From a security standpoint, I think you will always need a group of trusted admins who can grant and revoke privileges to data. If it was purely open access, that would be dangerous and a security risk. If there is a data breach, you want to be able to narrow it down to the limited group of individuals who had admin level access. You want to be able to establish the chain of custody of the information.
Anonymized data could be owned by the commons and made available to anyone who wants to learn from it, regardless of whether they are a DAO member.
If there is no legal entity behind DAO Consultants, then pretty much all the data except for identifying information would have to be in the commons and made freely available, since if there is a data breach there is no way to legally enforce a claim.
The DAO space is immature and evolving, so I think we will see new tools that will offer a good combination of security and open access to data.
I am no expert on the legal structures of these projects, but I wouldn’t consider them the typical customer of DAO Consultants. I expect that most projects requesting DAO consultants services are either already existing organizations wanting to use DAOs for some of their operations, or small projects wanting to kickstart their operations and governance with a DAO.
When a client wants to pay DAO Consultants for services, they could pay a fiscal sponsor (usually a nonprofit with legal status), and the fiscal sponsor could in turn pay the individual members of DAO Consultants for work done, or reimbursement for goods or items paid on behalf of DAO Consultants. A fiscal sponsor could have multiple projects or collectives under its wing and handle funds collection and payments for all of them. This opens up the possibility for DAO Consultants to operate separate projects or collectives, with separate accounting for each, and have funds collection and payments handled by a single fiscal sponsor.
Open Collective is a platform that enables projects to raise money without having a legal entity or bank account. The use of a fiscal sponsor facilitates these fiat transactions, from the sponsor/donor to the fiscal sponsor, and from the fiscal sponsor to the individuals who supply the goods and services.
Open Collective also provides a platform for transparent accounting where the movement of funds can be seen and tracked and invoices can be submitted and paid transparently.
Open Collective is fiat based, but perhaps we could use a similar structure or fiscal sponsor for DAO Consultants. DAO Consultants could deal solely with crypto, or both crypto and fiat. If fiat is handled, then it may be easier to use the Open Collective platform.
I think the use of a fiscal sponsor opens up interesting possibilities. Maybe the members of the DAO should vote on what type of structure they prefer. If they want a professional association-type structure, like what @burrrata mentioned about a consultant registry and membership/subscription dues, then that model could be used.
Very happy to see that you are moving the DAO Consultants idea forward. I really like it. Let’s make it work one way or the other!
As far as I know, most of our current users are small to medium sized projects.
Some of them are looking to increase the legitimacy of their governance process. They do that by leveraging the transparency and security of AragonOS. They also try to involve a larger set of participants (committees, community members) and be innovative with governance schemes.
Another category might be communities trying to become more organized, efficient (i.e. more economic). To do that they may want to leverage tokens, voting (Ex: DAOnuts) and fund management .
Associations and companies wanting to increase engagement in their community of users and contributors may use DAOs as tools to set up a bunch of community initiatives. I really like this use-case.
Ephemeral/pop-up projects like StFame are also interesting use cases for small, creative collectives…
TL;DR We are still early in the adoption of Aragon DAOs but it seems that they are a good plug and play solution for small/medium size projects and communities. While big projects often build their own custom governance (Ex: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Maker, Tezos, Decred…)
Thanks for your interest and fantastic feedback so far with this grant proposal.
Since the original grant proposal, @burrrata and I have discussed the best way to move forward. We have decided that the grant amount requested should be reduced from $4000 to $2000 as @burrrata is already doing substantial work with Aragon Association that is related to the objectives and scope of work of the current grant proposal, and @burrrata would be providing support to me via AA if the grant proposal is approved.
Accordingly, the original grant proposal has been edited to reflect the lower grant amount requested of $2000.
As this proposal has been live on the forum for several weeks we are moving forward with a CFDAO request. The CFDAO vote link will be added to the grant proposal soon. Please vote if you’d like to support our efforts to reach out to users to help them understand and realize the value of Aragon!