[Campaigning] Vote NO on "Inclusion Poll for Strategic Marcomms Core Unit MIP Set - May 10, 2021"

If it is of any help, I have explained in details why the moonshot fund is needed.

The unit’s two key objectives are:

  • Increasing the awareness of Dai and the Maker Protocol
  • Boosting Dai adoption through promotions and partnerships

We want to act on a campaign proposal that is deemed with high ROI for awareness and exposure. The metrics differ depending on the type of campaign. In the case of FTX’s naming rights of the Miami NBA stadium, the measurement would include:

  • An estimate of media exposure
  • Total number of impressions (Or eyeballs)
  • Traffic to the FTX site
  • User growth
  • A total number of FTX goods sold for merchandise branding
  • The number of mentions associated with FTX’s name

The proposition would have to justify the reported cost of $135 million over 19 years, which comes down to about $7 million a year. The reality is that the details of measurement above probably won’t ever be shared.

In our case, after a campaign is introduced to the public, we should and be able to share some details regarding the ROI and other data to the extent agreed upon with our potential partners.

I am not saying buying naming rights is how we want to spend our moonshot fund, but that is one example of getting seen and known by a target audience beyond crypto.

Apple’s “Think Different” TV ads and AOL’s free trial CDs are some excellent examples of how we can creatively approach our target audience. Apple’s ad touches people in so many ways without a word on computers. AOL’s CD campaign successfully onboarded millions of users. They differ in the form of ads/marketing campaigns, but their success is achieved by aiming higher and the willingness to take risks.

No, I am not speaking on behalf of the Growth Core Unit. I let Nadia do that. I am just giving input.

What I meant is that with BD I know the results we can get with a huge budget. I am sure we over time can do great things on the marketing front, but going all-in from day one is what gives push-back on the proposal. Rather than doing trial and error and scaling the budget up over time we go full throttle from day one without knowing the results we will get.

So far I think a lot of our sticky user acquisition has come from BD. This has for sure been helped by marketing post-integration which is why I think the Growth Unit should have a say in how to deploy the capital. Outreach → Deal structuring → Integration → Marketing. It is during deal structuring where the marketing budget and method are typically allocated.

With a smaller initial budget, I am sure that it will pass. There is always the possibility to do amendments later on.


I am posting this link here as it is a relevant in our discussions.

I suppose by now this is an overly discussed topic, but still, I have put together a post for those who are interested in learning what this Moonshot Fund is about and why the Strategic Marcomms team is pushing for it. Hope this would provide a clear picture for everyone to see what it is all about.

1 Like

guys, you are looking at the the most impressive growth of any project in defi, and the only case in the entire industry where this growth is turned into absurd profits. And your conclusion is to fire the marketing team


So here’s the thing: I see a peek at what Growth/BD has done. MarComms is a complete unknown. If we want to put millions of DAI to work to continue growth, I see both track record and momentum for Growth and RWF. I see promise and have begun to hear ideas for Oracles. I even see how Risk(!) can directly contribute to earnings.

I don’t believe marketing is worth 0 DAI. But if the marketing unit cannot even market itself by providing a plan, a track record, or both, then I know which units I will be advocating for larger budgets, and this CU is not it.

Come back next month with a detailed plan, a transparent budget, no unrestricted funds in the millions of DAI, and a Q&A with your critics. Note that if there’s someone willing to build a CU for marketing, don’t feel as if you can’t provide an alternative CU proposal.


Yes, it’s been quite the fight for the Marcomms Core Unit–I hope they’re like Muhammed Ali and know how to “Bob and Weave” – and can bounce back.


I mean we can always Hire Gary V. for $20M a year :slight_smile:

1 Like

You are asking these people to jeopardize the regulatory status of the entire project so they can keep their jobs. Are you sure that’s really what you want?

1 Like

This bs is starting to approach gaslighting.

They are proposing a 5 million USD budget to do something similar to the miami arena sponsorship that FTX did. A type of deal that needs a certain level of confidentiality before it can be executed. That’s how it works. How can it be made any more crystal clear???

It sounds like you won’t be satisfied unless they straight up drag rihanna onto the forums to do a live governance Q&A


I agree 100%. Moreover the community should be prepared that people will be coming out of the woodwork with proposals like this in a variety of areas trying to take advantage of how flush with cash the Foundation is, and they will put forth flashy (but ultimately substanceless) proposals that will trick voters if they make only a cursory review… Everyone should be aware of this.


The Maker Foundation and MakerDAO are different entities, the Foundation isn’t really involved here (nor is it flush with cash anymore.)

While I can see the merit of this as a general warning, posting it in this thread implies that the proposed marcomms unit is malicious and attempting to trick the DAO out of money. I’ve seen no evidence that this is true, nor do I think this is a concern that many share.

Please don’t imply stuff like this if you can avoid it, try to engage in good faith, and assume that others are engaging in good faith until there is evidence to the contrary.


No matter the outcome, we must recognize this isn’t about who is getting a bigger budget. It is about collaboration among teams. That is the only way to grow the MakerDAO ecosystem.

@PaperImperium You may not mean it, but your comment concerns me because it creates division rather than unity. Marketing supports all units as it brings visibility and business opportunities to the DAO from both supply (vaults) and demand (DAI users) side, and across all teams. The marketing CU’s budget will only be used to promote and support the DAO and all the CUs in the DAO. It isn’t about who is getting a more significant cut in the pie.

On both the forum and RC, you have repeatedly said the CU has no plan, no strategy, and the team “can’t market” and “that’s ironic,” which started to seem a bit off. You said that the team couldn’t even communicate properly, at the same time, there was no response regarding my answers to your questions, and after ten days you asked the same thing again. Either we are in a weird time loop, or something just doesn’t add up.

I believe having a call with the community will help with the communications, which we are planning. Also, it would help us, the unit, communicate better if you can read my response to your questions to continue with such discussion.

Here’s our proposal/plan, which has been revised after taking in feedback from the community.

Here’s the track record of the team members and their credentials:
The CU contributors also include @Saludiego_201 @Alefcripto @AdrienDLT and a former advertising specialist from a well-known agency has just joined. We will be able to add theirs for sure.

My past work and my credentials for anyone who is interested in reading more.

The foundation’s marcomms team has been a focus in discussions, despite I am the only one that has worked there. (The rest of the team members consist of individuals who have been ambassadors or individuals passionate about MakerDAO who have inspired me in their faith in MakerDAO.)

The focus should be on whether the CU has team members who can take their expertise, background, and transferable skills to apply what they are going to do in an agile environment to achieve their goals.


Could @LongForWisdom @Davidutro or someone with the ability to do so please archive/close this thread? Everything in it was about a specific proposal at a specific time and I don’t want it to be construed as a position on future proposals.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you and your team worked mainly in the Japanese market. I have no idea what a successful marketing strategy looks like in Japan, but I am sure you have to have different communication strategies in different markets around the world. For example, multinational companies often make the mistake of looking at the EU market as a single consistent market - like Japan or the US - and not understanding why their strategy doesn’t work equally well in each EU country. Maybe I’m naive, but what if the only problem is that you need to communicate your results more clearly and loudly here, than you did it before? If no one here heard about your achievements, why should they trust you?

I agree that because of the smell of money, fraudulent people will show up here in the future and so it is important to build trust between participants.

This thread is important because you can see a type of problem here and you can see that this is how the system is currently dealing with the problem. If we want it to work better, we need to fix it together.

1 Like

Okay I can answer you, if you see in the initial proposal https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip39c2-sp9-strategic-marcomms-core-unit/7189 you will see that it will be separated and distributed by sector, me and @Alefcripto cripto are in the South American market, along with two more members of the DAG of Colombia, each pair of guys work in the DAGs Venezuela and Colombia respectively. If you want a summary of what we achieved during 9 the DAG of Venezuela respectively you can see it here https://forum.makerdao.com/t/makerdao-venezuela-round-up-february-april-2021/7708 All this achieved without spending a single DAI in advertising, only constant work with our community and love our work.


These are actually very nice results. I understand that you are a CU contributor and not a team member and perhaps this is a reason why these were not highlighted in the CU’s track record when I asked for a summary? I also really like the fact that this was done with zero funding from the Foundation (please correct me if I misunderstood).

I don’t speak for everyone but I imagine it would be far more palatable for many to see these kinds of initiatives get small amounts of funding to start with and organically get bigger - both in terms of budget and results.


If we receive, compensation, in fact you can see it there.
CDIP 41 - DAI LatAm Action Groups Extension 2 · Issue #1133 · makerdao/community · GitHub

Of which our Venezuela budget, we only allocated as you can see in the summary.

I understand your point, but you must keep in mind that this is not only Venezuela or Colombia, it is all Latam, from Mexico to Argentina.

Which represents a greater delivery and campaigns more moderately to strongly aggressive, use and develop communities is a key factor, remember a user well treated and at ease will bring two more.