[BIP-006] The First Brick 2.0 🧱

Status: Proposed

Co-Author(s): @Halstead a.k.a MillionBear, @n00bleLAND, @drmsxchns.eth, @aBinaryMind, @thatguytrey

Discussions-to: Refer [BIP-006] The First Brick 🧱

Created: 09/09/2021
Snapshot Vote: 26/10/2021 - 01/11/2021

Implementation: Immediate effect.

[NOTE: This is a slightly modified version of the original found here - [BIP-006] The First Brick 🧱. The editing period ended so no more edits could be made to the original]

1.0 - Buzzed Summary:
The proposal set forth here will define an organisational structure for the BBH. Designed with inspiration from the Index Coop, a proven and tested method of decentralised governance. This proposal will define the parameters for different working interest groups and their powers in relation to the BBH community and its resources.

2.0 - Abstract:
The proposed change is to introduce titles for new working groups and broadly define their powers and responsibilities within the BBH community. If implemented, this proposal will lead to the creation of an official hierarchy, providing Bears with the structure and process they need to push forward their ideas. The proposed hierarchy is represented in this rudimentary figure below:

3.0 - Motivation:
As a community we have been bursting out with valuable and credible ideas that have the potential to further the BBH DAO. Unfortunately, it is rare that these ideas are followed through with. A large reason for this is that motivated community members lack the guidance and defined processes and procedures necessary to make their voices and ideas heard. This diminishes the effectiveness of the DAO and impedes upon our ability to accomplish community goals.

4.0 - Specification ‌ Overview: ‌
What it is that the proposal will do to solve the problem will be detailed in this section.

[Click the drop down to expand this section]


4.1 – Groups & Roles:

This is where the proposed working groups are defined and labelled.


A completely free and independent group of motivated individuals called Pods. Individual members can form Pods to work on anything they believe will further the interests of the community. The fundamental differentiation here from Committees is that Pods are NOT endorsed by the Community. Meaning there will be no funds or resources granted to these groups unless or until they become Committees.


This group will be fundamental to driving some of the most important community initiatives such as marketing and investments. Committees can only be formed by explicit consent from the Community. This is done by making a very well-constructed proposal to the community. When a Committee is formed it is on a quarterly probation period. The Community decides at the end of this period if it is worthy of continuing via a fresh community vote.

The Community:

As a DAO one of our goals is to become increasingly decentralised over time, as such it is important that this role is defined. The Community is the community at large, each one of you comes together to form the BBH Community. The Community and its members act as the gatekeepers. They protect the HoneyPot and BBH resources from nefarious, ill-considered, or simply clumsy initiatives.

Powers and resources granted to Committees can ONLY be granted by the Community. Meaning their remains no centre of power.

4.2 – Responsibilities:

In this section, the minimum non-negotiable requirements from Pods and Committees are set out. All groups/roles will be required to operate in accordance with one simple principle:

Growth & Improvement: Whatever the goals are for your group, they must be designed to further the financial, strategic, or social interests of the BBH community and its members.


Pods don’t have many responsibilities. This is the benefit that is derived from being unendorsed. If you have an idea that you think could work, have a go. Form a Pod of people who are interested in progressing your idea and work together to achieve them. You are still entitled to retroactive remuneration as detailed in section 4.4. If the time comes that your Pod feels in need of community resources, make a proposal to become a Committee. The Community will decide if your group is viable.

Minimum Requirements:

  1. The objectives of Pods should be defined at the outset.
  2. Must not conduct themselves in a way that would harm the reputation of the BBH.


Committees will be formed with the intention of using HoneyPot funds and BBH resources to achieve important goals. Therefore, they are answerable to the community.

Minimum Requirements:

  1. Key performance indicators (KPIs): These must be determined within the initial proposal. The Community will then measure the Committees performance over their first quarter against those KPIs. Using this information, the Community votes to continue or end the group.
  2. Objectives: The goals and objectives of Committees must be very clearly defined within the initial proposal.
  3. Size: A Committee must consist of at least three members to ensure that checks and balances exist to protect the community interest.
  4. Conflicting Interest: Committees must be careful to ensure their goals are not conflicting with the goals of other existing Committees.
  5. Funding: The expected costs and funding required must be carefully considered and included in the proposal. The community would decide based on the quality of your proposal if the amount specified is justified.
  6. Reputation: Members of Committees must also refrain from conducting themselves in a manner that would damage the reputation of the BBH.

The Community:

Imposing requirements on the community seems ridiculous because you’re all Chads. There is one rule that should be followed to maintain the integrity of the DAO:

  1. Solicitation of Votes: There should be absolutely no efforts to pay or court any individual within the community to vote in your own interest or the interests of others. Votes should remain the result of an individual’s will.

4.3 - Limits & Power:

The powers sought by Committees must be adequately defined within the initial proposal. A committee operating outside of its remit may be disbanded following a community vote.

Additionally, the Community retains the right to end any working group at any time following the success of a community vote, irrespective of circumstances.

4.4 - Remuneration:

All members that form a Committee are entitled to retroactive remuneration for their work and services to the BBH community. This work will be assessed for its impact to the BBH and appropriate remuneration will be distributed based upon that assessment.

At present, a potential remuneration / reward system being considered is Coordinape.com. This has the potential to make some minor changes to this proposal but those should be explained within the BIP that proposes Coordinape.

5.0 - Rationale:

The proposal has been made because as a DAO we must protect ourselves from irresponsible use of community resources. After much consideration and discussion between the proposal team and even further conversation with our defi experts; we decided that a tiered group system enabling less restrictive oversight, but greater resource protection would be the ideal structure. This method would encourage more considered proposals that wish to utilise our resources but should also prevent voter fatigue from incessant, half-baked proposals.

Initially our proposal was a much more rigid structure with a single working group (a committee). It was designed to establish rules for the formation of committees and their election processes. Due to the reasons discussed above, it was decided this wouldn’t be an effective long-term solution.

6.0 - Technical Specification:

Technical changes resulting from this proposal should involve:

  1. Codifying the new structure and proposed governance of said structure within official BBH documents found here: https://docs.buzzedbearhideout.com/ 5.
  2. Newly formed working groups should be assigned groups on the BBH forum.
  3. A Discord channel that allows community members to seek out others for the formation of Pods & Committees.

7.0 - Test Cases:

A similar model of decentralised governance has been successfully tested and implemented at the Index Coop. A successful FTSE 500 organisation.

Copyright ‌

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

1 Like