Tally Ho! DAO Structure Proposal

Thx for your help! :yum: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


cool! Thank you guys!


Interesting. Could you say more about how this practically works in Bankless?


What a great DAO Structure Proposal!


I can say for PoolTogether, our subDAO has 3 payment options based around the 100/hr rate (with hours capped per month and transparent time keeping on notion). Straight USDC, the 1 month Average on POOL price, or UMA options based on the TVL in the protocol.

I think paying a fixed rate based on time in a stable is best, with 30% of the pay minimum being forced as TALLY (The user is able to collect more). I think the UMA option is also a good method, but I dont know what KPI Tally could use for it (Mabye Monthly Active Wallets, I don’t think it should be wallet swap volume)


Great write up! Wow that was nice and easy to follow. Few things, Is there a way to open up a vote to move off Discourse? Imo it’s easier to just do that stuff in a channel on discord. I’m very new to this stuff so maybe what Discourse offers isn’t available on Discord.
I also really like TangFeng suggested about a specific day vote.
Curious on the voting, is there a way to propose certain topics with a different parameters than just your non urgent proposals. Something urgent for instance may need to get voted on quicker than the correct setting allows. Horribly worded but hopefully you know what I’m getting at lol. Again, great job!


Great feedback, thank you! Also fully on board on the break down in tasks. Maybe we can start with categorizing the scope & tasks and out of that see if their flow natural roles out of there. At a first glance I expect it to be in line with what you’re list here!

Also agree on the Notion. It needs to represent the DAO structure and should be easy & logical to navigate through. Looking forward to your contributions and ideas there!


Great sharing of lessons learned! We originally had the two separate dens, Governance and Organization. We eventually merged them in this initial structure proposal to not make it ‘too big’ at the start, and because the structure allows to easily scale after.

My primary concern with making it too big would be that we don’t have the bandwidth at the start to properly cover the tasks of each of the Dens, and that having it under a combined Den initially helps in creating a strong group that can prioritize.

Do you feel that if we add this to the initial role & scope of the Organization & Governance Den this would be sufficient at the start?


Hey, thanks for the read through and questions!

The suggestion for the specific day to start the voting is 100% agreed. It’s intended to be visualized in the ‘example of cycles’. This is expected to increase voter engagement by creating a routing. Having an upfront agreement on all these parameters also makes it clear and transparent what the flow is, and reduces the chance for discussion and mixed standards afterwards.

Regarding your point on ‘open up a vote’ → do you mean the actual proposal voting or the discussion around the proposal before the vote?

  • For on-chain actions, the actual proposal voting will happen through Governor Bravo with Boardroom being the proposed user interface (https://boardroom.io/).
  • For off-chain execution I expect we end up at something like ‘snapshot’?

The reason to have the proposal discussion on the Forum rather than on Discourse is because it allows to capture the conversation in 1 topic, and it’s more of a summarized response tool rather than a chat. In a chat tool like Discord it can be hart to follow. Also Discourse allows us to properly archive proposal discussions. Interested in your thoughts on that.

Regarding the last point. Yes agreed, we should think about this more and write up how the flow would work here :+1:


Yeah, an idea like that is great. At Developer_DAO we have a weekly newsletter that provides updates, specifically, the guild updates give an update of what’s happening across our guilds.

That comes under the writers guild but this could come under the Growth pack den → marketing and this roaming pack could handle that. Or like in Dev_DAO someone can be in charge of getting the pack/ den updates every week which seems to be working great for us.


‘Categorizing’ was the word I was looking for haha! It provides a bit of structure but like you said hopefully the roles will naturally flow and separate.

Really looking forward to how this works out and can’t wait to contribute more :slight_smile:


With respect to Notion, have we considered Charmverse at all?

Charmverse is Web3 native, has a great team, and integrated bounties.

Just a thought!


Are there any ideas on what the Den/Pack onboarding process will look like? Just asking because as someone relatively new to open-source/DAO/web3 projects it can seem a little confusing on how to get involved at the beginning (even more so with the current working groups set up in my mind). I just remember first joining the Discord and being overwhelmed as it was my first time seeing a real community project


I think surely we could include these information in our exsiting weekly community updates


Super excited for the DAO launch! Some questions and suggestions here:

1.As the Elder Doggo Council is for conflict resolution & top level decision making, so I guess there will be chances for voting within the council? If so, what will be the voting mechanism? And we should make the number of Elder Doggo to be always an odd number.

2.Can we have more information on the “emergency Multi-sig”? Every piece of detail is important.

  1. There are 2-3 pack leaders in each pack but each Pack only has 1 representative in the elder doggo council, how do we decide who can be the representative?

  2. Similarly, if a dog pack/den has two leaders and they have a dispute on some matters, how will it be resolved?

  3. what are the relationships between the dev team and the development den?

  4. Will we have a cap on the max. percentage of token that can be delegated to a delegate?

  5. Is the term of the pack leaders fixed?

  6. Are the four dog packs(e.g., corgis, shibas…) involved in the DAO in any way? If not, suggest to rename them to prevent confusion, especially for those newcomers.


Yeah agreed. Categorizing would help to make the role & scope more clear as well. Let’s add these!


So many details!! wow


This is a very well written and thought out proposal.

I am particularly impressed with the voting strategy and The Elder Council selection, I think these will lend success to the proposal, discourse, and voting process.

The 3 appointed council members and 3 appointed top delegates are an excellent core council addition, creating a direct voice to their respective the pack and token holder communities. These groups, as with many DAO’s, are intrinsically different. Token holders may fully delegate their vote without actually participating in the day-to-day operation, and conversely DAO members may participate through Packs and Dens, without holding a significant amount of tokens. These will be reflected in voting outcomes, but the end result is a very balanced core Elder Council.

It is also impressive to see seats on the council directed toward trusted delegates, founders and prominent community members. I have encountered a similar council make ups in administration at the university level. Members of the professional community such as famous architects are often invited as guest lecturers during one or two semesters. Their professional backgrounds provide access to current industry trends; serving fewer terms prevents voter fatigue and often brings in fresh concepts and energy.

In general I am a fan of the Governor Bravo voting mechanism and its improvements over Governor Alpha. I understand Bravo offers voting answers as yes , no ,or abstain. This allows a token holder the option of participating, without feeling they may sway a vote. I am a fan of any mechanism that encourages more community members to vote.

I also find the discussion time frame and proposal cycles fair and adequate. It is a balance to provide enough time to read and discuss the proposal, but also encourage voting in a timely manner. I think this cycle layout and timeframe achieves both.

Great Work!


I am super excited to read through this document and the following comments. I really like the concept of a rhythm to governance proposals and voting. Only one question pops out though, how to act in an emergency and what qualifies as an emergency? Are there any actions for which the Elder Doggos might need to join a midnight zoom call to update a leaky protocol, or some other fire-fighting action? If so, how can information about these emergencies be maintained with the broader community.


Thanks to everyone for all the effort that went into this DAO structure proposal. A lot of thought has obviously gone into this and it’s exciting to see this community coming together.

I have some concerns about the structure and placement of the packs and dens. Unlike the Build Pack, which has a clear focus on building product, the responsibilities of the Growth Pack are very broad: all of marketing (whether it be marketing communications, content marketing, SEO, paid marketing, branding, etc), business development (pawdnerships), design and customer support.

First, design should probably be broken into visual design vs interaction design.

Visual designers are experts in branding, tapping into emotions and making all things Tally meaningful, beautiful and recognizable. Visual designers produce style guides, work on logos and memes, and design ads. Visual design usually tucks in under marketing.

Interaction designers are experts in designing user experiences that are intuitive and easy to use. Interaction designers design interfaces by producing wireframes and user flows, skin them using a branding style guide, and do user research. Interaction design usually tucks in under product.

In most cases, the best visual designers are not also outstanding visual designers. And the best interaction designers are not outstanding visual designers. In small organizations, the same designer often has to do everything. But when this happens either visual design or interaction design usually suffers. If we have a sufficient talent pool, I suggest we tuck visual design as described into marketing in the Growth Pack and re-imagine the User Research den of the Build Pack as interaction design and give them also the responsibility of doing user research. In my experience, things work much better when product design is part of the product and engineering team than when it is part of the marketing team.

Second, given that marketing, business development, and customer support all get their budget from (effectively “reporting to”) the Growth Pack leaders, how do you choose leads that can effectively set priorities and lead across these different functions? Perhaps if the leads are former founders and have led an organization, then perhaps they have experience identifying talent and leading across these different areas. But, if not, I worry about the pack leads making an optimal, holistic prioritization and each of these areas getting the proper resourcing.

Third, is there a strong reason that the translation den is in the Operations Pack? The Operations Pack seems focused mainly on CFO duties, which makes a lot of sense. But having this pack also be responsible for translation duties seems out of place (and a different skill set). If translation is meant to focus mainly on product internationalization / localization, then translation seems like it should be placed in the Build Pack. If it’s meant to be focused on marketing/support, then it should be placed in the Growth Pack. If it’s both and you can only choose one place for it to live, then perhaps the Growth Pack?

Finally, when I think about growth, I think about something a little different than what is being described in the DAO proposal. It has become common for forward thinking organizations to set up a growth practice as they scale. These practices do not replace marketing, product or sales, but rather complement them. In this context, a product growth practice is the discipline of applying the scientific method to business KPIs with the goal of moving the needle. This is what I’ve been advocating for in the discord growth channel and in this proposal.

Since, by definition, this practice is cross-functional and spans the Growth Pack and Build Pack, what thoughts do people have on where it should live and how it could be engaged?