Future steps for LunarDAO - the next proposals

[sadar]

There is no roadmap for LunarDAO, only new projects that come into the DAO’s view that we think important to help fund.

We are looking to the future of LunarDAO, the mission remains the same, we have flexibility to do what we want with the DAO, so here are a few things discussed recently that I think would be exciting and also help us as we grow and find more projects.

• Portfolio style:

This concept was discussed originally when LunarDAO was created (GitHub - lunardao/dao: LunarDAO Architecture)

This would be like other similar investment DAOs, instead of LunarDAO raising separately for EVERY project, we raise a pool, and then allocate to projects as they arise.

This should make it easier for us to deploy funds as we discover projects. We wouldnt need to make separate DAOs for each new investment (which includes the phase on getting the word out, an onboarding phase, etc)

• Sustainability:

This would allow us to allocate a portion of the funds toward sustainability of LunarDAO

A % of the funds raised can be earmarked for fund maintenance/management

• DAO membership

This seemed like the most complex issue to me. How do we allow new members into the DAO? Do we allow ever one entry at the same price? or an escalating entry point? Should we have open enrollment in perpetuity?

What about previous investments? For example, if I join the portfolio DAO after they’ve made 3 investments already, do I get access to these 3 tokens, or do I only get access to tokens going forward after Ive joined the portfolio style DAO?

Some other investment DAOs like CultDAO and Mantle(formerly BitDAO) have investments paid directly in their own token

We still want this to remain open to the public and allow any size of entrant to join. Also, as long as people understand the tradeoffs before entering and we are explicit, I think this is something we should consider, at the least

I bring this as a topic to discuss with the community and get some critiques, and if this seems like a good idea, Id like to keep pushing forward

[zero]

On LunarDAO github, in governance the difference between portfolio and syndicate style dao.

Portfolio:
"By default all the assets are pooled in the DAO main treasury. The new members joining are part of the same portfolio and exposed to the past investments. "

Syndicate:
"Each fundraising cycle (possibly each investment) is treated as a separated entity, unique sub-DAO/guild. Members joining in future fundraising events share a new treasury (sub-DAO or a guild) without an access to the investments from the past. "

The advantages with portfolio is continuity and sustainability pooling funds together to be able to continuously invest i project and also sustain the infrastructure, development and administration needed to make these investments possible.

The disadvantage with portfolio is as the quote is pointing to, new members are exposed to past investments and those who are already members get their shared diluted.

The advantage with syndicate is as the quote is formulated and the disadvantage the situation we are in now. We raised funds for DarkFi and it was successful. We sent the funds and received an NFT. We don’t have any resources to fund other projects as this was focused on this donation only. For longevity the portfolio style dao provides opportunities and sustainability which I believe we need.

We talked in t he past about the need for a mix and I wonder if it would make sense to have a portfolio style as an ongoing project and create the syndicated when portfolio is no fulfilling what we want to do in a specific situation. I think this is also how we talked about it previously.

If we would agree on this, does it make sense to have it on Arbitrum, wait for DarkFi to use anondao primitive or something else?

[sadar]

thanks for the input @zero

To answer your question, I would say we can attempt this portfolio style now (when we decide on the path forward, ofc), and when a better solution is live, we can migrate to that solution (Not sure how easy that would be, but I think better to keep pushing forward, than wait and see for an anon dao (as you referenced))

What do we think of arbitrum versus Eth L1? Im good with either, it wasnt an issue with me using Eth base layer or moving to arbitrum, but it seems like there are less private solutions built into arbitrum. Did LDII being on arbitrum make it difficult for users to participate? We were successful in the raise and were public enough about the process. I think with enough documentation we can handle either approach.

Im good with either option, but would want to hear others opinions on that.

I also like the idea of portfolio because we havent yet tried it. If its an abject failure, we have the flexibility to sunset and try a different approach.

I like that it will be able to move much quicker, will move as quick as we can due diligence teams and open a proposal. We also can have a sidepocket to manage expenses, which also allows us to keep chugging along without services dropping.

I ALSO like investing directly in the projects token as opposed to getting compensated in a DAO token (Cult and Mantle compensate directly in a DAO token). This issue (how old members are diluted and new members enter) seems to be the largest issue that we want to address. This is why LunarDAO went syndicate route previously.