Are we having a loud minority problem?

I am writing to ask the community to vote yes on the Strategic Marcomms proposal. As an MKR holder and a proposed facilitator for the unit, I am concerned that the DAO faces a loud minority issue. And yes, it is me advocating for the unit our team has proposed. More importantly, it is also about the problem I see here as someone who has a stake in the well-being of the DAO.

It is crucial to get your voice heard for sure, which is why I am in this space in the first place because of my strong belief in that. However, the issue I find here is if someone doesn’t understand what marketing is, then it is tough to get them to see why it is essential even when it is explained in simple terms. The same questions are asked repeatedly on the Forum, even after the answers are laid out clearly, and feedback is addressed in the proposal. For example, a question about our target audience is still being asked even though that’s being addressed. If more elaboration is needed, why not directly ask from there? Ten days after, the same set of questions were asked again.

Like any company or team, the Strategic Marcomms team is here to solve problems, precisely problems related to marketing. And some people in the community understand that. How do we increase the awareness of Maker protocol and increase Dai adoption?

One thing for sure, DAI is not just for large vault owners unless you see DAI as XRP. That is also a very limited view of what MakerDAO is, in my opinion.

The Moonshot fund is the solution to a problem that we seek to solve. It is an issue that we anticipate will arise, how we can solve the problem of keeping confidentiality while being able to act swiftly when opportunities arise as a DAO.

In addition, 5 million DAI may seem like a lot for someone who doesn’t know marketing or how an advertising campaign works. That level would seem just about right for those in marketing and advertisement as it is laid out in the budget proposal.

Given all the explanation, if someone still doesn’t see why it is needed at all, then let me ask:

Ray Dalio explains in his book Principles of decision-making. When you have a question or a problem to solve, considering the best decision-making process, do you ask the credible person who knows the issues at hand? That is the question we as a DAO need to ask ourselves.


Excellent answer, we can’t exclude the fact of DAI principles or why I met and fell in love with the project in 2018, just when I was 16 years old, because of the inclusiveness, an unbiased money and that everyone can use.

Maybe the current gas prices on Mainnet do not allow it, but our own community looked for other channels to continue using DAI and that is an important point, users want DAI.

We have the mission and objective to carry this message, to make known the protocol and its star product DAI.

I think until the mission is not over, until we get to this mission.


Just to address this, I don’t think this is an issue. @PaperImperium is certainly loud and sometimes posts too much :wink: but in this case, I think the issues being raised are reasonable. I say this as someone who started looking into this only after the campaigns were started. There is quite a large gap between the two sides and I hope we can engage on the issues itself. Here’s my take on it - and it’s only a single data point - but I think some of it will help close the gap between the two sides.

I went through this thread and this one for a couple of hours and here’s the issues that I find troubling.

  1. Prior record It is claimed that up until now, a total of 10M DAI has been spent on DAI awareness with little to show for it. This is also raised by @PlanetX here. The question to ask is why is it different this time. What didn’t work during the Foundation’s time but will now?

  2. The control over the 5M moonshot fund Your new thread proposing a multisig probably helps but the traditional operating practices involving NDAs and confidentiality do conflict with a DAO’s modus operandi. I don’t have a solution here but I am just pointing out that this is going to need some serious thought before you can find consensus. I understand your point of view that this is just how things work in your industry but we’re in a hybrid situation here (a DAO doing traditional marketing) so it might need something unconventional. It seems like a square peg - round hole situation right now.

  3. The budget size The moonshot fund is the biggest point of contention here. You did point out that this might be a marketing people vs non-marketing people issue. I fall in the latter category and indeed it seems like a very large budget to me. That said, I can imagine that this is normal for those with a different background from me. In any case, I still think it is important to show that such a budget is both normal and necessary to convince those without a marketing background. Without that conensus, it will be hard to move forward and appeal to authority cannot be a solution here. I think this would need a separate thread and I’m happy to ask more detailed questions there, if you choose to create one. There is also this post by @Aes that, as far as I can see, was not answered.

I think it would help if you could address these points either here or in the “No” campaign thread, where many of the same questions are asked. My personal opinion is that the proposal, in its current form, is not where it needs to be to achieve consensus but I don’t think any of the the issues are insurmountable. Thanks for reading!


are you kidding me?

1 Like

I appreciate your input and glad to see you taking the time to engage and discuss. Let me address your points.

First of all, this isn’t accurate. May I ask where you got that from? It works the same and sounds very similar with the rhetoric of “4,000 Youtube views are the only thing that one has ever done or accomplished.” Its goal is to over simplifying things, repeat and repeat, and make them less than what they actually are.

The foundation had its hands tied, where as this core unit is set out to do what the foundation couldn’t.

I appreciate you actually consider the issue/problem/solution I am trying to highlight. I also agree that everything we do here at the DAO, including our proposal, is unconventional.

Perhaps it can be perceived that way. I want to make this clear. This is more about people who seek to understand and get to the bottom of it and actually understand it vs those who don’t. You, for one, I see that you seek to learn and understand. That’s very much appreciated.

1 Like

Hi Kathleen,

I really don’t think this is fair. You were the one who linked to the YouTube video when asked for examples of the CUs work.

You have been repeatedly asked for other examples by myself, @PaperImperium and others and haven’t provided them.

How else are we supposed to judge your teams’ work if you cannot provide us with evidence by which to make assessments? Inevitably the default will be that we look at what you have provided us.

If you think there is evidence of effective marketing why not link it in response here? I promise that I will view it objectively


Below is a list what I have highlighted as track record and credentials. And I see that you seek to understand, so I can imagine you would see why it is frustrating when you are judged by a reply to a question in a chat even after you have highlighted them.

This is from the previous post.
Here are some examples of marketing campaigns that boosted the traffic to Maker’s homepage and blog In Japan. Note that the success has limited to Japan, and it can be easily tweaked for and adopted by the global market. Please also check these hashtags because then you can see how they resonate with people.

July 2020
One’s favorite food campaign - one’s favorite food in Japanese is Daikoubutsu. We ran this campaign after the restaurants started to reopen after the first wave of the pandemic. We asked people to show their support for their favorite restaurants by posting pictures of their favorite food on social media and the name of the restaurant and tag to #dai好物 (DAIkoubutsu). The participants got Dai in return. Then we shared how Dai can be used.
*1,400% surge of visits to our blog page for the campaign period.
*The campaign generated 62.8K impressions on the campaign’s tweets and replies, while #dai好物 had 251K impressions.

September 2020
Where’s Dai? (or dokoDAI) This campaign invites people to find or create things that consist of Dai or something that includes dai sound. We ask them to tweet it and tag it to #dokoDAI. After that, as a token of appreciation, we put all the submissions into a mosaic DAI.
The hashtag #どこDAI reached at least 160K of Impressions.

November 2020
Haikudaikai: We collaborated with the biggest crypto news outlet in Japan and ran a haiku competition.
*Number of new sessions/visits to our blog more than doubled
*The hashtag #俳句DAI会 reached at least 67K of Impressions.

I didn’t mention it directly, but I got Rune on Bloomberg. It was the first of its kind back in 2019. See below:

My credentials are highlighted here:


This is one of the six points in the first post of the “No” campaign. I do not know the original source of that information. If it is incorrect, could you please also clarify how much funding was actually allocated to marketing and over what period? I assume the results in your second post is a complete list of accomplishments with that amount of funding. This should then make your team’s track record clear for everyone to see and then everyone is free to judge based on that.

Understood, but again, could you elaborate on what exactly you couldn’t previously do that you are now able to?

If you’d like to point people to a place where there is useful summary of the marketing team’s accomplishments (which we now have with the post made by Kathleen) and/or budget used, that’d be much more constructive.

Honestly, the tone of this campaign and the lack of good faith engagement from both sides is wearisome and posts like that do not help. It would be far better if issues could be discussed in a more rational and dispassionate way.


“Almost 10 million DAI” is the requested annualized budget (9.7 million DAI). I have no knowledge of what budget was available at the Foundation. Just to clarify.

Hi Kathleen, thanks for providing this thorough post. I do appreciate your engagement on this issue and it really shows your dedication to your team.


I wish I could provide the exact answers to your questions. However, I won’t be able to share any data from the foundation. My past work and credentials have been highlighted here. The core unit consists of veterans from well-known advertising agencies, individuals with extensive marketing, events, and community-building experience.

Running ads and marketing campaigns, positioning MakerDAO as the leader in open generation finance, providing thought leadership content and utilizing PR communications to increasing the awareness of Maker and DAI. More details are being listed in the proposal.


Thank you @mkrorbkr


To be honest, without this data, it is very hard to judge your team’s track record. If a similar amount DAI was allocated to marketing by the Foundation compared to your current request, then the results are underwhelming and would suggest that this is a poor way to achieve growth and increasing awareness.

1 Like

have you checked daistats recently?

Are you actually claiming that DAI’s growth to ~5B is primarily a result of the marketing team’s work so far as opposed to the multitude of other factors at play?


I believe that is the result of all the hard work that the foundation has done and nearly completed, as well as the tireless commitment and contribution from the MakerDAO community. :muscle:t3:

No one team can do this alone.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but let me try to turn that around for you. You’re telling me it was all a big fluke? We just whoops’ed ourselves to almost 5 billion of dai demand?

Saying that I’m claiming it is “primarily the result of the marketing teams work” isn’t just putting words in my mouth, it is also fundamentally failing to understand the most basic economics of marketing. Marketing just need to have positive ROI, period. So when I called your bluff by linking to daistats, you cognitively dissonanced yourself into demanding a marketing team that “primarily drives the growth of the project”.

You could have an absolute shit project that is just limping off a cliff edge, yet technically it could have a marketing team whose work is “primarily behind 100% of the growth”. It makes absolutely no sense.

Marketing is about building upon and pushing all of the factors that drive growth. Again, it is about positive ROI by directing efforts and energy towards the key leverage points of the broader organic factors that drive growth.

And yes it sucks the marketing team can’t share much of the specific things they did since it was done while they worked for the Foundation, and the Foundation naturally always prioritizes not running afoul of the howey test (and no matter how much you complain this won’t change because these people actually have the best interest of the project in mind). But you dont fire the marketing team of a project that got to 5 billion USD of demand unless your goal is to fail.

1 Like

I have a feeling that this conversation will look very different in 3 months time, or possibly even by the time the vote ends.
Dai generation is screaming upwards at a rate of 50 million per day, looking like it’s only now getting into its stride in hockey stick-shaped growth. The Protocol is generating 200 million Dai per year in funding. We’ll hit 10 billion Dai in 100 days and likely well before given the accelerating pace. I doubt anyone here would express surprise at the idea of a 20 billion Dai supply by the end of 2021 and the better part of a billion Dai in annual revenues.
It’s regrettable, if understandable, that more details of the Foundation’s marketing successes can’t be communicated. But just putting the amount into context, 10m Dai to help drive even a fraction of the next billion or ten seems like a decent ROI.


Lets try to be precise here. If this proposal fails to pass, that does not equate to firing the marketing team. The DAO does not have, and has never had a marketing team, the Foundation does / did.

If this proposal fails to pass, that indicates that the DAO is not willing to hire the Foundation marketing team on the terms they proposed. Now, that’s obviously an unfortunate outcome for those involved especially if they made plans around this proposal passing before it was voted on.

But it doesn’t necessarily indicate:

  • An unwillingness to work with this marketing team on other terms.
  • An unwillingness to pursue marketing in general for the DAO.

The current state of the vote means exactly what it means and no more: that the terms of the current proposal are not viewed favourably.

Let’s try to engage charitably here @Replenish2030. Your previous statement was 5 words long, can you really blame someone for misunderstanding your point? If you’re going to engage maybe consider elaborating on your views from the start, rather than offering sub 10-word comments. Eli just posted a thread on the topic here: Good Faith Discussions and the DAO

@AstronautThis please try to engage from a position of good faith as well.


This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.