[PASSED] BIP-8: PleasrDAO x BitDAO

[Proposal]: PleasrDAO x BitDAO

shl0ms & Cole Jorissen from Windranger Labs,
Jamis Johnson & Juan Dulanto from PleasrDAO,
and Jon Allen from Mirana Ventures

April 9th 2022

:sparkles: gm, click here to view proposal :sparkles:


If the proposal can be presented in the form of copyable text, it will be convenient for some Chinese community members who do not understand English to directly use Google Translate to read the content of the proposal​:handshake::handshake:

This is my little feedback​:handshake::handshake::+1:t2:


@TaiwanDAO the text in the PDF is copyable!


very excited for this! let me know if you have any questions! Pleasr(DAO,DAO):sparkles:


ThisThis IsIs AA HugeHuge StepStep ForFor DaoDao


very excited to collab

– one of the many shl0ms


Would love to see this collaboration between two of the most notable powerhouse DAOs happen!


happy to have another new proposal from team!

it would be better if you could give more detail

  1. roadmap, what do you gonna do in future

  2. investment promise, how you gonna return to bitdao community if profitting.

i have some suggestion for roadmap:

  1. building a multichain nft marktet using bit as fee or payment
  2. designing a profile nft for bit holder.

thanks. hope to see the proposal pass.


Leading treasury allocation DAO with leading social capital DAO :handshake:


no, all bit holders want $BIT Purchase Program , bitdao have to stop help others dao . i holding $bit almost 6 months prices always down ,


DAOszn LFG!!! :handshake:


wtf this is exciting


That’s right, the project is not transparent

Please provide more details

  1. roadmap, what do you gonna do in future

  2. investment promise, how you gonna return to bitdao community if profitting


ya, we can’t vote something that’s not transparent to the public which may have huge impact to investor public interest and even BITDAO

1 Like

I think we need more details :grinning:


I think we can’t vote the project is not transparent. It is hard to persuade investors to vote yes through this proposal. I can’t see it can make profit to bitdao. It just waste $6.5m.Bitdao is not a charity organization.


They always ask for money from the treasury. Almost all threads on the forum are like this. No one is taking any steps regarding the Bitdao price. The price has been falling continuously for 5 months. Bitdao is not a charity


Anyway, the freeross project is a rug. The community team left the mess and ran to set up the Ukrainian DAO to support the Ukrainian army. I forgot what percentage was written in the white paper. Anyway, a certain percentage of the fundraising amount belongs to the founder and team.

As someone involved in setting up FreeRossDAO I’d like to clear up some misconceptions. A single person from the community team left to work on UkraineDAO, very natural since she has family living in Ukraine. FreeRossDAO contributed as much as it could to Lyn Ulbricht, unfortunately due to a lack of counter bidder at higher prices (> $4mm) the DAO ended up with a portion of the treasury remaining after winning the Ross Ulbricht NFT auction.

That time, the 3,000-plus eth were lost in the end. I guess they narrowed it themselves. Anyway, the Ross family said that it had nothing to do with them. I don’t know who took the money in the end

No ETH has been lost, if any has, then show us the transaction on Etherscan. The remaining ETH in the treasury has gone to use paying community contributors (after governance proposals passed, for example Snapshot).

FreeRossDAO has operated as one of the best run DAOs I’ve seen. Hard for me to take seriously that someone considered themselves a part of that community if they would come here and trash it with unfounded claims.

1 Like

The following post is a personal opinion.

There have been issues with negotiating and executing venture deals via the current BitDAO governance process (which involves a forum soft proposal, and official proposal and vote). The main issues are:

  1. negotiations with Projects, and funding terms are often confidential and cannot be posted on a public forum without the consent of the relevant parties. Typically terms such as valuation and round investors cannot legally be publicized until the round is completed; and

  2. Projects may suffer unnecessary public exposure, scrutiny, and potentially reputational loss if the BitDAO governance process results in a “No” vote (whereas when other venture organizations turn down a deal this is not publicized).

Potential Workarounds
The following workarounds have been explored:

  1. BitDAO selects and authorizes a deals committee (with mandates and limits), that can analyze confidential deal terms, and approve deals on behalf of BitDAO; or

  2. All disclosable public information about the deal is shared, and confidential information is assessed by people / organizations who have access - with the assessment result (positive, neutral, negative) shared. The ultimate decision to approve or reject the deal shall follow the BitDAO governance and voting process (albeit with limited information).

Neither Workaround #1 or #2 are ideal, and other ideas are welcome.

The Current Situation
The PleasrDAO proposal follows Workaround #2.

Deals are often opportunistic and time-bound. The PleasrDAO deal opportunity is currently available and has been presented above. Unfortunately some important terms cannot be publicized.

It is up to the BitDAO community to decide whether enough information has been presented to make a decision, and how much weight to put behind the assessments of the named supporters of the deal (who are $BIT token holders and incentivized to support proposals favorable to BitDAO).

Other Thoughts on the Deals Process
A BitDAO policy decision not to consider proposals without disclosure of full deals terms could result in many deals being excluded from the list of presented opportunities. Its likely a better strategy to welcome more deal opportunities (even under sub-optimal information availability), and allow BitDAO to make a decision via the governance process. This was the thinking behind Workaround #2.

Deals are a multi-party and trust-based process. Any BitDAO deals process should also be empathetic to the counterparty, and the teams involved in working on the proposals (i.e. a convenient, timely, and civil process - that can approve/reject deals without discouraging future proposals).


Every member of the community has the right to speak in the management process. Because we are a DAO. How can an opaque offer be expected to be accepted? If we can’t be transparent, it means we can’t cooperate anyway. All topics in the forum, we must put an end to this in the name of asking for money from the treasury

1 Like