MIP40c3-SP9: Modify Core Unit Budget, CPM-001

I have not said each proposal…, just this one, I expressed what it would be ideal in my mind since this is kinda a “special situation” , then should have a “special situation vote”.

1 Like



In what way is this a special situation?

I’m pretty hesitant to start applying different rules to certain votes / proposals unless there is an ironclad justification for why it’s necessary.

1 Like

I’m not sure I agree there should be different rules for this proposal, but asking for 5,000,000 DAI in unrestricted funds that we may not even be told exactly how it was spent seems like a special situation.

This is a very large budget request in general and given that the marketing communication CU hasn’t clearly communicated what the DAO gets for this budget should allow it to get lots of scrutiny.

I also wouldn’t want all other business to get torpedoed for an entire executive cycle. I’m sure Gov doesn’t want everybody to feel like it’s fork over almost 10 million DAI without strings attached or else no other CUs get onboarded/business accomplished.

Surely there’s a process for this that’s not just reliant upon a poll that may not see much participation? (I don’t actually know — you tell me!)


The poll is the process. You’re asking me if there is a way for this to be voted down without affecting other proposals, there is, and it is the inclusion poll. The entire purpose of that poll within the monthly cycle is to prevent situations such as the one you’re describing (where an unpopular proposal prevents more popular stuff from passing.)

If you don’t feel like the poll is getting, or will get enough participation, or you feel that it’s outcome is leaning in a direction you disagree with, then start campaigning and trying to convince voters to participate and vote against the proposal.


I’m not sure yet I’m at that point, but is the forum an appropriate place to do that? Or should concerns be confined to this thread and chat?

I mean, don’t spam it in every thread or anything, but if you want to highlight it in a separate thread, that’s reasonable.


Thanks for the suggestion.

After considering it carefully, I believe it is best for the Strategic Marcomms unit to go ahead with the budget as proposed which includes the moonshot fund. It should be handled in the same way as the budget implementation.

Thanks for the explanation. I see the growth unit has the date set on the first ten days of each month. We will do the same.

Seb, that understanding is precise, I believe, and I have also stated that in one of my previous replies in case you missed it.

“Without wanting to” is putting words in my mouth. The issue here is finding a solution when urgency and confidentiality are necessary to achieve our goals. Signing confidentiality agreements and acting swiftly on windows of opportunity are some vital business practices for success that we can’t ignore just because we are a DAO. If we are willing to look at an issue clearly, and think about what’s best for the DAO, then that’s likely to lead us to a solution.

PaperImperium, 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.

Yes, I see why some people can be concerned and appreciate the opportunity to explain more in detail. All discussion on this moonshot fund is based on a hypothetical scenario that the unit deems as an opportunity that can potentially provide great ROI on exposure and recognition. The team and I feel responsible for finding solutions for problems that we foresee coming.

To all the people that have commented on this thread, I appreciate your input and understand your concerns.

I know this budget seems high, but keep in mind that the 10% average I cited in the budget proposal is average. Some companies that are aggressive on marketing have a higher budget that’s nearly one-fifth of their revenue.

This issue we have discussed isn’t just about Strategic Marcomms’s moonshot budget. It is about how the DAO can be effective, agile, and competitive even when the standard business practice requires NDAs and the right timing.

The moonshot fund gives my unit more, not less pressure and responsibility to execute. We don’t plan to aim low because this is what it takes to achieve success.


Can you elaborate on the second point? How is this different from what Growth is doing? Are you going after different markets? What partnerships have been the best examples your team has brought on board to date?

When you say “increasing the awareness of DAI,” do you mean amongst the public? Or amongst institutions and businesses? Or something else? What is the value of increasing awareness amongst various groups?

I’m not saying there’s no value, but I would like to know why increasing awareness amongst different segments is a goal and how we measure (realistically) the impact upon our business.

I’m absolutely not a fan of campaigns that are high on spend and unclear how they translate into higher earnings (like naming rights, though I know that was just an example).

Do you have a portfolio of past work with the Foundation that is shareable? I feel like even if we pin down exactly what this CU is supposed to do, at this budget level I wouldn’t want to be buying a pig in a poke (buying something sight unseen).

Please include this in the proposal. Changes for clarification purposes are acceptable. If you are expecting 5M alongside the first transfer payment, this needs to be very clear.

Yep, I think that’s the best outcome here. Can you make this change to the proposal please?

I have heard that Startups win when they have a powerful “secret” about the future that is non-consensus and right—and that can deliver that future in a breakthrough new product. A product will only first appeal to a subset of people (in this case ETH heads—because in other blockchains DAI is almost non-existent) who will believe in you “secret”.

With that in mind—Sir @PaperImperium do you believe DAI has reach full product-market fit, or we just have “Users”?

“For you ideas to spread you must move people to the different future of your design” —Mike Maples, Jr.

I think there’s plenty to do. I just want to know what 9.7 million DAI is supposed to be buying us here. I don’t even know who the marketing target is.

Is it just me who’s confused? I hope so. This is a CU whose whole job revolves around communication, and I feel like there’s a failure to communicate about this CU’s mission, budget, and oversight.

What exactly are they supposed to do? I don’t even understand if this is a B2C or B2B effort, much less what action they are supposed to market — open vaults or integrate us into platforms or accept DAI as payment or just know DAI exists?

This should not be such a hard question to answer, but maybe I’m being dense and just missed something obvious. Explain it to me like I am 5 years old. I won’t be offended.


@PaperImperium I have replied to your questions ten days earlier. Have you seen it?

If it is still not clear, I would certainly be happy to elaborate.

Apologies for missing this. Let me address your points.

Which stage do you think MakerDAO is? And do you see MakerDAO like other crypto platforms? I am genuinely curious in your views.

I have addressed this in the proposal thread. We have a set of deliverables. That will have to be reviewed on a regular basis to be effective.

The expense includes:

  • The gas fee (which by itself can be high and unpredictable).
  • Bank transfer
  • Setting up a company
  • Accounting-related costs
  • Travel expense for conferences

The legal fee is necessary as we consult with lawyers in major jurisdictions. We do not jeopardize the future of MakerDAO and the status of DAI and MKR by market and conduct campaigns in locations that deemed such acts as inappropriate or illegal. Other units wouldn’t have to worry about that issue.

My team and I share the same belief with you. That’s our starting point. However, we also see this as a potential problem that the DAO has to address sooner or later. It is ideal if we can achieve both transparency and effectiveness.

As @ElProgreso pointed out, if everyone is satisfied with the way it is now, then that’s fine. If the community does want to see results and real change, then think twice.