Humans need a leader. There is a reason every country, every company, every organization has a leader at the helm. Without a leader, the organization will go nowhere as it is without direction. The DAO must be that leader for Loot.
I understand and appreciate the ethos of Loot, but having an official direction (and many other unofficial branches) makes the most sense.
We should create a DAO that, at the very least, whitelists Loot derivatives so we build a framework and foundation with an ultimate goal. That doesnāt mean we should discourage projects from branching out, but we can at least create a foundation for the branches as well.
An example of a foundation of building blocks:
Loot
Characters
Ability Scores
Realms
etc.
That is where the branches come in. People decide, okay, how can I use these to continue building? Instead of having 50 different āsummonsā/ācompanionsā, or āmapsā vs ārealmsā, or 10 different potions, we whitelist a specific project that has a competent dev and isnāt just trying to piggyback off the Loot brand for a quick buck.
From there we can have different renderings/PFPs of Loot characters, different games, different implementations and we can let them each grow. When one clearly outshines the rest of the pack, we can whitelist that as well and continue on.
This is really the only option if we want Loot to be successful. Having a DAO doesnāt make anything less decentralized. We can have some sort of logarithmic voting system so plebs have as much say as whales, etc. And we can also integrate AGLD into the DAO (see my thread on New DAO Structure).
To add to this, after setting an initial foundation, we could adopt a āProof-of-Workā framework ā aka ā the chain of blocks with the most derivatives built on top of them, is the one we whitelist.
Loot is pretty much the Bitcoin of the NFT Gaming Metaverse, in that it is the first truly decentralized metaverse ever created on ERC-721. As such, we should allow developers to create without limit, building block after block, project after project, that all ties in to our whitelisted foundational blocks. From there, we see which projects have developed the most (and gotten the most traction and useage), and whitelist those officially. Then we can build from there and repeat.
We can also whitelist āalternativeā metaverses. One game could be a RuneScape style MMRPG, one of them could be a trading card game, one of them could be a Pokemon style game (where people fight with their creatures ā just spitballing here). If each branch takes off and has its own community and support, we can whitelist them all.
I like to think of a DAO as a supporting structure NOT a controlling one.
The Loot Project began as a seed. It is now growing as we see the multiple branches form in guilds and derivatives etc. There are 3 logical options for this growing plant:
Let it grow naturally without supports or intervention
Prune it as it grows to prevent branches moving too far away from the central ideologies of the project
Support and reinforce the branches as they grow.
I believe DAOs are the supports mentioned in the 3rd option. At least in these early stages while everything is growing so rapidly I agree that too much ācontrolā would not be in the best interest of the project. At the same time not having some level of support for strong derivatives and branches and building projects may also not be in the best interest of the project.
I donāt think the question should be whether or not DAOs should be created; the question should be in what ways are DAOs able to support the project.
Spawned Loot (many of which would likely be sold for greater distribution) and a heavily inflated AGLD would both be great for the ecosystem and increase the distribution of the control of the DAO.
Imo, answering questions of whether we will spawn the loot and inflate the AGLD will make this discussion a lot easier.
P.S. side note: I like the idea of inflating AGLD with drops to ALL Loot holders, both OG and spawned, maybe at different ratios, to broaden ownership.
I donāt think we need to have āofficialsā Loot project. Itās much cooler to allow anyone to build upon Loot with whatever Loot project ā¦ Developpers could create their own more easily if needed into their game design or add undiscovered Loot.
What could be needed however is a place where Loot projects are indexed based on some important metrics like :
Opensea volume to check the demand
Transfers volume
Number of holders
Keywords ? / Types ?
Etc ā¦ feel free to complete
I personally believe a way to organize is needed, but from what Iāve seen in the space, DAOs are pretty much a running joke, whatever the project. I think we need to figure out first :
What is the spirit of the community ?
Where do we want to go ? What is our common goal ?
What will the DAO control ?
What is the purpose of the DAO ? (incentivize people to build ? Incentivize people to play games with Loot ? Make money with the trading of Loots ? you get my point ā¦)
We need to clarify what we want to do. I let you build upon that if anyone has a comment.
One possible way to avoid creating a central DAO which controls everything but still having some structure is to create several Gnosis Safes with a few multi-sig around a specific DAO.
Thatād be the flow:
someone builds something people like (e.g. the Dungeons)
if money is needed, he/sheāll make a request for funding and creates a Gnosis Safe with, say, 6 out of 9 signers chosen by the builder in the community.
anyone who needs/likes the things which is being built fund the Safe (with AGLD, ETH or anything) and maybe gets back the derivative NFTs or nothing.
I see some points in favor of creating a controlling or non-controlling DAO, recognizing or whitelisting official projects and generally trying to āorganizeā the Loot ecosystem. I would like to make a plea against this direction, even if there are heavy costs associated.
The Loot project is the first project Iāve seen with real and credible āmetaverseā like potential precisely for the reason that it is open. The entire corporate conversation around metaverse topics proposes creating AOL like, pre-internet style company towns. The lack of a true, open, interoperable and decentralized platform (like http was at the start of the web) is what will doom any corporate metaverse ambitions. Loot has a chance to be something else, something more generous, open and wild and for those reasons to grow into something good.
Please donāt shackle it to some hierarchical rent seeking ethos by trying to assert control, even if the chaos is painful.
Decentralization & growth from bottom up is the revolutionary of loot. This reminds me how a trees and forest grows.
Trees need sun, water and nutrients for survival and develop. Just like projects need Fund (sun), Founders/talents (Nutrients) and community (Water) to grow. We donāt need a DAO to manage a forest to select what kinds of trees should grow, when, how tall and etc. What we need is to attract as much sun, water, and nutrients as possible so, then let the forest does the things they are good at - growth.
Bear that in mind, any things that prevent the Loot ecosystem from funding, talents, community should be avoided.
Donāt have a detailed plan yet, but few things that I believe that we should not do:
Coin Voting Governance. There are many problems with this approach. Have a look a Vitalikās article for further details Moving beyond coin voting governance
Limit community to the loot holders. There are around 2.4k unique loot owners (source: Dune Analytics ) This is very small number if we want to build a forest. If activities taken by community aims to benefit loot holders, we will end up a centralized garden.
What we should do:
Welcome & give incentives to mLoot holder to join the loot community.
Welcome & give incentives to creators/devs to build on derivative
Community ā talents ā funding
Sorry if my thoughts are not clear & well presented. Happy to discuss on HOW.