---
# System prepended metadata

title: DAO Community Discussions
tags: [Hyperfy]

---

# DAO Community Discussions


## 2025 January 13 - DAO Direction Discussions
### Summary:
The conversation revolves around the governance structure and funding mechanisms for Hyperfy, focusing on the role of a DAO versus centralized leadership. There are discussions about decentralizing control while maintaining effective decision-making processes, particularly in relation to the distribution of funds.

### Key decisions and agreements:
* DAO Funding: The DAO will fund features requested by the community, but the main direction will remain under the leadership of Ash and Saori. There is a consensus that funding via the DAO should be controlled to prevent misuse, with a suggestion to use bounties instead of open grants.
* Centralized Leadership: Many participants suggest that Ash should retain significant control, citing concerns about the inefficiencies and failures of DAOs in other projects. The potential for manipulation and short-sighted decisions within DAOs is highlighted.
* Bounty System: A tiered bounty system is proposed to fund smaller tasks (e.g., $100 for minor tasks, $1000 for larger ones) with clear success criteria, ensuring accountability and effectiveness.
* Token Holder Input: Token holders may still have a say, but their influence should be limited to prevent issues such as "whale" control over funding decisions. Token holders could vote on roadmap priorities but not direct funding allocation.
* Decentralized Control: While decentralization is supported in terms of community involvement, a "benevolent dictator" model (where Ash maintains leadership) is seen as more practical for Hyperfy's success. The community should contribute but not have direct control over critical decisions like funding and partnerships.

### Q/A:
* Q: Will the community request features through the DAO, while Ash and Saori handle the platform's direction?
    * A: Yes, but the community can request features via the DAO; the team controls the platform’s direction.
* Q: Should the team retain control over fund distribution to avoid misuse?
    * A: Yes, the team should have final control over funding distribution.
* Q: Should the DAO control the funding of all features or should it be more centralized?
    * A: The team should decide, not the DAO, to prevent issues like a mana faucet.
* Q: How can we ensure accountability in DAO funding?
    * A: Token holder input is valuable, but it needs limitations to avoid misuse.
* Q: Can we use bounties for funding specific tasks instead of open grants?
    * A: Yes, bounties can be a more effective way to fund specific tasks with clear success criteria.
* Q: Should Ash retain control over funding and project decisions?
    * A: Yes, Ash should retain control but still consider community input.
* Q: How many projects funded by DAOs failed to deliver?
    * A: Many DAO funded projects didn’t deliver properly. Many were paid despite not delivering, leading to inefficiencies.
* Q: What was the key issue with DAOs in other projects?
    * A: Lack of professional oversight and poorly defined MVPs.
* Q: Why use a DAO at all if we trust Ash’s leadership?
    * A: The DAO ensures longevity and decentralization, even if key leaders fail.

### Community Contributions:
* User1: Shared insights from prior DAO experience, suggesting centralized control over funding decisions.
* User2: Supported centralized leadership and raised concerns about DAOs, emphasizing Ash’s role.
* User3: Proposed a tiered bounty system with defined criteria for tasks.
* User4: Advocated for a "benevolent dictator" model like Linux and WordPress.
* User5: Suggested incorporating performance-based bonuses into bounties for better accountability.
* User6: Provided insights into DAO failures, recommending retroactive rewards instead of upfront funding.
* User7: Highlighted the risk of DAO funding leading to non-delivery, citing prior DAO experience.
* User8: Clarified stance on decentralization and funding control, emphasizing token holder input but with limits.

### Action Items:
* Technical Tasks:
    * Implement a bounty system with defined success criteria for funding tasks.
    * Develop a strategy for DAO token allocation to ensure balance and prevent whale influence.
* Documentation Needs:
    * Document the decentralized governance model and DAO feature request process.
    * Update guidelines on DAO funding, emphasizing the team’s control over distributions.
* Feature Requests:
    * Add token holder voting on roadmap priorities, but limit influence on funding decisions.
    * Enable retroactive rewards for successful projects to incentivize long-term contributions.

## 2025 January 10 - Ideas for DAO-funded Projects

1. Migration of v1 high priority apps (etc. streaming/screen sharing/etc)
2. Documentation bounties
3. Migration of v1 demo worlds (blockbuster, street, etc) and creation of demo apps (ie. Mark Zuckerberg avatars)
4. Retro builder awards (there were some people that built worlds but didn't own it themselves)
5. Bounties for specific app functionalities broadly needed (ex. submarine vehicles, space vehicles, value exchangers, backpack interpreters, portals, pets, poly.pizza object importer, blender/3d export/import plugin, etc)
6. Marketing bounties using the demos/documentation
7. Hackathons + specific events
8. Bounties for whatever Vox asks for


{%hackmd Syq4xkPwkg %}