# Juicebox DAO Town Hall - Aug. 16, 2022

## Joke DAO Demo by @seanmc

**seanmc**: All right, they will give a little bit of context first for those that might not be in the know.

JokeDAO is a project that themselves, David Phelps, and our frontend developer, Naomi, have been working on to build a buttom-up emergent governance. Instead of having a top-down governance, by which a centralized group of developers or project founders make a proposal and set the terms and people vote on options given to them, they focus on making everyone able to make a proposal and vote on it, or even set up their own contest and put a decision to a group.

Basically they're trying to make governance fun and available for anyone. Everyone can submit what they think is the right answer, instead of being given a set of options unchangable, and they are making this process a little bit more dynamic.

They put together [this proposal](https://snapshot.org/#/jbdao.eth/proposal/0xecb6ba5ca205acb63cb430d6e94cb48e8b0ff8f1e83a0d1478d35f729ab1532f) for grant from JuiceboxDAO, y'all were awesome and gave them a grant to work on some stuff that I have outlined here.

They have completed Milestone 1, the content moderation module:

- adding a downvoting feature;
- adding randomization of options with 0 votes. We randomized the rendering of proposals whenever anybody loads, if a bunch of proposals have 0 votes together.
- allowing uploading of all types of content;
- allowing the contest creator to determine which proposals are visible to a community to vote on.

*@seanmc started their demo*

They've been kind of talking in jargon, so they want to give an example what they're talking about. They're going to create a contest, and they thought it'd be fun to have an interactive demo. They're gonna make a contest called JUICEBOX TOWN HALL 8-16-22. The prompt is: share your favorite Juicebox memory or event.

They defined a token to be used to vote in this contest, and they went ahead before this town hall to make a voting token and distributed to everyone that responded to the Google form that they shared in the town hall chat.

And then they're going to define submission window for people to submit their things. You can submit until voting opens and then you will have a voting period. They'll give everybody five minutes to submit thoughts, then they'll vote for five minutes. You'll get to see it play out.

They're going to enable down-voting which is the feature that was funded by the Juicebox grant.

They're going to snapshot the voting power of someone who can vote in this contest. If you hold tokens at the time voting starts, you'll be able to vote in the voting period.

Thanks to @nicholas's great suggestion, they implemented a feature so that even if you don't have your wallet connected, you can still see the proposals coming in.

Now you'll see voting is live. So you have access to downvotes, you have access to upvotes and we can start voting on proposals here. Anyone who got tokens can vote with your 10 tokens I dispersed, so you can see this feature in action.

In JokeDAO's fashion, they will make the second most votes wins. If this sounds good to people, they will do it this way.

The page of this contest is [here](https://www.jokedao.io/contest/polygon/0xa0C344C10DA2736abCE854438a82931ea387585C), and the result of this contest is as follows:

The winner is **Jango's jockstrap** by brileigh.eth.

The last feature that they implemented in this Milestone is that the contest creators have ability to delete proposals from the UI. So they're gonna delete @Zeugh's second post to demonstrate this. They'll read it out: "spending the whole night translating Chinese messages to write an FAQ when Juicebox and PEOPLE token exploded with the Chinese community was the craziest Juicebox night for me so far."

@nicholas**: So if you've created it, you could delete it?

**@seanmc**: Right now only the contest creator can delete proposals. Because they created and deployed the contest, it enables them to delete. It is showing the message: "This proposal has been deleted by the creator of the contest."

*The JokeDAO demo ended*

**jango**: Super great. What are next steps then? What's the thing that you're excited about going forward?

**seanmi**: They have 2 more Milestones that Juicebox funded. The Milestone 2 is a tournament module in which voters can pick between two or more options in a "tournament" style that gradually creates brackets of winners. So that would be fun. Just try to implement new types of games that you can play with with Joke DAO.

And then Milestone 3, which is a massive use case that they're really interested in as a grants module, not only thinking about what's the best way that they can make it easier to host on IPFS to make proposals for grants in an emergent fashion, but also enabling the winning outcomes of contest to be excitable transactions. So once the contest is over, anyone can call a function that executes the winning proposal. They're really excited about that, and they're looking at doing some Subgraph indexing and some technical stuff that they're excited about as well. Those are some cool features coming up.

**jango**: The executability is really interesting, I'm curious how that's gonna come together. This is awesome.

**nicholas**: Sean I want you to host more of these contests in Town Hall. It's just tons of fun. We should do a picture drawing contest next time, using the new feature. Maybe we can find a tool that people can just doodle in their browser and generates a compatible URL.

**seanmc**: Yeah, that's a great idea. They'll message you and we can figure out when to do that. That should be lots of fun.

Thanks again to the Juicebox community. Just want to give a thank you, and really appreciate the grant from Juicebox. It's been awesome to be able to build this stuff and really appreciate the support.

## Following discussion about the use of JokeDAO

**jango**: I'm curious if anyone has any inspiration of how to leverage this stuff for Juicebox DAO to help processes after watching this, or maybe we should let it simmer a week and revisit that question.

There're some folks working on more governance oriented things. This toolkit seems it's evolved a while and it can be useful for certain areas, maybe in scoped Juicebox games, or in certain types of projects that someone may want to deploy as a programmable treasury and also pair with a particular type of governance oriented around one or two JokeDAO contests. Anyone else have thoughts in that regard?

**filipv**: I was actually thinking about this, the on-chain execution sounds pretty cool. If one proposal wins in JokeDAO, you have to have people queue entire funding cycle configuration. I wonder if one per funding cycle, what our move will be for that funding cycle.

**Zeugh**: I think it'll be interesting not for all proposals. It's an interesting tool for us to have when proposals are not as simple as yes or no in the first moment. We can actually use it during proposal temperature check while it's still open for editing, or in discussion before temp check for more people to give opinions about what should be the options. I mean for anything that's not binary, that might be useful.

**jango**: It's very cool idea. It feels like a next Level temperature check at the very least.

**Zeugh**: It's hard for me sometimes to finish a proposal and having to draft everything down into the yes or no. If it's open for more people to give other options for voting that change it slightly. For example, here's the core part of the proposal, and here is another part up for changing and everyone's open to give their inputs on the latter and vote on different inputs. I'm not sure how to fit it perfectly, but it's something I would like to have.

**filipv**: I think a really cool way to scope this would be JokeDAO for multisig membership. @jango has brought up this idea of changing multisig membership based on tokens, I think it might be cool to use JokeDAO for that purpose. I don't know if there's some way to automatically do that for certain number of top addresses, but might be a cool way to utilize it. If it's on-chain, that'll be a benefit.

**nicholas**: Compared to our current Discord temp checks, if it's just replacing Discord temp check, I'm not sure it adds much value. We could replace Snapshot with it.

**filipv**: It's kind of hard for Snapshot though, because Snapchat you want one thing for each proposal. I think this is really good for lists of things though. You can imagine top 20 people in a JokeDAO competition get on the reserved list for a project, or get payouts at a certain amount for some other type of project, or get on a multisig membership. I think this could be really cool.

**Felixander**: From my point of view. I would love to use this specifically for Twitter strategy. There's so many great content posting opportunities with this, for example putting out a week's worth of tweets in a competition style and then amassing them and having that staged and ready to go out.

a twitter page called juice bullshit where we just make it every week exactly.

**Zeugh**: It could be used in payouts, at least for me. I have a very very hard time to find an amount every time I'm gonna propose payouts. I could just say an amount, everybody thinks differently can see another amounts, and we vote around that. In the end an amount is chosen and I get to choose I am willing to do it for this amount or not.

**Felixander**: That's awesome, actually that sounds pretty dramatic. I think that would make a good reality show to be honest. I think we can make a product out of that.

**nicholas**: I think there's a lot of impact of what earlier voters vote on what later voters vote, so I'm not sure that I would want payout amounts to be driven by what earlier voters or influential charismatic people are voting for in the DAO. But I could see something like this for the JBX distribution to the hackathon participants, or the number of JBX that was being distributed could have been decided this way. But frankly, I'm not sure it's worth the bandwidth to keep up with all the options that are being submitted. Maybe it makes more sense for games and see what comes out of that.

**jango**: Yeah, I agree. There's a lot of really cool pop-up brand type of engagement that you can grow a the community that revolves around a few core decisions that define it. It is not meant to have a too long of an impact necessarily, or develop too robust a fashion. But it could definitely evolve to do that, too.

**kentbot**: I'd think the current governance works well, and it doesn't need to replace that. But there are other forms of governance that might be served by something like this. What if it were some lightweight grants between $50 and $500, and basically people could post it if it gets a certain amount of quorum in a week. It could just be rolling and let people put stuff up basically like a [lilnouns](https://lilnouns.wtf/) kind of flexibility, compared to a longer two week cycle.

**jango**: Okay, that's a great idea. Especially lately we've had a lot of pop-up projects came on line to try stuff out, and a lot of them are spinning up Juiceobx projects to host the funds and manage them. That's a cool idea to integrate all that, in a [Prop House](https://prop.house/) style.

**kentbot**: Yeah, right like dynamic prop house, but driven off of JBX Holdings. I mean it might be valuable for unlocking some of the values for some of the other DAO as well.

**jango**: It's a way to move funds often and efficiently. It's probably a pretty good bet, instead of leaving things just sitting in an idle treasury for too long. At least it's a small chunks just to experiment and learn and encourage and support.

**nicholas**: It's really good point to focus on these. I think there are a lot of little projects either contributors owned or representing that contributor. It's interesting to follow this demand, I think would be cool.

**kentbot**: Someone made a comment about creating some signals, of new Juiceboxe projects when they get created, to tweet. What if instead of tweeting, it actually just generates a proposal into that queue, so it was basically a startup fun for Juicebox projects that you vote for on with JBX.

**jigglyjams**: That would be cool. Take the top 10 Juicebox projects which people like the most, give them 500 dollars or JBX or whatever. That would be cool.

**nicholas**: What would be the best way to do voting on polygon? I guess we just do voting by JBX on polygon and then communicate the results to mainnet via the multisig.

**jango**: Yeah, or just the multisig will scope and allocate to someone else who's just responsible for operating it, ahead of time.

**nicholas**: Sean. What's the timeline on the on-chain execution stuff? Because we could even just bridge whatever the small grant funds and then do it directly on-chain on Polygon eventually.

**seanmc**: That'd be awesome. We don't have a hard time line, but it's definitely within the next three months, I think.

**nicholas**: We can do it the multisig way on Mainnet communicating, and then when it's ready we could try and do it straight on Polygon.

**jango**: It's probably worth even just paying someone to help manage that process for now. I think the benefit of on-chain is you don't have to really pay one of us to actually manage that process, but it's pretty lightweight anyways so shouldn't be too expensive to manage.

**filipv**: I can see this being really cool for communities that are more heavily decentralized. You could imagine a group of people that is growing pretty rapidly and having a lot of funds in their treasuries. So they value on-chain stuff, but they don't want to deal with a multisig. With the community of that type you would want to scope everything into one proposal, you wouldn't want to independently control parameters. So if there was an easy way to propose a given funding cycle configuration and then attach a rationale and then have on chain execution, I could see something tightly scoped for Juicebox funding cycle configurations working pretty well, for a group that really values decentralization doing that on Mainnet.

**jigglyjams**: I could see forming that into a call configuration for a Juicebox project and making a way to do it as well.

**jango**: Right. If you have a proxy contract that you can send ownership of a project to, so it can manage reconfigurations on the project's behalf. It's just proxy votes from some inputs and some data source like JokeDAO in the reconfigurations for that project or for several projects. It could be cool.

I think on-chain [Governor Bravo](https://blog.tally.xyz/understanding-governor-bravo-69b06f1875da) type of open-ended transaction facilitators might also fit in that toolbox. I'm curious to see how these things get looked at when exposed on a shelf of options for how people might make decisions around a shared treasury.

I think a big thing of the Joka DAO stack is that it relies on multi-chain flexibility and these pop-up votes that are meant to be disposable. That's its superpower.

**0xSTVG**: Yeah, I was actually thinking back to the idea of the contests determining payout levels. I think it would be very interesting if there is an ability to have a median value outcome, where instead of selecting proposals, you're just selecting a value. Then the outcome of the contest is the median value for some sort of price setting, determining payouts for various tasks, or awarding bonuses things like that.

**jango**: Yeah, for sure. It's cool to see the voting results and then you can create whatever heuristic to map those onto whatever decisions you're making. As we've seen in the past year, each community treats all of these parameters differently, such as the way in which they use payouts, the frequency or cadence with received payouts, and alter them over time. I think everyone goes through the same sticky process of developing some sense of comfort around it, saying what you need, or asking for an amount that seems fair and ambitious or respectful, all the things to navigate communities large or small that worth of coordinating what's the optimal outcome, like how do you bucket them all into one reconfiguration that stitches together everyone's intent into: "Look, it's programmed out of the treasury". It'll be cool to have them eventually go towards a shelf of options where people can pull from if using from a generic site that exposes all options, but then also have other clients basically just choose for you and give you a very clean experience from both community funding and also how to get the funding back out to some pre-determined or governance determined destinations, either one-time or over time.

**0xSTVG**: Just the idea that you could do pop-up votes for level setting what a payout would be. I think someone had brought this up earlier, but instead of having the proposals be of different values and then having people vote on the values, just have full suggested values and then use the outcomes to choose the median value so you kind of have something that aligns incentives well, in the sense that individuals can't change the value that is ultimately paid out on their own, but you get some sort of collective decision around what that value would be. And you might even set a minimum number of inputs required to actually trigger a payout. It make sense.

**kentbot**: That's cool, a dynamic price discovery, and transparent.

## Contract strategy updates with @jango

The NFT rewards in the versioning initiatives are making progress. The latest version of NFT rewards is on Rinkeby. I think the front end team is just stitching it together now, and then we'll have the wipe of the old data and open up the floor for projects to create NFT tiers again on Rinkeby using the updated specs. That's all looking good

And the prereq to get to Mainnet is to deploy the patches for the Code4rena that we've been sitting on for a while, while we get the NFT rewards through the finishline on Rinkeby. That's where our attention is currently focused. We had a really great meeting at the Peel Town Hall last week, thinking about how we may communicate to users this multifaceted versioning stuff. And it's a thing worth getting right ahead of time, especially as folks are planning these very substantive large-scale perpetual projects, so that if we do ever encounter something that we would encourage projects to know about and potentially offer a migration path forward, we have both the contractual migration paths, which is baked into the protocol, and also the user experience, set in place. So project owners and the entire community can know ahead of time and have good documentation for how that process might work and how we might support them in that effort.

That's the current body of work for us. We're going to start with trying to deploy these ideal updates in other version that's gonna be available to new projects. And the current projects running on V2 will have the option to use the latest if they wish. Most of the things in Code4rena actually don't affect most projects running on V2, so there's not a lot of need like traditional versioning of software, it's more like there's some sexy feature or something that you have to go over there and you encourage to move forward. It's very much a use case thing if you are running a project, that's perhaps started up and already dissolved to some capacity you're chilling. If you are running a project that's very much like owned on purpose by the project owner. There's no sense of competing interest between community and project owner you're chilling. So we'll figure that out and figure out how to communicate this. The conversation is happening in the **versioning channel** under projects, we'll continue it there.

Meanwhile, there's probably gonna be some cool NFT rewards experiments happening on Rinkeby, at least from the Studio DAO's perspective, which I had the pleasure of spending the past several days, hanging out with Kent and Rachel, really getting a deep dive of all the stuff surrounding that effort which is very cool.

Yeah, those are the two main things. I think at least DrGorilla and I are looking at getting that stuff sharp and out the door, then we'll call on other contract engineers to help, but eyes on it as it's feeling just about ready.

**kentbot**: Yeah, as soon as we wipe, we will be trying to get to the configurations. We have like 5 films now that are getting ready to get configured. So that'll be like five Juiceboxes that we're launching all at the same time with different films on them.

so yeah, I want to invite everyone to ask any questions, anyone who is curious about what we're doing, we're all ears. Also the Juicecast is sort of epic and amazing, so I wanted to just thank @Matthewbrooks and @brileigh, both of you are fantastic.

**jango**: Let's maybe plan next week to to give you the floor in town hall so you can give updates and do a little show-and-tells how you stitched together the legal element in the traditional financing into the Juice boxes, all the things into a proper scheme. It could be through a pitch deck or something else.

**kentbot**: Yeah, let's do it. That's great.

**jango**: The toolbox feels really good and the way in which you've been thinking about mapping the juice boxes and figuring out where the payouts and tokens all go. It'll look pretty good to me, but I'm excited to get that expressed to everyone else here next week. I think this is by far the most complex Juicebox scheme that anyone has come up with yet and you've been working on it for a year and a half now, so it'd be cool if everyone else at least understood the basics if not completely, and even better if there're some last minute cool ideas to make things even more seamless.

**kentbot**: Awesome. Yeah, the doors are open. Let's do it.

## Two truths and one lie with @Felixaner


And the correct answer is ... Zeugh.

The lie is the pingpong nation tournaments.

## Protocol data update with @Zeugh

Since the 8th of August, we have $153,000 in volume in the Juicebox protocol. we have 33 new projects in the last nine days. We did have a very big amount of projects coming down last two days. Out of those 25 in the 10 days, we have 9 that came in last two days. And out of those, special shoutouts to Forming.

oh God, the biggest amount of a single paid times. Having 17 individual addresses coming in for payments and

Also we just passed the line of 800 individual projects in Juicebox a few days ago, so more and more projects are coming in. This is still not up to the average of new projects that we have, but that's totally distorted because of the ConstitutionDAO and the AssangeDAO moments. We're backing a nice moment of regrowth of new projects. We went as low as an average of 10 - 12 projects a week, and we were slowly building back momentum, up to around 20 last couple of weeks. And last week, we're on 12 new projects and it's looking good to get this curve going up. I mean it went almost as low as we had in after like two months of launch or three months of launch and now it's starting to get momentum backup. I think a lot of this is due to the visibility that we're gretting and to good results in stable building delivery. So yeah. Just a big congrates to everyone.

I'll be talking to @Twodam to try to understand a little bit better how he is getting the data， so that I can bring this updates in a little bit of a better shape.

If anybody wants to go through this data, I would super recommend everybody taking a look at [Twodam's dashboards](https://dune.com/twodam). I'm sharing into town hall chat now the [Juicebox protocol overview](https://dune.com/twodam/Juicebox-Protocol-Overview). This has like lots of data that I didn't know of since last time I saw it, in all types of perspectives over Juicebox protocol and it's just super nice. You can spend a few hours in there and not see through everything, especially because you can look at project's specific data in all different ways and user contributors specific data. If you're a contributor and you want to see like percentages of how much you get, what projects are paying you. One of the coolest things I think is the percentage of contributions that you made versus how much you got paid. So it's like all types of things in here and just recommend everyone taking a look because at this point I guarantee you that I cannot summarize this.

**jango**: It'll be very interesting if over time anyone, after looking at it, feels there's a stat of the week or an interesting data that caught his eyes while looking over the the dashboard. And we want to call everyone's attention to it and just talk about it, instead of doing a broad overview of all the information. We can try to pick one out and try to tell the story of "What / Why do we think this is the case from a social perspective", I think that could be pretty useful.

It feels to me that we're at a time where we're lucky to have a lot of resources to be able to spend on heavy engineering and research and community building and education and all the stuff we've been spending time on. A lot of that work started to show itself in the V2 launch and then the subsequent audits. And the NFT rewards thing is the first we're actually able to build using the V2 functionalities. That's gonna be a really really cool and exciting first group of initiatives that feels like it could start moving content around and facilitate moving content around in the NFT space in the internet. Shouts to everyone creating all the tidbits of utility around the core ecosystem, be all the NFT tutorials from nicholas and other folks working on how onboarding can be simpler and makes sense to more people. But I'm very very excited about getting some of these first products following this heavy spending on research and development that we've had over the past six months.

In chats came back for bringing up this need last week, I'd be right there with you. You can start to tell these stories via data. I think we're better off. And the town halls are great forum to do it and set that tone.

###### tags: `JuiceboxDAO Town Hall`