will be the de facto mission. But we should all be trying to suggest things, IMO.
2. Does it bring value to the DAO?
As Eric mentioned, I think we can roughly break this into 3 categories:
- Financial value – will it increase RARI price? will it bring in other new, valuable assets?
- Utility value – will it improve our operational power? will it make the DAO work better?
- Social value – will it make our community a better place? Will it inspire people to join our community? Will it improve our community’s reputation?
Generally, we should be shooting for things that both help the mission and provide value in some way, and choosing the projects that seem like they overall do the most.
Another topic I want to bring up here is what I’ve been calling the Web 2 and Web 3 approaches to building.
Web 2 approach
The Web 2 approach is classic startup stuff:
- A single, focused product that elegantly solves a specific problem
- First nail product-market-fit, then go into metric driven growth mode with stat tracking, sales, marketing videos, partnerships, etc.
- Top down hierarchy
- Emphasis on growth and productivity over fun
- Strongly categorizes people as employees, founders, investors, customers
Web 3 approach
The Web 3 approach is what we’re seeing in many grass roots Web 3 communities:
- Community through shared ideas, motivations, and practices instead of a single, clear product that solves a specific problem
- Anarchy-style processes – people do whatever they want but come together to make collective decisions when needed
- Emergent focus on interesting ideas as they bubble up
- Emphasis on fun over growth and productivity
- Rather than strong categories like employee vs. customer, people have an intangible reputation based mostly on: are you around and are you helping?
The Web 2 approach has obviously been proven an effective business strategy over the past 20 years, so I can’t blame anyone for wanting us to be more like that. My gut, and definitely my heart, is much more with the Web 3 approach, though: I think that given the choice, people want to be in Web 3-style spaces. In a world where all the core infrastructure is permissionless and open-source, community seems to be the strongest network effect, and so being the place people want to be might be the best thing we can possibly do to thrive.
For us, maximizing protocol growth is Web 2-y: it makes perfect financial sense, but I don’t think it’s the kind of shared purpose that we can really build a strong community around. The Web 3-y approach looks for ideas and purposes behind the protocol: things that maximizing the protocol supports, but that many other ideas could also potentially support. Things like changing the nature of creative work.