To create transparent, understandable, and clear conditions for ambassadors, moderators, active participants, and anyone interested with different talents and skills.
This will ensure the most important principle of DAO - transparency. It will also ensure the interest of participants in Soft DAO with different skills and talents. With specific tasks and clear conditions, it will improve the quality of execution and ensure transparency in the Soft DAO development process.
DeWork is platform for web3 teams to engage with internal & external contributors, pay contributors while boosting their reputation for work completed, discover how DAOs get work done and how to work with contributors.
It allows all kinds of projects to work openly or privately, and have contributors participate through tasks either by application, open submissions or gated claiming.
Using this tool will completely close the issue of transparent operation of SoftDAO.
Creating a successful DAO requires more than just transparency; trust and collaboration among members are also key.
While I respect the intention behind the proposal to create clear and transparent conditions for ambassadors, moderators, and participants with diverse talents and skills, I must respectfully disagree. While transparency is an essential principle for DAOs, it’s not the only one, and other considerations must also be taken into account. For instance, too much transparency can jeopardize the privacy and security of community members. Moreover, while DeWork platform may be advantageous for some projects, it might not be the best fit for all. Therefore, it’s crucial to consider the unique requirements and circumstances of each community before implementing a one-size-fits-all approach. Although I appreciate the initiative to enhance transparency and clarity within the Soft DAO community, a broader range of factors and options must be taken into account before making any decisions.
An interesting initiative. But I have a few questions.
You suggest adding ambassadors and community leaders there. While there is a long range of subjective factors - for example, such as the time spent, the quality of moderation, checking crew3, the quality level of work with information, including in matters of proposals. There are also several other functions that cannot be evaluated objectively. And the list goes on…
Because of this, I believe attempts to introduce a rating system among leaders and ambassadors will create additional tension among the team - and this will definitely have a bad effect on teamwork
Due to the above - it is impossible to agree with this statement…
I admit that the use of this platform as a whole can be effective in terms of attracting and rewarding talented people both from the Soft DAO community and from outside. But what about Crew3? Looks like it already fully satisfies these tasks. So if you think it’s worth spending the extra time and resources of DAO & Core Team on DeWork - we need more arguments in favor of this platform. Share your experience. Does DeWork have significant advantages over Crew3?
In addition, a proposal for Crew3 awards from the treasury has already been prepared… What do you think of this moment? What manipulations with the DAO Treasury do you propose?
Develop Clear Guidelines and Procedures: SoftDAO should develop clear guidelines and procedures for proposing, organizing, and executing activities. These guidelines and procedures should ensure that activities are aligned with SoftDAO’s mission and values, and that they are organized efficiently and effectively.
I’m glad that my proposal for using DeWork in SoftDAO has generated interest.
Firstly, I want to highlight the difference between DeWork and Crew3.
Crew3 is aimed at mass tasks for creating low-quality content, and you, as validators, know about it. Low-quality content doesn’t mean that Krev3 shouldn’t be used. Simple tasks that can be quickly completed are also needed for promoting SoftDAO to the masses.
DeWork is aimed at completing tasks for creating content with higher quality and higher requirements for results.
For example: Task: Create a video about delegation Condition: The video must be published on a YouTube channel with at least 4k subscribers.
In practice, well-thought-out tasks don’t cause spam from users, and as a result, there is no heavy load on validators. Also, all tasks are checked not only by moderators but also by members of the core team.
Using DeWork doesn’t violate trust and collaboration. If I’m wrong, please tell me how it can happen. I think it can actually help strengthen trust and expand collaboration. By having clear tasks and seeing the results from other participants, members can develop their own ideas for creating unique and high-quality content and fostering close collaboration.
What specific considerations prevent the implementation of DeWork? How does DeWork compromise the confidentiality of participants, and how is it more likely to happen than using Discord, Crew3, or Tally?
Could you please specify the unique requirements and circumstances? I believe that DeWork can take into account all the nuances of any project since it has much greater and deeper customization options for individual project requirements compared to Crew3 (as I mentioned before, Krev3 is for mass execution of simple tasks).
I’m sorry, and I respect you, but unfortunately, general statements will not lead us to a constructive dialogue.
I completely agree as I myself hold the position of a moderator.
When using DeWork, there is no question of taking into account the labor costs indicated by you, since they really cannot be measured objectively. All this is discussed on the forum and the DAO decides on the basic monthly compensation for this activity.
Example: A moderator can create a positive atmosphere in the community in the early stages and later take a small share of participation, as their early work helped shape a positive community that transitioned into self-organization. This example demonstrates that the work of a moderator cannot be objectively measured.
As I wrote earlier, deWork is aimed at high-quality, original content.
In the project where I’m actively involved as a moderator:
In Сrew3 - 21k+ members
In DeWork - The leaderboard consists of 30+ users (all of whom have access to task execution).
This is achieved through a high threshold for content quality requirements.
It doesn’t interfere with each other. In my opinion, to develop the SoftDAO community in the maximum directions, it is necessary to apply:
separately agreed compensation for difficult-to-measure contributions - DAO voting
mass generation of content with a low quality threshold - Сrew3
Hi @jAleksey and fellow SoftDAO community members,
I appreciate the insightful conversation around the potential implementation of DeWork within SoftDAO. Your explanation of the differences between DeWork and Crew3 has shed light on how the two platforms cater to different task requirements and content quality levels.
I want to emphasize that my concerns are not exclusively related to DeWork itself. Rather, I aim to ensure that we thoroughly consider the broader implications of introducing any new platform to our community. This includes taking into account the unique requirements and circumstances of SoftDAO and making sure that we don’t compromise the privacy and security of our members.
With that in mind, I propose that we undertake an in-depth analysis of the potential benefits and risks of incorporating DeWork into our community. This could involve soliciting feedback from our members, exploring specific use cases, and identifying any customizations or safeguards that may be necessary.
By adopting a measured and methodical approach, we can make a well-informed decision about whether DeWork is the right fit for SoftDAO.