Decentralized Community Building Guide #4: Decentralized Work Methods

Original: What We Can Learn from Decentralized Community Building[07/21/2022]

Written by: Bethany

Translated by: Misaki, Diamond, WhoKnows DAO

A protocol improvement proposal is a process that provides suggestions for improving platforms and projects, typically voted on in Snapshot, similar to Uniswap's governance process.

Image source: https://snapshot.org/#/uniswap

Once you start building a web3 community, you begin to think about how much power to give community members in decision-making and project execution. While most web3 projects consider the method of decision-making as a decisive factor in measuring the degree of community decentralization, Spencer Graham's latest theory suggests that the purest form should include both decentralized decision-making and decentralized execution. In other words, "How decentralized is it really?"

Through research, I ranked each project on a scale of 5. "Decentralization Spectrum" ------ from left to right represents completely decentralized to completely centralized.

Decentralization Spectrum

You will notice that among this collection of well-known projects, "pure decentralization" (where all decisions and actions are made in a decentralized manner) is an outlier and not common. Very few projects start out as decentralized; the Bitcoin community and the Loot community are exceptions. Most projects are still in the middle.

Completely Decentralized ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ Completely Centralized

? The decentralization spectrum provides a rough 5-point approximation of the relative decentralization level of any project based on its decision-making and execution methods.

Shared Transparent and Public Documentation

It is no secret that web3 projects are built openly. Open a Discord server, Twitter posts, public political forums, and vote through Snapshot; almost every project largely provides open and transparent documents for community members and users.

However, storing certain things on an open network does not mean everyone has equal access. My initial goal in starting this project was to conduct completely independent research on each web3 community. But I quickly realized that this approach was unworkable; as a newcomer in these fields, I spent hours deciphering this perplexing website and dozens of pages of documents, figuring out the meanings behind the channel names in each Discord server.

In web2, we believe that the widespread adoption of new technologies is partly due to convenient product API access and user-friendly documentation. In web3, we look at the project's Notion interface, Discord groups, and onboarding processes. In terms of accessibility and robustness of materials, several cases stand out: Index Coop performs well in terms of new member onboarding and manuals; Juicebox's Notion page considers both project founders and developers. The NFT project Crypto Coven received honors for its community-generated public library, which gathers "legendary stories" from their community and some foundational knowledge of DAOs and web3.

The public community manual prepared for existing and potential community members by Index Coop is one of the most comprehensive and transparent projects.

Image source: https://docs.indexcoop.com/

Give Your Community a Voice Independent of the Core Team

Perhaps one of the most notable trends in decentralized community management is the separation of the influence of the core team from that of the community. Helium and Uniswap are strong examples, exhibiting a "church and state" effect in their decision-making frameworks. Both are equipped with a C-corp made up of core builders and team members, along with a non-profit entity (or foundation) managed by the community.

For example, in Uniswap, the core team Uniswap Labs owns the products (including the web application interface, widgets, and any future products), but the Uniswap community owns the protocol. Decision-making related to the protocol is managed by the foundation and governance team through an open governance proposal process. For instance, the recent decision to deploy Uniswap v3 traces back to a conversation in March, which mentioned following four governance steps: atmosphere monitoring, consensus detection, governance proposal. The protocol was successfully deployed on July 13.

Helium is one of many projects that manage protocol changes through a proposal process (called HIP). (Other examples include Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), and Zcash and Rust have had similar processes.) These changes are managed via GitHub and then sent to the core team of Helium, most of whom are employed by Helium. Both cases illustrate the deepening of community engagement while still allowing the core team a degree of flexibility.

Start with Incomplete Builds

An interesting trend in web3 projects is the intentional start from "incomplete builds." A set of Loot bags as an NFT series has inspired dozens of spin-off projects, with teams and builders creating entire worlds around "player decks" using elements like maps, kingdoms, and HyperLoot characters. The 100% NFT knowledge-sharing collection Nouns has sparked a new wave, allowing designers, animators, and game planners to dive into the emerging ecosystem and contribute. The development of the Dark Forest decentralized world-building game aims to encourage developers to build plugins, integrations, and strategies that push boundaries, although sometimes it must be admitted that things have gone a bit overboard. Each project in this field attracts users to play and collaborate within the community, where the community not only determines the direction of the project but can also self-build.

Each of these examples (arguably the most decentralized projects I have explored) places increasing importance on obtaining the right starting conditions. Sina Habibian, who helps build web3 for Zeitgeist, said:

"I think for decentralized projects like Loot and Nouns, considering the initial conditions is actually more important. Because the core team (if there is one) finds it difficult to correct the project's direction afterward, the initial choices are significant."

You can purchase Loot bags on NFT markets like OpenSea, which contain only eight lines of text with random items, objects, and gear. What these "trading cards" become is determined by the community.

Image source: https://opensea.io/collection/lootproject

Consider the Middle Layer of the Community

Almost every DAO I spoke with has some sort of leadership team to help manage their broader community. While it is understandable to grant Discord permissions to frequently active community members, community ambassador programs seem more reasonable. Index Coop uses a so-called "Owl Level" to categorize different qualified members in the community (gold, silver, bronze, with different voting weight for each level). Numerai elects a "Council of Elders" made up of senior community members who can quickly make decisions on behalf of the broader community. Creator Cabins has a "City Council," where you must hold at least 500 $CABIN to qualify for membership. These organizations appear to be extensions of web2 community-building models, such as "developer advocates," "influencers," or "brand ambassadors," who not only have titles and privileges but also represent influence and authority.

Beware: Don't Leave Everything to Community Voting

Prolific web3 community influencer @rafathebuilder, who has been involved in community building for Creator Cabins and Mirror, said:

"I think there should be a 'minimum requirement for decentralization,' which is a real trade-off. Some organizations need to sacrifice efficiency and slow community growth to achieve decentralization. If your goal is decentralization, it shouldn't be made cheap; you're not optimizing production costs, but optimizing network resilience."

I have read many insightful articles on this topic, one of which is from Jon Hills of CabinDAO titled "How Decentralized Organizations Win (and Lose)." Jon challenges the concept of "decentralization absolutism" through this article and also confirms four principles of (non-crypto-native) community organizations. These four communities do not grant members 100% rights but flexibly meet their needs. Many crypto builders, while developing their own projects and protocols, need to navigate this tense relationship while facing opportunities and challenges.