DAO Genesis Squad Guidelines V1.0

Purpose & Prelude: The purpose of this proposal is to ratify what constitutes a contributor as a Genesis member.

As this is a first draft the expectation is to collect feedback to ensure we’re setting things up correctly from the start with the proper buy-in from our valued contributors.

Please do not get caught up in the semantics and naming, should you find it offensive please keep in mind it’s a WIP and we can rename things once we’re on the same page.

The intention behind it is to establish the guardrails and framework in a transparent manner.

Problem areas:

  • No definition around how to qualify for Genesis

  • No clear role expectations or guidelines

  • Through genesis some members have sacrificed more than others by not being compensated.

  • Coordinape doesn’t accurately send value where it’s been earned


We should have at least 2 separate tiers of genesis retribution. The first tier should honor those who have made the greatest sacrifices and operated at the highest capacity to get us launched. Some notable members include: Gruad, Arcology, Zeryx, Maria, Senad, Lion.

The second tier should have less weight while still acknowledging the fact that other contributors made valuable efforts as well. These include teams with different labor skillsets including: marketing, community management. This tier would also include the author of this post, Viking, who has been playing more of a supporting role and adding minimal value to the actual big brain activities of the DAO setup outside of editing.

We could, alternatively choose to build a 3rd tier for general community as a way to attempt to incentive them to be more involved, however, airdrops historically get dumped and attract the wrong crowd, it’s not a plausible marketing angle or value add in Coach opinion.

Suggested Path

Tier 1 to get 60% of the total genesis allocation.


  • Primarily involved in the governance set up of the DAO (whitepaper, legal structures, governance and operations type chats) (dedicating 75% of their time or more)
  • Not collecting compensation from other teams (excluding referrals, bonuses don’t disqualify people)
  • Has contributed to writing at least 1 section of the whitepaper
  • Has contributed to writing at least 1 section of governance documentation

Tier 2 to get 40% of the total genesis allocation

Consistently completing team bounties in the last 3 months (active contributor)

I fully agree with this system. Coming up with an adequate mechanism for distribution is critical and really important.

In terms of numbers, 0.5% - 1% of total supply (1B soft cap) seems like a really solid range that leaves plenty of room for network growth, but properly rewards the contributors here who have put in a ton of work. Could certainly be something else though!

1 Like

The numbers I think I heard the team discussing was about 2.5% earmark.

If we go with 1% that’s 10,000,000 for the genesis distro, curious for more thoughts on the % as well.
So that would be 6,000,000 for “T1 allo” and 4,000,000 for “T2” on a 60/40 split.

For people like me who need hard numbers to understand :slight_smile:

Hi @CoachViking, thank you for your input.

I agree with your points and only wanted to add something from my perspective:

The criteria for Tier 1 (whatever name they may be - but I note here that this will deviate from the system currently proposed in the whitepaper) could be structured around 3 core tenets:

  1. Criticality
  2. Proactivity
  3. Leadership

Contributors should be building/working on things that are critical functioning systems of the DAO; as in, the DAO would stop functioning if these systems were not built. These would be high-impact activities that contribute to strategic direction of the DAO/product.

Contributors should be proactive and take initiative on the various workstreams/bubbles in place. They should be actively contributing to move forward discourse, research and development, with verifiable outcomes. Active contribution and participation in various calls should also be a criteria (eg: idling in calls does not qualify).

Contributors are required to show leadership through their contributing activities. Leadership here means initiative (ability to move forward with a task or a workstream), clear communication and decision making (to lead other contributors to the completion of tasks and advancement of the workstream), and responsibility (to show ownership of the tasks/workstream that they are tasked and to answer to the success and failure of their activities as well as those in their workstreams)

I defer to others on the token tranche and compensation levels at this point, but I wanted to bring forward a document I had previously drafted on a tentative compensation plan.

1 Like

This offers a lot more clarity and definition, I like it!

Would people be able to fall into multiple tiers? Specifically, would we be distinguishing leadership above and beyond the other 2 categories? Or is it more of a “bonus category”?

That doc is OG at this point lol, a lot has changed. We could combine them and rework with the new definition we have. Would be a great fast track IMO.

Also, is vesting something we want to implement? There was a bit of contention around it last time. I’m not sure how much stances on that have changed.

Since we’re going more “private club” style, if we decide to token gate the community (outside of the scope of this) the vesting strategy could be a good complement to the vesting system. We would all have skin in the game on some levels.

Hi @CoachViking @arcology, thank you for your efforts to address the problem statement. I like some of the qualifiers and the suggested path. I just have the following thoughts on the qualifiers. In addition to Criticality, Proactivity and Leadership, we should also look at the quantum of contribution as well.

However, before making my suggestions, I would like to clarify a few points.

White Paper/Governance Docs: I also want to clarify the compensation point around the white paper. It is paid work, and the legal bubble is funding it through the budget received in February 2022. Considering many contributors to the job will also not be drawing funds from the budget due to their relationship with FF (such as @zeryx), please note that the contributors should be paid adequately. Hence, people working on White Paper are not forgoing compensation. Having white paper writing as a qualifier signifies only involvement and not sacrifice of compensation.

Prior Collection of Compensation: I believe that’s a fair qualifier if a contributor draws a salary that signifies more than 75% of his market value (as that is the time commitment qualifier). Speaking on behalf of the legal bubble, we perform a critical role within the fabric in order to drive whitepaper, legal structure conversation and legal agreements. Legal work value is extremely expensive, and the sacrifice of time should be considered adequately and at par with market standards.


  1. I believe the white paper/governance doc qualifier is not required for Tier 1 as such because people will be compensated for it through the legal bubble budget, and this should be rather a qualifier for Tier 2 as it will address any issues related to the inadequacy of payments,

  2. I believe the contributor value should be determined by the critical contributions to the DAO. For example, I would see coordinating a legal bubble and taking care of critical functions such as whitepaper (coordination), driving legal structure conversation and getting legal agreements done as good qualifiers for a tier 1 genesis allocation. Obviously, this is coupled with Proactivity and Leadership as well.

  3. I really liked the points regarding Criticality, Proactivity and Leadership. However, the genesis allocation will play another huge role which is beyond the compensation for sacrifice and time spent. The Tier 1 genesis squad will also exercise a sizable influence on the governance of the DAO due to the quantum of their allocation. Hence, the squad must also be gated based on their involvement with DAO and their future with the DAO. Hence, keeping the future of this DAO in mind, it would make a lot more sense to have contributors who take care of critical functions and have a vision for its future.

I hope these points will be taken into account while writing a second version of the qualifiers.

1 Like

These are all great and valuable points

1 Like

In addition to the points that have been raised by contributors in this discussion, i would say the importance of contribution should not be limited to those working on the whitepaper and governance alone. Each bubble/sub-team plays an important role in the DAO such as growth, ui-ux e.t.c

In my opinion more emphasis should be placed on the activity level, value and importance of work done when defining tier qualification and less emphasis on which team an individual is contributing in. Using factors such as whitepaper writing and governance participation as prerequisites has the potential danger of undermining the contributions of other bubbles or subteams.

Another thing i’d like to point out is that this conversation has very low participation when considering how important this conversation is. This could possibly be because a good portion or majority of the FF/Frabric community are yet to join this forum (this conversation currently has 14 views which is the current highest on this forum and i daresay we have more than 14 active people in the DAO). We could find a way of encouraging/pushing this conversation to other members of the DAO in order to get more ideas, opinions and views.

1 Like

I agree with this in principle - My understanding is that the whitepaper is funded separately as a discrete task and that contributors to this particular workstream should make claims from that bucket, if funding has been established.

This is exactly Criticality in practice.

While I agree with this in principle, this document only is scoped towards a time period beginning with the formation of the project, currently and up to a point in time when Genesis is deemed over (this actually needs to be defined) . Tier 1 will need to be transitioned into a long-term plan if the members continue to contribute past Genesis. They will probably continue to be core contributors. Note that there may (and should) be people who are going to be Tier 1 caliber moving forward.

I agree with this, so this is one dimension on the Criticality aspect.

These have all been addressed in the 3 dimensions mentioned in my previous post. However, do note that some functions of the eventual DAO are critical, a minimum framework has to be set so that other functions and teams can flourish.

Let’s get this post communicated in the discord server.

@CoachViking I request that an initial list of all Tier 1/2 Genesis contributors thus far be furnished by yourself, @zeryx and @Maria.g as the co-founders of this project, taking into consideration the points mentioned by everyone here, and an initial review session be carried out.

@MANUEL @lion917

Some tasks are more critical than others. At the end of the day not all skills and labor are of the same value.

At the end of the day Tier 1 comes down to if somebody left, would the DAO continue to function without them? Who performs critical functions that we couldn’t survive without?

Those people are: Lion, Arcology, Gruad, Omen, Zeryx, Maria, VecDeq, Coach Viking. If anything were to happen to any one of us the DAO would not be well functioning.

While ui/ux and these other functions are important if we want to have a functioning product, we can always find and train these skills, they’re a dime a dozen in the space.

The product does us no good without systems, infrastructure, governance, tokenomics, compensation, the high level decisions it takes to run a DAO, which not many people here are engaging in outside of those I just named.

What we can not do is replace the functions of high performing individuals with strong leadership skills, knowledge and experience who are driving the DAO forward. Putting governance in place, creating the rules, and participating in the high level talks that the DAO can not function without.

These are critical functions that can not be easily replaced, nor are these positions that can easily be filled by anyone, and that needs to be reflected in tier 1.

Tier 2 would cover those who are helping with non-critical tasks such as product, ui, marketing, etc, and are not or have not been involved in the actual functioning or performance of the DAO at a high level.

My suggestion to go forward is @arcology to take the initial draft you made a while back, and lets combine the definitions you posted here with the feedback for a V2 iteration and repost with the definition.

What do you think?

I’ve been catching up with this conversation and also reflecting on different possibilities.

The truth is, if the criteria we use is soft, qualitative and subjective, the airdrop will create more frustration than engagement; as a very smart person told me once: to argue a rule is broken, you have to be capable of describe the exact definition of the rule.

Everyone has different expectations and self-perception of concepts such as leadership, criticality, and even time commitment. Hence, I would recommend to stick to a metric we can quantify.

Additionally, we need to clarify some concepts I’ve seen floating in the conversation such as founder, leader, contributor, etc. Only zeryx and I are FF founders, then there is the early FF team, and then what I would call Frabric founders. Every person who joined the FF core team was given the choice of being rewarded in cash, equity or a mix of both.

IMO people who’s being compensated for the work they have done, shouldn’t be compensated again for that, specially when the choice was cash over equity as that is unfair for people who blindly took the risk. Second, genesis allocation should be with the intent of rewarding members of the community that through their engagement and collaboration allowed the project to exist, took the risk with us, and will continue to be part of Frabric. So,

  1. Genesis allocation should have a lock up of at least 12 months as that will be the critical period for success
  2. People should be rewarded based on their collaboration and commitment, including risk taken
  3. The only real and measurable indicator we have of people’s collaboration is coordinape and bounties

My suggestion is to take coordinape and bounties as the reference for this allocation and exclude from it members who have been rewarded in cash or equity (zeryx, maria, coach, omen, vlad, vecdeque, undersell, lion). That to me is the fair way, and if we want to go further and encourage participation we can lock a final rule of “who check the previous description AND have participated in genesis process”.

On top of that, as reward for members who haven’t been rewarded or part of coordinape/bounties but are fundamental for genesis (Gruad, Arcology, Rotorless), there is/will be a token allocation as compensation.

Now, into the question of how many tokens should we allocate for this, we have to think about our desired market cap, private sale, and treasury future so based on different conversations and projections my suggestion is to keep it at/under .5% of total tokens (55Mio) which at our desired market cap is $3,000,000.

I know some members will see this as a missed opportunity but keep in mind that if you’re feeling that way is because: 1) you were given the early opportunity of shares 2) you have been compensated in a way more haven’t 3) you will continue to be compensated after genesis since your contributions will continue to be critical for the existence of Frabric.

Since day one, this project has been committed with fairness and reward on hard work only. So this is the opportunity to continue that commitment. This shouldn’t be a gift but an opportunity to reward people who has been here with us believing and supporting the project and hasn’t get the chance to have skin in the game.

Final note: if we haven’t seen much participation here is because our community naturally lives in Discord so as leaders, we have to push members to come and join.
I hope I am not missing names but if I am i’ll make sure to include/exclude when we execute the allocation.