Community Review: Black Flag DAO Codex Version 1

Codex Change
1

The Transition Council has produced a Codex which will replace the previous BanklessDAO Constitution as the governance document for the Black Flag DAO community.

The purpose of this post is to invite Flag Raisers and Flag Bearers to review the text of the Codex with the intention of identifying omissions or errors.
The Transition Council is not seeking opinions on the governance design, only feedback on areas that may need further refinement to address identified flaws.

The review period extends through April 7, after which Version 1 of the Codex will be finalised by the Transition Council.

Black Flag DAO Codex

Version 1

Preamble

The Black Flag DAO Codex records the agreed membership and governance parameters adopted by the community known as Black Flag DAO and/or BFD.

These parameters, and their explication within the Codex, may only be modified via a community-led process of discussion and subsequent vote by eligible members of Black Flag DAO.

Section 1: Introducing Black Flag DAO

1.1 The History of Black Flag DAO

Black Flag DAO was previously known as BanklessDAO, which was founded by David Hoffman and Ryan Sean Adams (Bankless, LLC) on May 4, 2021. In 2024 the community chose to discontinue the DAO’s association with Bankless.

1.2 The Purpose of Black Flag DAO

To build an onchain community of changemakers focused on vibing, thriving, and exploring decentralized systems.

Section 2: Voting Framework

The voting framework specifies voting categories, which BFD members may vote, and the minimum period each proposal type should be available for discussion before proceeding to a Snapshot vote.

The onus is on the proposal author to initiate a Snapshot following the minimum discussion period on the BFD Forum. Access to the Snapshot platform is restricted to Flag Bearers.

Voting parameters for proposals which do not fit any of the following categories will be decided by the Flag Keeper Council.

image
image550Ă—770 31 KB

image
image555Ă—826 32 KB

image
image466Ă—149 2.83 KB

Section 3: Membership

There are three types of community roles available within the BFD Discord, two of which also correspond to membership and voting rights for BlackFlag DAO — the Flag Raiser and Flag Bearer roles. These roles require both a financial commitment by the individual and BFD community endorsement before the associated membership rights are activated.

3.1 Flag Curious

This Discord-only role is available for guests to explore the BFD community with the intention of deciding whether to proceed to membership.

Guests with the Flag Curious role have limited access to the BFD Discord. To access this role, guests must complete the Bankless Academy Wallet Basics course and verify with the wallet that holds the corresponding NFT.

3.2 Flag Raiser

Membership Requirements

  • Deposit 500 USDC in the Black Flag DAO staking pool.
  • Complete the Bankless Academy Web3 Security course (hold the NFT).
  • Post an application for Flag Raiser membership to the Membership category on the BFD Forum. One existing Flag Bearer must endorse the applicant.

Membership Rights

Members with the Flag Raiser role can:

  • read and write in all BFD Discord channels.
  • vote on any Community Action Proposal (CAP) to a maximum value of 5,000 USD.
  • initiate CAPs only with support of a Flag Bearer champion.

3.3 Flag Bearer

Membership Requirements

  • Hold Flag Raiser membership for 6 months.
  • Post an application for Flag Bearer membership on the BFD Forum. Six existing Flag Bearers must endorse the applicant.
  • A Snapshot to approve membership must reach 70% approval and meet a quorum of 25% of Flag Bearers.

Membership Rights

Members with the Flag Bearer role can:

  • read and write in all BFD Discord channels.
  • endorse and/or vote on any Membership Proposal.
  • initiate, support, and/or vote on any CAP.
  • propose and/or vote on a change to the BFD Codex.
  • propose and/or vote on Flag Keeper elections.
  • propose and/or vote on membership rights removal.

3.4 Transition Arrangements Applicable to Previous BanklessDAO Members

Previous BanklessDAO members were permitted to join BFD with a 100 USDC deposit until March 2, 2025, without the need for a Snapshot.

Section 4: DAO Organizational Units

4.1 Flag Keepers

The Flag Keeper Council comprises seven Flag Bearers who are responsible for stewarding the DAO’s operations. In practice, this includes, but is not limited to, signing multisig transactions, managing tooling, and appointing members to community roles.

The seven members are elected by Flag Bearers according to the Voting Framework in Section 2.

4.2 Black Flag DAO Vault Multisig Signers

The Black Flag DAO Vault multi-signature wallet (vault multisig) is the holder of DAO funds. It is managed by the seven Flag Keepers, and requires four of the seven members to sign in order for any transaction to be executed.

9 Likes
2

Looks great, I just have a couple of comments that I brought up on the gov call today.

1.1
I’d leave out Ryan & David, and subjective note about why no more BanklessDAO. Just give the dates, we were formerly BanklessDAO and this is the iteration. History and lore is available elsewhere.

Section 4
imo, 4.1 and 4.2 aren’t separate, same-level items. The operational role is Flag Keeper. One of the responsibilities of Keeper is that of being on the multisig and that the minimum there is 4 of 7.

I’d also move the definition of what a Flag Keep is up toward the top. The term is used in various places (ie the table) before explaining what it is.

These were my main feedback items.

Really appreciate your hard work. :clap: It was the weekend, and frankly I just happened to see it during a quick DM check. I didn’t even realize I did not have a Forum account yet for BFD! :grimacing:

6 Likes
3

Awesome feedback, @Droste , thanks!

2 Likes
4

I appreciate this. I was moderately confused by the difference between the flag raiser and flag bearer, mostly, I thought the raiser role was in theory, higher than the bearer role.

Agree with @Droste, here, I think the idea flows in the section with the flag raiser and flag bearer, section. It could make sense to either start the sections with

Flag Curious
Flag Raiser
Flag Bearer
Flag Keeper

To show the natural evolution of a persons journey through Black Flag DAO

Or maybe the other way around (as I write this, I think the evolutionary path seems fitting)

Is membership different than the organizational unit? The way that I read it (seems like droste says this as well) it seems like the organizational unit section and the membership section are similar to each other.. but, I am not sure. What do you guys think?

Will there be a point that talks about this, maybe? (Or maybe there won’t be, or maybe there isnt this idea of guild and groups in black flag DAO). Would that go in here at some point, also?

If that is irrelevant to this particular aspect of this forum post, forgive me, and I understand.

I really like this iteration of the codex, thank you guys for sharing this!

3 Likes
5

Great comments about the evolutionary order. The only correction, is that Flag Keepers are not a membership level (unlike FC, FR and FB), but instead an elected body of 7 Flag Bearers who have an operational role within the DAO, which operates as an organizational unit.

I personally like the suggestion of the graphically representation that @Droste suggested, which may help with understanding the structure. And yes, membership is different from the organizational Flag Keepers unit. The membership levels give you governance rights (Flag Raiser and Flag Bearers only) including submitting proposals and voting in new membership (Flag Bearers only). The Flag Keepers are responsible for the signing of transactions on the multi-sig, appointing roles (like Discord moderators and InfoSec team), managing the DAO tools (i.e. admin rights to social media accounts, etc.).

The Transition Council wanted to simplify the DAO away from the former guilds and groups when we re-built the DAO structure. However as a Flag Bearer, if the community decides they want to add groups or units, the power of the Codex empowers the community for any changes.

4 Likes
6

Fair. I assume it’s because the keepers are an elected role.

1 Like
7

Another thought.

Do you want to add the links to the applications for the Flag Bearer, and MAYBE the Flag Keepers to the codex? Bearing in mind that I can relent that people should be able to come to the forum and find the applications themselves, but you never know.

I’ve always considered a codex as a bit of a wiki to help guide members through understanding the structure of something.

Also, I assume this is self explanatory but do you want to be specific on whether the application needs to be posted to the forum and also linked to discord? (Will this be automatically posted to discord once Wick stops being so mean?) I remember a lot do governance proposals would automatically post using MonitorRSS I believe.

Also, will there be a mention of the Keepers once this codex is finalized?

3 Likes
8

Thanks for the time and effort you’ve given this @Homie :blush:

  • we’re trying to avoid adding links because inevitably they will change and then we need to update the Codex.
  • Yes, hopefully we can get wick under control and the Membership applications should automatically post to Discord.
  • Do you mean a Keeper election?
2 Likes
9

I meant to say a mention of the keeper election, yes :laughing:

Yeah. I see what you mean by the need to change the links often.

I wonder if there’s a way to mitigate that.

2 Likes
10

If you’re talking about Flag Keeper elections (i.e. a call for elections), once the community has commented on Forum by April 7th, the Transition Council will be publishing the final version of the Codex on April 8th. The Transition Council will then call for the Flag Keeper’s elections later that week.

2 Likes
11

I will admit that the aggressive disassociation with Bankless is both confusing and frustrating for many of us who were here at the launch. But I want to acknowledge that thing have happened that are not as clear and got us to this place.

I’d leave the reference in but I’m not so passionate that I would die on that hill.

1 Like
12

“Aggressive disassociation” is a good term for what HQ did. We’re building something new here, from scratch. Having their names in our founding documents is disrespectful to everyone putting in the effort to build this new thing.

4 Likes
13

Would it make sense to flip the current Section 2 and Section 3, placing Membership ahead of Voting? I initially had difficulty separating membership levels from roles (specifically viewing membership as hierarchical with Flag Keepers at the top), but further discussion in the governance call clarified it for me. I think it is also helpful that membership level is defined before the description of voting categories and who the voting members are for each category. Reordering the sections would also create greater separation between the membership and roles because they would no longer be adjoining.

3 Likes
14

If it has to be there I’d rather it be as minimal as possible. But my feelings are personal. The whole vibe of BanklessHQ soured on me after the disassociation, and more so after subsequent actions afterwards.

We know that this came from bdao in part, but perhaps we can also think that the willingness for change was brewing before hand.

1 Like
15

Great feedback, and your suggestion does make it more clear. Check out the latest version in the #governance channel on Discord, since it incorporates your recommendation.

1 Like
16

Great work on the Codex!

My feedback is coming in here at the last minute, and a V2 was already shared with me, so I first took notes on V1, for the record, and then checked off which of those notes were already resolved, and expanded the list for V2.

Having reviewed V2, firstly I love the new graphic.

Here is my updated list of feedback. I know some more explanation would be helpful on some of these, and I’m happy to add more, after I get some context and feedback on these at the gov call coming up.

Black Flag DAO Codex Version 1 & 2 Notes

The Black Flag DAO Codex records the agreed membership and governance parameters adopted by the community known as Black Flag DAO and/or BFD.

  • Let’s say “rules” rather than “parameters”?

Preamble: These parameters, and their explication within the Codex, may only be modified via a community-led process of discussion and subsequent vote by eligible members of Black Flag DAO.

  • needs to be more specific about the vote, or say that it is defined below, so it’s extremely clear

  • 1.1. Remove the history except formerly known as BDAO

Section 2 Voting The onus is on the proposal author to initiate a Snapshot following the minimum discussion period on the BFD Forum. Access to the Snapshot platform is restricted to Flag Bearers.

  • To be clear, I would say “Only XXXX may author proposals” not “the onus is on…”
  • Is 25% the right quorum for every votes (CAPs)?
  • Do we need some kind of defense against DoS attack?
  • This whole area could be more clear; Tatyana could help

Section 3 Membership (Section 2 in V2)

  • Three roles in the Discord, or three roles (period)?
  • Previous BanklessDAO members were permitted to join BFD with a 100 USDC deposit until March 2, 2025, without the need for a Snapshot: I’d say “a vote” intead of “a Snapshot”

4 Org Units

  • I might skip the title “Org Units” and just call it “Flag Keepers and Multisig”
  • Can we combine 4.1 and 4.2 into one paragraph called “Flag Keepers and Multisig” too? Sounds liek the same group.
  • Do we want to say that the Multisig Signers (Flag Keepers) must execute on the wishes of the community as long as it’s a valid vote, or unless x, y, z?

V2 New Feedback

  • V2 still says it’s V1
  • 2.1: what’s the NFT it’s referencing?
  • 2.2 Better to say USD not USDC (throughout), I think? what if we want to allow for a different stablecoin?
  • Generally I think we can’t just say “A Snapshot”; we shoulds ay “A vote”. Then separately we can say that votes must be help on Snapshot as long it’s avaialble, or something like that.
  • We should expand on this “In case of urgent threat, the Flag Keeper Council may act without a community vote to secure the DAO’s infrastructure or treasury”
  • Let’s add a place for a “date approved _________” or similar, for when it’s finalized, and to include in whatever file we put into IPFS etc?
  • I’d love another week to look over V2 in more detail
1 Like
17

Just a quick reply to say thank you for now - the TC will need some time to go through the detail. I also wanted to clarify that we are still on V1 as it’s still in draft. Once V1 is finalised, any changes after that will follow the voting process and become V2 only if approved.

2 Likes