---
###### tags: `Wordsmiths` `molochdao` `uberhaus` `proposal` `documentation`
---
# Notes on WS+MolochDAO+DH/UH: Grant Proposal August - 2021

I propose that we write a grant together for the Wordsmiths to spearhead a collaborative DAO effort.

How autonomous will WS become from RG? I’m not even a RG member (yet?) so I’m here to listen to those that know better than I do on this topic.

I’m primarily concerned with the mythological evocations, of where the narrative is leading the building in specific ways.

As a MolochDAO member that has been working with that DAO for the last 6 months, I propose Moloch as a client for WS. Moloch requires some specific technical documents, such as a clear articulation of how the grant pipeline works. These would need to be drafted alongside “cultural” docs, such as the manifesto that articulates the ideological framework around which the community is aligned and forms the bedrock of the DAOs values. The technical docs will need to be written from the POV of the members and also from the POV of new grantees that require clear descriptions of their options as members. The DAO also has a social guild system that distinguishes research and ops guilds from other projects. Purportedly the difference here is that guilds receive value flows/streams, whereas projects are one-off grant recipients, but this is not clearly defined. To make matters more complicated, the ReallyBoringGuild (that I have been co-spearheading) operates as an autonomous bureaucratic administrative body within the DAO. RBG has its own RFP fund, multisig, and policies, and discusses options to either gain increased autonomy – akin to WS separating from RG(?) – or to be absorbed back into the DAO.

Moloch is reimagining its internal infrastructure – roles, ops, vision, DAO relations, etc - in relation to the changes happening in the Ethereum ecosystem. Internal members from Consensys and the EF feel that funds should continue to be directed towards supporting Eth2.0 and Eth infrastructural improvements, while a growing faction believes the best way to support is not necessarily in Dapps or DeFi – developmental support – but through cultural applications, treating the blockchain as a public good that sustains an alternative economy, the mythos of the Eth “world computer” that somehow escapes the allure of global capitalism, etc etc. *I think this is the potential bridge that might be extended to MetaGame.*

UberHaus is currently contemplating the relation between DAOhaus<>UberHaus and this is a significant moment in the evolution of this whole DAO ecosystem. The federation governance structure might be more clearly articulated to the benefit of all. The DAOstillery crew – who has been helping MolochDAO upgrade to the v2 framework – and UberHaus Paladins/delegates are generating some powerful thoughts on redirecting the narrative of DAOs back towards the original ideological intent, as truly decentralized and autonomous orgs, and away from DINOs – *DAOs In Name Only*. I’m keen to learn more of their vision and help bring it to light.

During recent convos with members of MGD and the Women-led Web3 Coalition, some individuals have spoken out about the difficulty of penetrating the cultural formations of all of our DAOs. There are a variety of reasons for this that certainly would extend beyond the particular focus of this conversation, but the TL;DR is that as we design the mythological infrastructure and the architecture of codified governance we must continue to consider who it is that we are designing for. We must design for inclusivity, not for speed or pure efficiency!

On this note, I identify a need for some deep UX research, for the role of skilled rangers to supplement our scribes. We must also make sure that we speak to “the user to come” if our Web3 efforts are to truly evolve into their full potential. I think design is cerebral and imaginative – the importance of the scribes – as well as technical and deliberate – the importance of working with the builders and increasing the technical fidelity of/for all – and WS is well-positioned to spearhead this front. To design inclusively will require us to unpack our worldviews, which might be unruly or uncomfortable. The urgency here is to attend to the possibilities before they become calcified and standardized into ‘best practices,’ before the weight and momentum of the community becomes so massive that these changes begin to feel counterproductive, regressive, or destructive. We must design for openings! One DAO to rule them all may not be a specific DAO – like UberHaus – but might become a singular unified homogenous identity, as an ideological construct.

To design inclusively will require us to unpack our worldviews, which might be unruly or uncomfortable.
There's something about the speed advocated by rapid technological innovation, the cerebral velocity of agile design methods, that may inhibit our ability to think in the long-now. This speed might serve as a barrier of entry for other perspectives, other considerations, and other potential design modalities, cerebral schemas, frameworks, all of which might be immediately rejected as inefficient in preference for maintaining a rather competitive spirit, to push out something that's not complete, but is good enough to continue to iterate on. Now is a moment to reconsider the foundation and the farthest peripheries.

In relation to MolochDAO rebooting, I have been meditating upon the image of sacrifice. Rather than throwing our children into the fire, sacrificing our future potential to secure our immediate need for successful coordination just to survive through the winter, we might flip this narrative, to slow down and more deeply consider that future, to become willing to sacrifice the artifacts of the present in order to stabilize a collective vision of the future. I personally believe this is an ontological pivot in perspective that must be encouraged on a global scale, even while recognizing how antagonistic this is to conventional industry. It’s like that fucking line from Jurassic Park... something like “We're so concerned about whether or not that we could we have not paused long enough to consider whether or not we should. loooooool