# Brainstorm

## What is wrong with Diamond DAO?

**What is unclear to me?**

**Why does Diamond DAO need to be a DAO? Why create the coordination costs that come with operating a DAO versus raising $5 million and starting a company to solve the problem? Does a company make sense for Chainverse but not the DAO? Vice versa? Neither?**
- Perhaps because making it a DAO means that people who wouldn't otherwise commit to working (because of the opportunity cost) can work with us? Is that a good thing?

**What is clear to me, but is something I disagree with?**

**Where is Diamond DAO too ambitious? Not ambitious enough?**

**What is an idea I have that is not sufficiently reflected in Diamond DAO's vision or roadmap, to the extent either exists?**

## What is wrong with Chainverse?

**What is unclear to me?**

**What is clear to me, but is something I disagree with?**

**Where is Diamond DAO too ambitious? Not ambitious enough?**

**What is an idea I have that is not sufficiently reflected in Diamond DAO's vision or roadmap, to the extent either exists?**

*I think we need to think more about the sort of metrics/insights/tags we could apply to individual wallets or clusters of wallets; we can't understand DAOs without understanding their constituent members*

- DXdao (and Gnosis, and Augur) want to understand what drives engagement in prediction markets, but don't understand their users. they don't know which are devs experimenting, actual customers, bots.

- Any protocol with a token is trying to determine how to target strategic airdrops. It's completely scattershot. They can pick aligned organizations but they don't have enough data to strategically target particular wallets based on characteristics that go beyond discrete contract interactions.

- Investors, asset managers, or anyone doing due diligence for any purpose wants to know how much activity in a market is genuine, particularly in the NFT space. Is there wash trading? Is there a cluster of wallets that controls a disproportionate share of the token / is responsible for a disproportionate share of market activity? Right now people look at total wallets to determine the extent to which a project's commercial activity appears genuine but that's a joke metric and everyone knows it.

- the one use case for Deep DAO that people actually find useful is seeing which wallets are members of a bunch of different DAOs. the idea being that if many of a DAOs members are also members of other DAOs the DAO's members probably have more experience / better networks & that the DAO has an advantage as a result. But the existing analysis doesn't take into account (a) what type of DAOs these wallets are involved in (b) the extent to which those wallets are actually engaged in other DAOs. is it someone who just joins a bunch of stuff and doesn't do anything? or is it someone at a DeFi project who is actively engaged in a bunch of prediction markets? the latter would be interesting

*very simple example here; how many users does X DAO have? and how valuable are those users?*
- deep dao will say how many members a DAO has but no one has any idea how many users have used the DAOs services. even at a naive "how many wallets" level. that information would be incredibly valuable.
- follow up question; say we could determine this. determine which wallets were real and which were bots, how many users were associated with each protocol and what was their ltv and all of that stuff
- why should we be a DAO and not a company?
- what about that needs to be crowdsourced or done in a decentralized way? what about the problem laid out above is a problem that could be solved in multiple domains? or what about this could/should be unbundled and parceled out into tasks that could/should be crowdsourced?

## What is wrong with DAOs?

**In my experience?**

**In the experience of others?**