Unlike traditional organizations where strategy is defined and then resources gathered to complete strategy …
many (if not most) digital-native organizations seem to gather resources first (community) through value signalling, and then investigate available capabilities, convert to product and lastly into an emergent strategy.
This inversion doesn’t seem to be intuitive (to me at least) and yet, seems like it has potential to have better outcome fit… things are getting weird when we work off information abundance and low communication friction.
Artisans work off the same org operating model: strategy emerges from the craft, based on available resources.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
- Tipping and shoutouts for good work, democratised across the org
- Integration of customers into shared digital spaces with the company
- Transparency in all components of the org, all metrics across all teams
- Minimal mobility friction between jobs, let ppl follow their muse
- Option for part-time participation across multiple orgs (this is advanced mode)
- Internal payment market for high-need activities (eg bonuses for high-demand work)
- Encouragement / expectation that each employee is building their own personal knowledge management system
Some thoughts on Social DAO token price appreciation:
Need to solve for two problems: 1. Sustainable growth 2. Community freshness
My take is that the current community will need to create sponsor relationships: One member can “host” up to X others with a derivative access token that decays over Y period of time.
Only the holder of the OG membership can mint these decaying passes.
- Hodler Segmentation
- Community Engagement
- Production Alignment
- Governance Participation
- Contributor Profiling
- Partnership & Ecosystem
- Community Dynamism
- Bounty Lead Time and Turnover
Shortcut: volume of discussion on token price vs. production
Metrics:
- % of token holders by reputation
- Messages per hour, reaction mix
- # of in-flight projects, % intermix
- % of membership voting, by proposal type
- Contributor reputation mix, hours per week attention, values cohesion
- Inter-DAO informal agreements, member overlap…
Is not a question that is used, at all, in digital-native communities. Why is that?
Most members assume: You take on what you can, the work will be reviewed anyways, even if they’ve never done something before the internet will help them get there.
Consider how radical this behaviour is. Let it sit for a second. I still can’t believe it.
Of course, many failures will come as a result - but I hope that question doesn’t ever come into the day to day conversation.
It would be likely that the communities founded today will reshape the ecosystem, yet those that expand beyond early adopters are more likely become the dominant behemoths.