Listen on: Spotify | Apple Music | Google Podcast
Mint Season 4 episode 5 welcomes Spencer Graham, who is a core contributor at DAOhaus, where he helps with product development, internal operations, communications, and tokenomics. He’s been contributing full-time to DAOs since 2020, and introduces a solid foundation around product development in web3.
In this episode, we discuss:
- 00:43 Intro
- 07:15 $HAUS and DAOhaus
- 16:03 CCOs: Community Contribution Opportunity
- 21:48 CCOs vs ICOs
- 30:42 What are the cons of CCOs?
- 45:16 Outro
…and so much more.
- orignial article discussing CCOs: https://daohaus.substack.com/p/community-contribution-opportunity
Support Season 4’s NFT sponsors!
1. Coinvise – https://coinvise.co
2. Polygon Studios – https://polygonstudios.com
Interested in becoming an NFT sponsor? Get in touch here!
Spencer, welcome to Mint. How are you doing my friend? Thanks for being
On. I am doing very well. Thanks for having me, Adam. It’s exciting to be here.
I know season four, Big Bang came out on Twitter a little bit ago. I’m excited to cover kind of what happening at DAO house, you as a product builder in web three and this new CCO, funding vehicle that you guys are kind of like constructing internally that we’ll talk a little bit about more later, but before we go into all that, let’s start with the basics. Who are you, what does a world need to know about you, but more specifically, what were you doing before crypto?
Yeah, I think that’s a good place to start. So, well, I’m, I’m Spencer. I for, for a long time have been, you know, quite interested in, in technology and in economics and in, in psychology, that’s kind of where from like an educational background on that’s where, you know, what, what I focused on kind of centers. And that took me into in a few different places, in a few different directions. But ultimately into, into product management you know, working on building products, understanding what users need, understanding the industry and the dynamics of, of what’s going on around in, in the broader space. That sort of thing. But also on the side, I was just interested in, in technology and had been you know, learning about a little bit and aware of Bitcoin and Ethereum et cetera for maybe, maybe a couple years. And I kind of been growing in, in interest, especially in, in Ethereum. But it was really in my job as a product manager at a healthcare company where I started to really like internalize the power and the opportunity and the interestingness of, of crypto and Ethereum at the time. And that was, that was really brought on or like kind of forced to me by starting to really understand the structure of at least in the us, the healthcare industry and how all of that stuff works or more accurately doesn’t work because all of the incentives are so, so utterly backwards. And they’re so utterly backwards because all of the, the data that gets generated about an individual person about you, the patient is not owned or controlled by you. Instead it’s owned and controlled by all of these disparate organ that sort of are fighting tooth and nail to maintain like their silo of that really valuable information. And that got it. There’s many other reasons, but that’s a key one that the healthcare industry doesn’t work. And I started to see how a like shared distributed database where that stuff could be more accessible to everybody else, but still maintain the proper incentives to make everything work would be super powerful. And that’s really what kind of took me way, way down the rabbit hole and several steps in between, but now I’m here today.
Now, here we are. So you mentioned building stuff that people need. Okay. So for starters, what’s it like being a product person in web three and what do people need in crypto? It’s a very vague question but intentionally right. Intentionally and intended to be vague from your point of view, what does that look like?
Yeah. I’ll get to the second question. Maybe second, because I think that’s a much, much harder one. The first one is also hard in the sense of what is it like to be a product person in web three? In one sense it’s actually not very different from being a product person in web two. In the sense that a lot of product people are used to leading, not by like dictation or not by kind of their own power, but by more by influence, they kind of sit in the middle of a lot of different work streams and a lot of different people and functions and different skills. And they are sort of tasked with leading group and providing a vision for that distributed set of people, doing lots of different things and kind of getting buy-in from all those different people.So in that sense, there is actually a lot of similarities, like where in a web three product setting or in a DAO setting. If you’re building stuff with other people, you, you don’t have power over them, you really only have influence. And that influence comes from being incredibly knowledgeable and having like both good understanding and also good intuition about how things work and being like willing to iterate and experiment alongside the people that you’re working with. So that’s that part, actually really quite similar. And I think a lot of product people are probably pretty well equipped to, to make the, the, the jump from web two to web three for that reason where there is a big difference is the vision part, like a lot of product people are kind of used to they’re the ones setting the setting, the vision and articulating everything. And that can maybe kind of work in web three, but it’s more about helping the people that you’re working with, helping the DAO or helping your project, helping with all the other contributors that you’re working with. Kind of collectively arrive at the collective vision, not kind of dictating what your vision is and making that like instilling that into the product or the team, but rather facilitating and drawing that out of the community and, and yourself and, and the other contributors.
Got it. Got it. So when you kind of were starting to build products in, in crypto, what was the first product you kind of worked on?
The very first product I worked on was something sort of, kind of maybe still working on today a little bit of a hiatus, but it was a hack-a-thon project at east Denver 2020 that I did with a, with a few other folks. And that was called save eye. And the basic idea was combining, essentially creating a liquid form of a trust-less liquid form of an FDIC insured savings account. So combining the interest bearing qualities
$HAUS and DAOhaus
Of something like CDI dye deposited into compound and earning interest with tokenized defi style insurance on compound and die. So if something happened like a hack on compound or some economic or financial issue with die, then you’d essentially get the, the value of what you held back and putting like basically combining that into a single asset that you could trade around and transfer or whatever. Got it. Got it. So how did that transition into you kind of working alongside DAOhaus and what is DAOhaus like? What, what does a world need to know about is just for some context really quick
So we’ve gone through a lot of iterations on how to describe DAO house, but I think the one that stuck for me has been that DAO house is the home for purpose driven community DAOs. And that can mean a lot of different things, but at its core DAO house is a platform, a no code, just user oriented platform to form DAO. So launch them or deploy them, or as we call them as we call it summon DAOs and then also to participate in and use DAOs to accomplish the goals that you and your community have and got it. When we say purpose driven communities, we mean DAOs that are focused on like lifting up the individual people within those communities as a collective, rather than what some others DAOs dos, which is also very powerful, powerful, which is putting a priority on the, on the protocol or the DAO itself rather than the individual people.
Got it. So what are the types of DAOs building and you using DAOhaus today?
Name of, yeah, so some of the original ones are DAOs like raid Guild, which is sort like web three design dev services DAO. The original is meta cartel. So kind of web three Ethereum grants DAO another one is, is ourselves DAO house. There’s a number of different iterations of it or, or flavors of it, but kinda a DAO created to build a DAO platform. Others include me Gama Delta which is sort of a DAO that, that exists to support women and what they want to do in the space and kind of advance their goals and bring more women into the space. There’s also kind of in a very different sense. There’s a DAO that is XDI called, or I guess now called no chain called ion do, which is oriented around allowing people to pool their resources and collectively stake into different protocols. So they’re a go, they’re currently have been staking as an XDI validator and are gonna be trans into doing so as A SIS chain validator as well. So the got it runs a wide gamut or there’s a wide range of things, but they’re all kind of tied together or similar in the sense that they are focused on the community. That’s that makes up the DAO.
Got it. What are the biggest challenges right now facing you as a product person and trying to empower these DAO communities? Like what, what does that look like? How do you kind of, I guess not really discover them, but how do you build for their problems? Because DAOs are very, very early, right? I like, there’s been a lot of hype about them in 2021. Yeah, but still we’ve yet to see more mainstream organizations and DAOs, and, and voting kind of take control of like, not just the early adoption curve per se. Right. So when you’re trying to build products for DAOs, what does that look like in your sphere? What are the biggest problems facing DAOs right now that need better product and tooling. And walk me a little bit about, a little bit through that.
Yeah. I think the, one of our big challenges is the tension between focusing, focusing on building a platform that allows other developers or other people to build specific tools for DAOs and trying to, or starting to build some of those tools ourselves. Kind of when, when we started, when we, when DAO house started, there was not really this huge, awesome, or like growing infrastructure space for like DAO tooling that didn’t exist. So we were kind of thinking like, how can we do a lot of this stuff ourselves? And we had already started to thinking about this, this concept of boosts, or like plugins or add-ons for DAOs, where they could add, like pull in this boost from over here and add functionality to what they need to do as a DAO and pull in this other thing from over here. But we were thinking about it largely from the perspective of maybe we’ll build, we can build these things and then people can, can use them selectively as they like, but more and more as we have seen so many awesome DAO tools starting to be developed, and for like some developers, just focusing on a single small slice of, of what DAOs need to do much in the same way that like lots of different companies in the web two space are focused on a single small slice of what of what companies or corporations need to do. And that’s essentially the entire SAS marketplace is that we’ve been transitioning more towards creating a, like focusing on a platform, almost building like an operating system that other developers can build on top of and really focus in on go deep on the individual, like very specific narrowly defined problem spaces that DAOs are facing. There are a ton of those. So it’s very difficult for us to be thinking about it. Doesn’t make sense. I think for us as DAO house to try to build, build for those or solve all those problems, right. Makes much more sense for us to facilitate others to do so in a way that helps DAOs and provides a cohesive experience.
Now, are these tools that help start a DAO, are these tools that help scale a DAO are these tools that help with participation? What are some of like the biggest problems tools are trying to solve right now? That would be a good fit, for example, like DAO
Sorry, are you asking what is DAO house good fit for, or the other way around, like,
Rather, rather we’re talking about the ecosystem of tools, right. And you’re talking about the granularity of tools being built for organizations, some smaller than others, some larger than others. Okay. These tools that are being built right now, they’re obviously contract like you guys are trying to build it in a way where it’s composable enough, so developers can kind of build for these communities. Right. What are the biggest problems facing these communities right now that you’re seeing that tool providers and tool builders are trying to solve?
A big one. Is there, well, the, the three things you described forming, participating and scaling are definitely all very big, like there’s problems everywhere. As you mentioned, we’re still very early and everybody’s trying to figure everything out, a big one that I’ve started to see people thinking a lot about is compensation and kinda incentivization. So maybe that’s kind of a form of, of scaling in a sense where maybe instead of scaling in terms of size it’s, it’s scaling in terms of impact or, or power given a, a constant or a slowly growing size where DAOs are moving from, or are, try, are trying to move from kind of like a, a, a collection of people that have come together to do something and are kind of internally motivated to work on that thing, to like powering up and expanding their capacities to like, bring in people and, and allow people to spend even more time doing that because they’re getting paid in a consistent, potentially consistent way in, or in a way that’s sustainable for them. And I think a lot of DAOs are, are grappling with that. And there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of like treasury management stuff embedded in there. Like, can you pay people just with your, just with the token that your DAO is using or is, might be defined by, right. So it all kind of gets tangled together. So I, in one sense it could be very challenging to host things, but I think that’s, that’s really the strength of, of web three and, and the way that all of this technology and, and ethos work. So I think we’re all of us in the DAO space. I think we’re on the right path. It’ll take a lot of work, but yeah, but slowly but surely we’ll get there.
CCOs: Community Contribution Opportunity
Yeah. It makes a lot of sense. I want to transition into, because we’re already speaking with about like tooling. We’re speaking about payments. We’re speaking about like more money related stuff. I wanna transition into this concept that you guys are tinkering with. And I don’t know if it’s public yet. Maybe this is the first time we are actually talking about it publicly, but this concept of CCOs and you coin it community contribution opportunity. Okay. Give me me a quick, deep dive. What is a CCO? Why is it important? And what are you guys trying to achieve, excuse me by issuing this new, I guess fundraising vehicle.
Yeah. so we’re, we are pretty, pretty, very excited about, about CCOs C so this is probably one of the first formal ways that, that we’re talking about it. We are gonna have a, an article coming up very shortly, maybe this week, maybe early next week, that goes into a lot more a lot more detail about how the process works and why we think it’s important and, and how to get started, et cetera, et cetera. So we’ll try to try to get you a link if, if the timing works out. But we also used we used this or something very, very similar to this mechanism about a year or maybe 15 or so months ago to kind of kickstart our, our own, our own work in a more serious way that had been previously possible. And I think that gives a fairly good lens in, into, you know, what this is and, and why it’s important, and basically what we’re trying to do. And what we were able to do was as a decentralized community of, of builders and people who cared about building infrastructure sure. And tooling for DAOs. We were able to, as a decentralized community form, and, you know, have other people contribute capital and join us a as part of the community and, and then use that capital to pay for expenses and to pay essentially pay people for the time and the work that they were putting in to, to helping us build this thing in, in a fully trust, minimized, decentralized way where we didn’t have to have where basically the people that are contributing their capital never had to give up custody of their capital until that capital was going to be spent on the thing that they had contributed the capital in order to, in order to do. And, and that’s really at the, a crux of a, of what a CCO is. And I can describe in whatever level of detail is helpful, how that works and, and why that’s possible.
In, so let’s simplify that for a minute. Okay. Because I think for more of the inner crypto native crowd, that ma what that would make sense. Okay. Let’s talk about more of like the outside non MOOC, non MOOC, I mean, excuse me non con non E Denver type of audience, explain a CCO in like in eight words. Okay. Eight to eight to 12 words, how like super simplified. Right. And the only reason I try to ask that, and the only reason I ask that is because there concept of like ICOs STOs, this co that, oh, oh, all these different acronyms. Right. So I really wanna understand and differentiate it. So it’s super, super clear.
Yep. So I think it, it may not be the most direct analogy, but I think the simplest way to just, it is basically as, as Kickstarter, but with two changes where the first difference is that instead of like some socks or whatever you might get as a reward for your contribution on Kickstarter, you get tokens associated with the project you’re contributing to. So that’s difference. Number one, and difference. Number two is that when you make your contribution your contribution actually is something that happens over time and you can actually pull back if at any point you see something going, not the way you expected. So, so in a big problem with Kickstarter, for example, is that you like send in your money and then you get like sporadic updates and you can’t do anything about it. They have your money. And then maybe two years later, you get the, an email saying, oh, no, this like ended up not working and we’re gonna have to shut DAOn the whole project. Or maybe it was in a, like straight up explicit scan, or maybe it was just like something didn’t quite work. And, and things changed in a CCO, when you give your money, you can always take it back up until the point that is actually spent on the thing that you meant it to be spent on.
Got it. So, okay. Let’s let’s talk this through for a minute. Okay. So let’s say someone’s trying to raise a million to dollars. Okay. A hundred people, 120 people, whatever. A bunch of people come in, they contribute that organization sets out milestones to reach transparently and how much capital is gonna reach is gonna be needed per milestone. Is that how you’re imagining it? So everything’s laid out transparently, and if they don’t execute on those milestones, basically the money is returned, or the person has the will to self take, like take it back, right. Pull out as, as they would like on their terms at their discretion. So super low risk. Okay. Interesting. So then why don’t you think more people have done this? Like, why don’t you think, cuz I know, I know DAO experimented with this model to do the $DAO token. I think it’s like German.
It is German. We probably could say house.
CCOs vs ICOs
Why don’t you think more people have done this? And I guess it’s also part of the reason why you’re kind of like publicly sharing it, but like why do you think people have reverted more to ICOs versus an experimentative model like this? Cause it feels similar to an out ICO, but more transparent and with the ability to kind of pull out if, if you’re not happy.
Spencer Graham (21:48):
Yeah. Right. That’s another excellent, excellent analogy. I think there’s probably many reasons. One being the like foundational tools to do this are like is essentially using [inaudible] DAODAO, least as far as I know is one of the only projects that is kind of centered around providing interfaces and tools for molectyles. So not a lot of other projects kind of have the expertise and knowledge built up over how to work with molectyles like we do and then we haven’t really pushed this and like made it more possible for other people as much as we could. Another big reason though, is that there it’s just really attractive to maintain control as a founder. I think this is the same reason that we see a lot of, a lot of DAO projects maintaining a multisig that controls the treasury with just a few people on the multisig, rather than actually the entire community having power over, over what happens in the multisig direct actual, like non-custodial control. It’s just really attractive to it. It’s really hard to break out of the web two mindset. Even if you want to do something in a community way it’s really, really attractive and really difficult to, to just make a decision to give up power. That’s a fundamentally different thing that a lot of people are very not used to and it’s, it’s a very big change. And, and so I think that’s why we haven’t seen a lot of people making that choice.
So you’re right. Like as this narrative of decentralization kind of like gets stronger and stronger by the day. Okay. More, more founders, more people are building towards that ethos control is like a very underlying ethos that people take with them. I feel like to what they do, like that’s how society has been constructed. That’s how we’re raised. Like that’s what we know innately, you know, like we know growing up, like there is control in the classroom, you know, in elementary school, you know, there’s authority, there’s a leader, there’s all these things. And now to come into web three, you’re kind of trying to like re-engineer and rewire how people think, how people work in a very uncomfortable way, which I love that. But when you’re building a project, you raise money through a CCO. What’s stopping someone from actually just changing their mind and pulling out rather than just pulling out, based off, they don’t like the progress of the project. Right. So what if you get the wrong stakeholders in your CCO? Okay. And they actually fund, they help bring this thing to life and they’re like, actually wait, never mind. Okay. And they do that. Can they pull out or is there any, like, is there any like friction on the funders end as well for pulling out? Like how does that work?
So there’s a couple things. One the first in general, there’s nothing stopping them. It’s part of the design. So it’s very much the case that if you have somebody who shows up and says, Hey, I wanna contribute. And then they contribute. There’s nothing stopping them from un-contributing later. One thing that I haven’t fully talked about, I don’t think we’ve made fully clear yet is like during the, during the process of the CCO, you described it as kind of a milestone thing that is sort of one option for doing it. Another is just kind of as money as needed. And that’s really up to the like core project team that, you know, started the project and up to like mutually between them and the people who contributed capital to agree on, as how those milestones are conducted or how the capital is sort of spent over time or, what the framework for that is. But whatever that framework is, as capital is spent. So it let’s say it’s, let’s say it’s Eth that’s the capital. Everybody puts Eth into the DAO. They get, you know, their claim on that Eth that they can, they can redeem and leave with at any point. As we were saying, as Eth leaves, the DAO is spent to build the thing that everybody wants to build. It gets replaced via a process that we call transmutation basically gets transmuted into the tokens that represent the project. So if I were to contribute Eth and then like a day later, say I actually changed my mind. I can take my Eth back and it would be a hundred percent Eth but let’s say it’s two months DAOn the line and the project has proceeded. And some of that Eth has been spent. Now, if I say, if I change my mind, now what’s gonna happen is I get, let’s say 75% of my Eth back. And instead of the remaining 25%, I get a proportional amount of the project tokens. So if I don’t believe in the project anymore, then I might still make that decision and kind of take my roughly 25% haircut. But that could also, that potentially could be a reason for me not to leave at that point. And just to say, you know what, I’m gonna see this through and hope that the, the value of my tokens, increases or hope that just the societal value, the thing that I contributed to was worth it. But the truth is that there’s no, by design there’s flexibility, lots of flexibility and support for, or power given to contributors, capital contributors. Got it.
What is the legality around this?
So that’s something we are exploring. This is the case with a lot of this stuff is pretty big grey area. Our hypothesis, or maybe a good way. And I apologize is not a direct answer to this question. I don’t think I can, I don’t think I can give one. And I probably shouldn’t give one.
Which I assume, also, by the way, because like a lot of this stuff is grey area, right? Yeah. So, but go ahead, continue.
Like, I’m not a lawyer, this is definitely not like legal opinion in any way, but our hypothesis is that CCOs accomplish many, or maybe even all of the goals of the existing like SEC and other sort of regulatory requirements. Because they Institute such strong protections for capital contributors, or you could call them investors or whatever you wanna call ’em. Basically the point of all of these mechanisms and requirements and disclosures, and all of that is to ensure that the team that is raising the money doesn’t have a significant information advantage that there’s no information asymmetry between the team and the people that gave them money to do the thing. That gap, that information asymmetry is what scammers can exploit to just steal all people’s money. It’s what adds to a lot of the risk of giving somebody your money to go build something. And so, because of the strong protections that CCOs offer capital contributors, so that’s one reason that we think CCOs are, are really great and fit really well with the goals of our existing legal framework. The other reason is that by definition, the people that are actually using the funds, it’s not a very clear distinction between, you know, the broader community and the people that are using the funds. It’s a decentralized community that is making decisions collectively over how to spend the funds and what to spend them on, rather than a CEO and a board of directors, and maybe a CFO making those decisions and actually executing those actions.
What are the Cons of CCOs?
Got it, got it. When someone asks you, what are the downsides of doing this? Cause it sounds good. Like, it sounds super cool. It sounds like incentives are aligned. It sounds like an ethical way to kind of approach funding and be experimentative. And usually experimentation is highly rewarded in crypto. But what is a Downside of doing something that like this?
Well, I mean, you identified one earlier which is that people who contributed capital could decide tomorrow or in a month or whatever, that they changed their mind. If a project team, if a community, feels like that’s a big risk and they’d don’t wanna take that risk, then they might have to take a different route. The flip side though, is that because it’s so much easier and there’s so much less risk for contributors to contribute capital you typically project teams or decentralized communities have access to more capital than they would otherwise. So it may be possible to attract a little bit more capital than you actually really need to give yourself a buffer in case people leave. And that can always be refunded at the end. If you sort of meet your goals without needing that additional buffer.
Can you hear me now? Yep. I was saying, what about for projects that don’t want tokens? What if, like, there’s a lot of like for example, a lot of projects that raise a private round of funding. Okay.They don’t really disclose token warrants side letters, any of those things, rather they focus on building product and then wanna decentralize quote unquote. Right. Do you guys cater to those projects as well? How does that work exactly?
Yeah. So that process of transmutation that I described, we think that is a really important part of a CCO, but it is not a hundred percent required for that mechanism or a similar mechanism to be attractive to some community or some project team or project. So you could basically take the CCO framework and mechanism and you can rip out the token and you can rip out the transmutation. And essentially what you get is roughly the same thing, except for one big difference. Obviously there is no token. And what that means is that there is still some, or there’s more trust that is required from the capital contributors towards the community or towards the project team. If there’s an expectation of future returns of some sort or future value, then without the token, there’s not a direct link from what is, what was provided now to the a versus what could be coming DAOn the line in the future. The token is what provides that direct link. But if you’re a project that doesn’t ever want a token, and maybe you’re just, maybe you’re a public goods kind of project , what you’re asking for is not anything that’s gonna build something that’s gonna return value to somebody DAOn the line, then you could absolutely do without the token part of a CCO. And that would work really well. There’s probably other mechanisms that you could kind of add on to like bridge the gap, like the token does in, in the basic version of a CCO. The other option is that if you think you might want a token in the future, what you can do with a CCO is actually create a token and customize a token contract itself so that it is not transferable until some date DAOn the line. So you don’t act like everybody has a token, has the representation of what they contributed, but it has no utility. Nobody can use it until some point in the future.
Got it. Got it. Makes sense. So the big question here, okay. Is how does this apply to creators now? Okay. We talked about you building products. We talked about this new fundraising vehicle and this new experimentative collaborative way to raise capital and do so very transparently. How does this apply it to creators? Keep in mind, a lot of creators are issuing social tokens and using the liquidity from the tokens bot to kind of like operate the creator economy. They’re issuing mirror campaigns and crowdfunding based off of a blog, post of an idea that they want to bring to life. They’re either selling NFTs as membership badges, right? To create and bootstrap this community. They’re doing all sorts of things to kind of bring capital into their life, to own their creator economy remain independent and build strong communities and utility around their, on chain assets. How does this apply to creators and why is this better than what’s currently out there.
So I think there is a crop of creators that to whom this does not apply. Okay. And it would not apply to them because those are creators where the work they’re doing is an individual expression of themselves. Maybe they’re a musician or some kind of visual artist or really whatever it is, but like what they’re doing is and should be, and like would be, would be less valuable if it wasn’t under their own control, right. It should be under their control. Like they should have creative control over what they’re doing as an artist. And the quality of what they’re doing, the importance, the cultural resonance of what they were doing would be diminished if they tried to decentralize the actual process of making or creating the thing that they’re creating. So for them, it makes a lot less sense to try to raise funding, to allow themselves to do that in a way that kind of requires a much more decentralized process.
Got it. Interesting.
Okay. But I think what that, what tells us is that if the creator is somebody that is whether they’re doing that today or not, if they are interested in expanding the set of people with whom they are collaborating with as peers to create whatever they’re creating, then a CCO would make sense because then it would be something that would be governed by and controlled by and under the power of a wider set of people than just themselves.
That makes a lot of sense. That makes a lot of sense. You know, I could see this coming into play. I remember a while ago. Okay. Justin Blao wanted to create, I think this was back in 2017/18, like the first crowdfunded music festival. Okay. Where the lineup was picked by the crowd-funders, the location, the vendors, everything. Okay. And I could see like a CCO, like this being the right model for crowd-funding a beast of like an event like that, because there’s multiple legs, there’s multiple things going on. I could also see it working for, let’s say Daniel Allen, for example. Okay. And not that Daniel Allen is using this rather referencing the crowd-fund example that he did on mirror, that a lot of people know him for raising180 K in like what, less than 48 hours. And in the blog post writing the steps that he’s gonna be taking, where the capital’s gonna allocated to. And basically us treating it like a Kickstarter campaign, rather, we’re not getting socks. We’re getting like, co-ownership in his EP right now. I give this creator my money, whatever the amount is, doesn’t matter with the expectation, you know, that we’ll get the EP and that we’ll get royalties. I guess, like, it’s very modular for like, now that I’m thinking I’m like talking it through out loud. Right. It’s very modular for any type of funding campaign per se. Right. Hmm. Any specific examples come to mind, like on the creator side of things?
To me there’s lot of creators. So where I have spent, most of my kind of mental cycles is less on the creators side and more on the builder side, obviously there’s heavy overlap between the two, but the frame that I tend to use is builder. But that certainly doesn’t mean that, that it can’t work or doesn’t make sense or doesn’t apply to the creator frame. I probably wanna back a little of what I said. I think your example was a good counter, like counter argument to what I was saying about a CCO, not applying to an individual artist or an individual creator. I think some of the advantages of a CCO are that the decisions about what to do with the funding and how to spend the funding, are under control of a decentralized community of people. That’s so that’s one big advantage, but the other big advantage is that is that the, the investors or the capital contributors or the donators or whatever, whatever they’re called in that particular instance, they get a lot of protections. So even if there’s individual creator that is basically promising, I’m gonna make something, I’m gonna make a music video. I’m gonna produce a movie, or I’m gonna write an album I’m gonna make a sculpture or whatever it is. They could do that in a way let, so let’s say there’s a token involved and the token is meant to represent the future value of the album that okay. Maybe royalty writes on, on the album or something. People could contribute funds. And then as the artist is working on that album, let’s say, and this is a gross simplification of the album. Making process, but as they complete each song they basically say, okay, I’m now gonna pay myself out of this pool of funds that you guys all contributed. If I finish one out of 10 songs, I’m gonna pay myself 10% and then two out of 10 songs they all get the next 10%. As those songs are, are getting produced. The people who contributed the capital would have some visibility into what those songs are, how the process is going, how long it’s taking. And if, say, it looks like the artist is stuck and the album is not gonna get completed, they could always walk away with the remainder of their funds and kind of cut their losses at less than they otherwise would be.
So what’s the timeline, like, when are we gonna see more and more communities you think attempt CCO? I know you guys had a successful crowd fund for the $Haus token. What is the timeline for this stuff? What are you thinking? When are we gonna see this stuff more in action? Cause this is very premature, very early. Walk me through that. Like, what’s the plan of attack here?
I would say. So there probably a few different phases. Phase one is we’re working on an updated version of something that we’ve been calling the, the yeeter which allows people to just yeet funds into a particular place. Yeah. And then get something back. To date, that yeeter has just been, like, people send funds into a multisig and they basically are trusting the operator to, to do the right thing, deploy a DAO later, or send them a token later much in like very similar to a mirror fundraise kind of thing, but we’re updating that to use something that’s somewhat akin to the CCO mechanic, or really like the first part of it. So when you send funds into this contract, instead of basically getting back, nothing at first, you actually get shares in a DAO instantaneously. I think that is going to be a big catalyst when, when that is more publicly and widely available, cuz it’s gonna way lower the barrier for projects to use that kind of just very simple fundraising kind of kind of process, actually less for the people who are raising the funds and more for people who are contributing the funds because suddenly if they have shares in the DAO they can rage quit those funds out anytime they want just like in a CCO, then their risk level is way lower. And their barrier for deciding to contribute funds is much lower. So that’s kind of phase one. And then phase two is more some of the tools that facilitate the transmutation stuff. So when you start to expand that yeeting kind of thing from just sending funds into now this process of more slowly spending the funds and the ability to transmute the funds into the project token over time. So I think the phase one, and these are not official phases, but phase phase one is probably like roughly around Eth Denver, Q1 of, of 2022. And then the second.
Phase is probably like in the summer, maybe the fall depending on how much like immediate demand there is for us to spend time building this stuff versus fitting in and alongside everything else we’re working on.
Amazing Spencer. I think that’s a great place to end off as well. Before I let you go, where can we find more about you more about your project, more about CCOs, et cetera, et cetera, give us a spiel
So starting with the CCO thing. So we’re gonna have an article like I was saying earlier, that is gonna be published, might be later this week or early next. We haven’t made the jump to mirror yet, so that’ll be on our, on our Sub stack. So that’s DAOhaus.substack.com and then everything else about DAO. The best place to start is DAOhaus.club. And then from there, you can check out the actual application, come into discord check out our Twitter, check out our documentation, all that, and then me personally, best places on, on Twitter @spengrah.
Man. Thank you for your time, Spencer. Thank you for being on. Thank you for being a part of season four. And I hope to do this again soon.
Yeah, yeah, that’d be great. Thanks Adam. Really appreciate you having me on this was a lot of fun.
Got it and I’ll cut it there. Awesome dude.