On November 17, dYdX Foundation hosted a discussion with Reverie on Discord about their proposal to form an Operations subDAO.

We have included the AMA audio file and a redacted transcript below.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Great. All right. I guess we can get started. Hey everyone, thanks for coming on to this week's AMA. Derek and Carl from the Reverie team thought it would be a really good opportunity to run through the Ops subDAO proposal with the community so they can talk through it in greater detail and answer any questions from those listening in.

To give everyone a quick TLDR of the agenda today, Josh and I will be asking a few questions to the Reverie team based on comments on Commonwealth and some that we've thought of additionally. And then it'd be great for everyone in the audience to engage here and bring your thoughts and questions up to the stage after we've rattled off our questions. And if people aren't comfortable with speaking in public, then by all means post your questions in the trading general channel and we'll do our best to keep an eye on this and ask them at the end.

Let's get started. Derek and Carl, I guess for those who don't know you guys in the community and are new to the ecosystem, it would be awesome for you guys to just do an intro, explain what Reverie does, both in the current dYdX ecosystem and maybe outside as well.

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, for sure. So, Reverie launched over a year ago now as basically a governance advisory shop where we work across different protocols on different levels. It varies on each protocol, but we take a very hands-on approach to helping out with scaling the DAO, growing the community, improving community engagement, and helping with general protocol growth in whatever measure we see as best fit and whatever is available to us.

With dYdX, we've been active for pretty much a year since we joined and started working closely across different levels. Most actively through the Grants Program, which Reverie helped launch at the beginning of this year in January, with Reverie serving as Grants lead. We had Grants v1 run for the beginning of the year, and then we had Grants v1.5 launch this summer with us remaining on as the Grants lead.

We've taken on a few different other projects. We have the new asset listing working group. We've helped with a few different proposals and we've tried to make our voice heard and help out wherever possible as well and help guide the protocol toward sustainable and scalable growth.

We also work across a few different protocols and in similar ways, but it does vary based on the community, the team and everything like that. But that's kind of generally how we operate on a day to day.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Awesome. I guess based on that then it'd be great for you to just touch on your experience with DAOs and subDAOs. Are there any lessons you can take from those who have done well, what's not worked, and what's been a success in the industry as a whole?

Derek (Reverie):

Yeah. Happy to jump in. I think it's a great question. We've been involved in a few different kinds of subDAOs, I think both in dYdX and outside. We've experienced the highs, the lows, and I think we've certainly learned a lot about best practices. The dYdX Grants Program is the most visible example within dYdX, but there are other things like some ideas around a new asset listing group among other things.

I think the main thing I would emphasize is like, the main purpose of subDAOs is to really create a middle ground for communities to make decision-making a little bit more efficient and targeted, while still having some kind of checks and balances. So, I think that's the driving motivation behind why subDAOs fundamentally matter at all.

For them to operate effectively I think there are two things. You need to identify and have the right people in place to make decisions. So, if the subDAO's focus is on risk, ideally you want folks with a risk background that are trustworthy and incentivized to make the recommendations.

I would say the other important area I think is just communication and transparency. I think that is fundamentally critical to how subDAOs are perceived and how successful their work is overall. I think communication in terms of what the subDAOs are doing or what they're focused on and being open about some of the challenges they're facing, I think that's important. Overall, I think subDAOs are a great innovation and have a lot more thoughts on how things can be done.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Awesome. Thanks for that Derek. That's really good context. I guess what might be helpful as well now is if Josh could jump in and give some context around the dYdX Foundation's blog post, that would be helpful.

Josh (dYdX Foundation):

Happy to. Thanks James. So, for everybody who hasn't had the chance to read it, I would encourage you to head over to the dYdX Foundation blog on November 2nd, we released a post called 'A Take on dYdX DAOs Near Future.' I can just give you guys a quick summary now. I think looking at the state of affairs going on in the DAO, we thought it was extremely important to draw the community's attention towards evaluating the state of the dYdX DAO at different time intervals. Specifically, today and eventually what the structure of the DAO should look like at the launch of dYdX V4, which is targeted for Q2 of 2023. We hope that the dYdX community will start brainstorming and thinking about what actionable steps need to be taken to get from point A to point B.

The dYdX DAO is important because dYdX V4 will be fully decentralized and open-sourced. It is really important to have a bunch of different subDAOs which can execute and fulfill the functions to keep the exchange running, as well as bolster up the dYdX community. But at this moment in time, I would say the only subDAO really inside of the dYdX ecosystem is the dYdX Grants Program.

We felt that to spark discussion about what the future of the dYdX DAO will look like, we decided to release this blog post, which essentially outlines that an operation subDAO is most likely essential for the success of the dYdX DAO in the future for the reasons outlined in the blog post. The main deliverable that we saw there was essentially the establishment of a playbook that other subDAOs could follow if a community member wants to form a subDAO after the Operations subDAO is formed. The operations subDAO should reduce a lot of the barriers to entry for other subDAOs and dYdX community initiatives.

I think a lot of people have questions about what the formal legal entity structure of a subDAO should be. How should things inside a subDAO be structured? What does optimal management of the subDAO look like? So really the operations subDAO, if the community decides to form it, would involve assisting with all those things I just mentioned.

We posted the potential roadmap and take on the dYdX DAO's position on November 2nd, and Reverie put a proposal forward last week. So, we'll turn it over to Reverie just to hear a little bit more about their proposal and their decision to put the proposal forward which I think would be great for the dYdX community.

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, absolutely. When the dYdX Foundation posted the blog post, the vision for the dYdX DAO resonated with us.

If you look at it today, there isn't really any sort of structure. There is only the Grants Program and then there's everybody else contributing on a very flat level thing. So, as we scale towards full decentralization, decision-making is suddenly distributed in that flat environment. And what we've seen across other protocols is that that brings progress and development and changes to a very quick halt where suddenly, you don't have people taking ownership and when they do, you have everybody kind of arguing over what the best process is and how to move forward.

That's where subDAOs come in and they create this awesome structure for the community to depend on mutual contributors who are voted into specific functions that drive protocol growth in their specific areas. And given how much we do within this space, given our experience setting up the Grants trusts and other legal entities outside of dYdX, we just felt like this resonated with us, the operations subDAO. And we felt like we are well equipped to drive this forward and present the community with the best possible interpretation of this operation subDAO and of the DAO Playbook that is going to be our primary responsibility.

The goal is to then deliver this playbook to the dYdX community so that community members immediately have an efficient way of setting up new subDAOs that can take ownership of these protocol functions that continue to drive growth.

In terms of background, we are very active across multiple DAOs. We set up legal entities and subDAO working groups. I have five years of experience in operations at a large market-making firm in crypto. And so, when it comes to the operational piece of this subDAO, that's my home and I feel very comfortable there and I know that I'll be able to apply all my experience there.

So that just really spoke to us and we felt like we would be able to be great contributors. And then we feel very passionate about this. And we learned from the Grant's Trust that there are a lot of nuances to setting up these legal entities. And that's where we hope to apply the knowledge that we've learned to this playbook so that community members don't have to make the same mistakes, they don't have to go through the same barriers we did and they can just immediately turn to this document and walk through how to go about this process.

Because just to clarify, if it isn't immediately clear, these subDAOs will need to establish themselves as legal entities. And the legal entities will vary depending on the functions of the subDAO. They're not all going to be Guernsey Purpose Trusts as we set up for the Grants Trust and as we plan to set up for this subDAO. And so, there's just a lot of different questions as to like, okay, well is it a Purpose Trust? Is it a Cayman Foundation? Is it some other type of entity? What do we do? How do we go about this and everything? And that's the goal here because we've experienced all that before.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Awesome. Thanks for that, Carl. And then obviously the playbook you were just talking about, who gets to decide if Reverie should receive, let's say the dollar publication fee outlined in the blog post?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, that's a fair comment. The way that I envision it, I think it should be pretty straightforward for everybody to come to an agreement that, yes, we did deliver on this responsibility and that's just by the actual timely publication of this playbook. And I think everybody will be able to evaluate it in a way that makes sense, it's accessible and it delivers on all of the promises that we're making with regards to guiding efficient community establishment and future subDAOs.

On top of that, we have fellow trustees and an enforcer who act as additional checks and balances on the work that we're doing. They can act on behalf of the community with regard to assessing the deliverable of the playbook.

The reason we chose to split the payment in this way is to hold ourselves and for the community to be able to hold us accountable to the primary goal, the Operations subDAO. And we expect future subDAOs to follow with some structures where rather than just paying us a flat monthly fee and hoping that we deliver on this, we hold ourselves accountable to the ultimate goal of establishing this subDAO.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Yeah, that makes sense. And then moving on to the formation of the Ops subDAO as a Guernsey trust, why did you decide to form it in that way and are there any significant lessons learned in the process of that?

Derek (Reverie):

Yeah, so I think it's important to mention first that as part of the Ops trust playbook we will explore many different kinds of legal entities aside from the Guernsey trust. Some examples could be things like a Cayman Foundation, a BVI Foundation, and potentially a few others. I think part of our research will be going into, depending on a subDAOs behavior and focus, which legal entities would be the most suitable.

I would say our thoughts right now are based on the legal advice that we've gotten - that the focus of the Ops subDAO is better suited to a Guernsey Purpose trust. We're familiar with it through the Grant's trust and it's just a structure that we know how to operate and are comfortable with it overall.

James (dYdX Foundation):

So, thanks a lot Derek. That's helpful. AX07, I'll get you up at the end of this and then you can ask any questions you'd like. Moving on to the next one. You've had some comments on Commonwealth about a potential conflict of interest there. I mean, is there any conflict of interest with Reverie being the enforcer of the DGP and a trustee of the Ops subDAO?

Carl (Reverie):

Fair question, but if you look at the responsibilities outlined, we don't see any conflict there. No grants will be issued with regards to the Ops subDAO and the Ops subDAO will never be involved with the Grant's budget or the Grants Program in any way. These are two separate entities with different objectives.

Looking further ahead as well as the DAO grows, I think it's reasonable and possible to expect long-standing community members to serve on multiple subDAOs based on their experience and backgrounds. So, you might see on more than one occasion a community member may be an enforcer on subDAO A and a trustee on subDAO B. I think it's not something that we should rule out as something that can never happen because it does, it just turns back to, given the knowledge that we've gained from serving as the enforcer of the DGP is what makes us a qualified trustee for this entity. And you can see similar patterns evolve further down the line.

So as long as there isn't any way for us to benefit from this trust with regard to our enforcement role, then there isn't any conflict and we don't see any sort of correlation or linkage there.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Nice, thanks for that Carl. And then moving on to how Reverie plans to keep the community updated on their progress. I mean, are there any lessons learned or anything you are going to optimize for keeping the community updated on the progress here?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, for sure. Success is largely dependent on communication and transparency and the ability of dYdX community members to hold subDAO contributors accountable to the responsibility and the goals outlined. For us, that means sharing monthly reports that go into detail as to the work that we've done over the prior month, our balances and sharing initial drafts or whatever it might be on the work that we're doing.

I also imagine we can open up channels like what we have with the Grants Program where people can share progress and people can ask us questions. We can be available as I try to be at all times with community questions.

And there was also a comment about the bank account. And I think we can probably spin up a really quick website that just shows some of our progress and some of the content that we're doing. I don't want to over-promise it because it depends on the bank that we go with. And I have faced some pretty poor banking tech infrastructure in my days, but 90% of the banks out there do have a pretty easily digestible API that we should be able to set up a dashboard that tracks and provides a live update of all of our API activity. And we'll include banking statements, as well as monthly reports so that people can audit everything that we're doing and make sure that nothing weird is going on.

James (dYdX Foundation):

That's brilliant. Yeah, that makes sense. In your post on Commonwealth, you touched on operational and legal expenses. Can you give any examples of what some of that might entail?

Carl (Reverie):

We'll first need to spend money on legal counsel to help establish the entity. That means getting Guernsey Council to draft a trust agreement and any other relevant documentation to formalize and set up this entity. And so that's going to be the immediate legal expense. But then going forward, based on our activity and our responsibilities, we will pretty much always need to turn to legal, just confirmation or guidance when it comes to the bank account that we're going to open. When it comes to working with different service providers and the agreements that we have to sign to make sure that the DAO and the subDAO is protected at all times there.

In our experience with the Grants trust, there are always going to be agreements to sign and work to be done with regard to updating that requires legal help and as such requires expense.

On the operational side, we have plans to open up a bank account, and that isn't free. That costs money. Already you have that and then you have this idea of the Ops subDAO being responsible for establishing communication channels that the DAO can depend on. For example, Slack or potentially taking ownership of Discord, the Gathertown that was set up through Grants. The Ops subDAO could be responsible for paying for apps so that it moves away from Grant's responsibility.

There are also probably other service providers that we're going to use. And all of those are just operational expenses that we have to account for. And this Operations subDAO can be responsible for paying on behalf of the DAO going forward.

James (dYdX Foundation):

That makes sense. Yeah. Thanks, Carl. And the last few questions I guess from us. Do you anticipate any hurdles in forming this subDAO and following through with the deliverables?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, in this space, you never know, it's unwise to try to predict further than even an hour from now. But from our initial assessment and just the work that we did in building this proposal and getting some initial guidance, we're not seeing any immediate blockers to being able to follow through with this. On the DAO playbook, we feel very happy with our competency and my background in building that.

The key activities where it might get a bit trickier and maybe we might see more hurdles than what we're anticipating are things like the bank accounts and some other kinds of environments where, especially given the current happenings in the space, I might set us back a little bit, but from what I can tell, I'm very optimistic that we can accomplish all the responsibilities outlined within the timeframe that we've set up of six months. Also, we plan to keep the community immediately aware of any sort of hurdles that we face.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Brilliant. Thanks for that. Okay, I think that's pretty much everything from my end. What are the next steps for you guys then after this, you've gained comments, and feedback on Commonwealth, what are the next steps?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, for sure. it's a good one to ask here. The next step for us would be to put up a Snapshot proposal. If the Snapshot proposal passes, then that gives us a green light that the dYdX community is in favor of moving forward with this. And as such it makes sense to begin engaging the legal counsel about establishing the entity. Because that's when we begin incurring costs and we don't want to incur necessary costs ahead of a potential snapshot failure where the community doesn't think this is a good idea.

After a successful on-chain vote is approved, then we should receive the operational capital to form and start working on the objectives that we laid out in the proposal.

At the same time that we are preparing to create the on-chain vote, we plan to start working with counsel to draft the trust agreement, formalize the entity, set up the multi-sig, and much more to ensure that everything is in place for the on-chain proposal. The subject matter of this proposal falls under the short timelock because it involves transferring DYDX from the community treasury to the Ops trust multisig. Everything should be set up so that by the time that on-chain vote is live, the community votes, and if that vote passes, it formally establishes the Guernsey Purpose Trust because it's through on-chain governance that these trusts are enforced.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Excellent, exciting. Awesome. Okay, that's everything from me. Is there anything on your end that you want to add to that? Any other things that you want to touch on? If not, we can open up the floor to a few people.

AX07 (community member):

So, with these subDAOs, how would the structure be in the future? Will this structure change, how would the structure be with subDAOs, and how many subDAOs do you think there would be in the future? Or is it going to be just more than one subDAO that creates another subDAO instead of the DAO creating lots of different subDAOs?

Carl (Reverie):

The idea is always for community members through the DAO to have full control over any subDAO that's being established and to be responsible for establishing any future subDAOs. We would not expect a subDAO to be responsible for launching or holding accountable another subDAO. The subDAOs that are set up always report back to community members, which acts as the DAO.

The thing that we're trying to solve here is improving decision-making, and making protocol ownership, growth parameters and everything else that goes into managing a successful protocol more efficient through delegated authority basically to these different subDAO contributors based on their expertise and their knowledge.

So, with regards to how many subDAOs are established, it is very hard to say. For example, there are several subDAOs that you can think of like treasury management and allocation, protocol risk, parameter setting, growth, meta governance, and research.

I could go on all day, but I think the important thing is to always be sure that a subDAO has properly defined responsibilities and objectives so that the community can adequately hold them accountable to set goals within a certain timeframe. If we start setting up subDAOs where it's like, yeah, go do growth for a year without proper KPIs, that's where you're going to start seeing potential inefficiencies and at worst bad actors who try to exploit the community for its inability to hold them accountable. Did that answer your question?

AX07 (community member):

Yes, that was great. Would the Ambassador Program  Burrows have counted as a subDAO?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, good question. So, the way that we're envisioning it right now is you basically replace the Ambassador program with the dYdX DAO and then all of those Burrows are subDAOs. So, it goes up a level. Whether we would want to re-establish the Ambassador program through its own subDAO that then assigns contributors different functions with regards to responsibilities is a question that would be open to the community if they felt strongly.

Yeah, it's interesting because the functions that the Ambassadors were doing might themselves be eligible for their own subDAO. So, if you have an education burrow that could probably be its own subDAO. The academy page for example, could most likely be its own subDAO in the future. And then I know there was a risk subDAO, that will most likely be its own subDAO in the future. So, what I imagine is a lot of the people who served as Ambassadors honestly could be very well equipped to go ahead and run and launch for possible subDAOs in the future given their experience.

James (dYdX Foundation):

And Carl just from my end, what you are doing with the Ops subDAO proposal is you are essentially creating a playbook for the community and or other service providers to come in and potentially set up a subDAO providing that it gets consent just from the community, is that right?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, exactly. So, the Ops subDAO, the only responsibility it'll have beyond the immediate operational responsibilities is the creation of this DAO playbook that community members can turn to when they have an idea for what would be a new efficient subDAO to launch or the dYdX protocol.

The Ops subDAO will not be responsible for endorsing or even being involved in any way with any sort of future subDAOs. It's only doing that. After six months, we only said for six months, right? Because this is how we saw the immediate responsibilities that could best benefit the protocol. After six months based on how things go with regard to protocol, it's how we might come back and redefine the scope and outline a new set of responsibilities for the operations subDAO based on the needs of the protocol and the DAO. So, we'll have to reassess in a few months. What will this operation subDAO do? But for now, I think the playbook is the best thing that can drive growth for the DAO.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Nice. Cool. AX07, anything else?

AX07 (community member):

Yeah, just one last thing. So how would the voting work? What degree of freedom would these subDAOs have in terms of implementing some sort of change? For example, doing a Hedgies giveaway or some other thing that they wanted to do? So, you would have the delegators that have the delegating power to vote and normal voters as well voting for it or what's the boundary there?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, so that's why it's important to properly define the subDAO and both its capabilities and its objectives, right? We are seeing this develop across a few different protocols where they take an optimistic governance approach where you give the subDAO the ability to do something with regards to the protocol like using community funds, adjusting risk parameters or whatever. And the community is responsible for monitoring them and then vetoing their activity based on whether they think it is detrimental to the protocol or not.

That is probably a bit further away right now. I think immediately we can expect subDAOs to be launched with not as far-reaching capabilities and objectives, but typically it'll be like, "Here's a budget of X amount and you are responsible for carrying out these functions that are going to help the protocol in whatever way they are responsible for." For example, if you look at the dYdX Ops Trust, we're asking for funding to cover compensation and our costs. And then we're going to deliver on this objective of the playbook and setting up a bank account and all these other things.

That's how I expect a lot of subDAOs to be carried out. So, if you had an academy page subDAO, it would be like here's X funding to pay for whatever providers you need to pay for yourselves. And your responsibility is to publish more academic content and manage the academy website and keep it up to date. And you can keep going there.

And then when you get into risk and that sort of thing is where potentially they might have more direct control. Currently, at least the way governance is set up, they would still need to publish an on-chain proposal that would need to go through traditional DAO parameters. They would need to do a short timelock or a long timelock proposal. Whether we want to adjust that and give particular groups some sort of optimistic privileges over protocol, I think it's a bit too early for us to say. But yeah, there are different interpretations here.

AX07 (community member):

Yeah. Perfect. Thank you very much.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Cheers mate. Cool. Nick, I'll bring you up.

Nick (community member):

Hey, how's everybody doing?

James (dYdX Foundation):

Good, how are you doing?

Nick (community member):

Good. So, I just had a question. I understand now that the playbook is a framework that will enable the creation of other subDAOs. I'm curious though, what is the amount of legal work or knowledge required for a user to set up the subDAO using that? Can a community member realistically take that with little to no legal knowledge and then create a subDAO in whatever they specialize in?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, that's the goal effectively. I mean you'll always need some sort of legal assistance, but I think part of the playbook can be like, "Here are friendly legal teams that you can turn to with this regard when it comes to establishing an entity." And we do hope to cover a lot of the initial legal nuances that we've had to face when it comes to choosing an entity type for example, when it comes to specific jurisdictional barriers potentially and a lot of those.

So, the goal is definitely to make it as accessible as possible so that anybody without any sort of prior understanding of legal structuring with entities can establish their own subDAO under obviously some guidance from an external legal advisor.

Nick (community member):

Okay, awesome. Thank you!

James (dYdX Foundation):

Thanks, Nick. That's a great question. Thanks for that.

Mo, let's bring you up. In the meantime, I think that was a great question by Nick. I think that's often something that's in everyone's minds, "how do I get involved with this type of thing?"

Mo (community member):

Hey Carl and Derek. Quick question in regards to the latest all-hands by Antonio. He mentioned the importance of brand. So, if you've got all of these subDAOs, anything that's creating content for example, how do we ensure that first there's a process for quality assurance at the end of it because they could make something that they think is of a high standard, but when the product is eventually made, it doesn't quite meet up to the dYdX standards?

And two, how are we overcoming this elephant in the room of all these subDAOs having different kinds of basically not keeping to the brand or the risk of not keeping to the dYdX brand? Any thoughts on that?

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, definitely. So, here's what I'll say. The point of the playbook is to make it easy for anybody to submit a proposal and then figure out how to launch a subDAO if they've been approved. But it should not be easy for anybody to just launch a subDAO that could have the type of implications that you're referring to with regards to potentially damaging the brand. We want to make this process robust so that any subDAO that is approved by the community and by the DAO, we can know that it's gone through proper diligence and has gone through these steps to ensure that these are good faith actors who know what they're doing, they're experts in their field and that's why they've been approved to run this subDAO.

When it comes to brand, it's a good point. The dYdX community is relying on subDAOs to make the right decisions. For example,  Contributors can make a mistake that damages the treasury of the DAO at the end of the day. If you properly align incentives, so that rewards are attributed based on performance and not just as a flat structure, you ensure that they're at least for the most part, always acting in good faith to maximize their profit from a profitability standpoint and their commitment to the protocol.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Yeah. And just to double down on that, I think also it's why it's really important to have a really clear mission vision and values for the dYdX DAO. I know it's really difficult to I guess maintain and monitor how people are upholding the brand, but essentially if all subDAOs are adhering to a similar value prop and values that are public, I think that will hopefully assist with alignment.

Mo (community member):

That makes sense. Brilliant. Thanks a lot for that. And just as a follow-up question, so you mentioned that you reward individuals. So, for subDAOs, are you thinking of introducing KPI metrics where if they over exceed expectations for the brand then they unlock additional rewards? Is that what you meant?

Carl (Reverie):

You can probably set it up that way. You can get pretty creative with compensation structures. It'll vary probably by subDAO, where some subDAOs commit to specific KPIs, like user growth or whatever it might be. Other ones might have less tangible ones and so you have to drive more toward qualitative ones. Like what we have with Ops subDAO here where it's holding ourselves accountable to the KPI - delivering the DAO playbook. It might be something like that, more like project-based. Yeah, no, that's for sure. I mean there's no real set way of compensating contributors. I see that being a possibility.

Mo (community member):

Okay. No worries. Thanks.

James (dYdX Foundation):

And Mo on that as well. I think it just varies depending on the subject matter of the proposal. Part of the proposal should include details about what the subDAO intends to achieve over time.

Mo (community member)::

Yeah, it makes sense. Thanks everyone. That's all the questions I had.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Thanks Mo.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Cool. Mirrash, we'll bring you up.

Mirrash (community member):

Hey guys. Thanks for this panel. It's been informative and helpful. I just have a quick question. So, moving into V4 and all these subDAOs, how do you envision the transition of all of the assets and brand images that have already been created? Are those tools and assets something that subDAOs will have access to? I'm thinking primarily for marketing, brand image purposes, all that good stuff.

Carl (Reverie):

To be honest, probably not something that I can speak to individually, right? That'll be the protocol's decision I imagine. All of us as community members should decide how we managed our protocol assets.  I think the community would benefit from a shared bank of assets that we can all turn to when it comes to generating content. Not to get too repetitive or meta here but that could probably be a subDAO. I mean a media subDAO or something like that generates content on behalf of other subDAOs when they're doing publication.

And to Mo's earlier point about maintaining consistent branding, that could be one of subDAOs responsibilities if we do all of the external content on behalf of other subDAOs so that we maintain consistent quality and branding awareness when it comes to the content distributed across the web.

Unfortunately, I don't have an immediate answer as to how assets would be shared in a V4 setting.

Mirrash (community member):

No, that makes sense. It's just that dYdX has such a great brand image already and I know from working with the team, with the dYdX community, and with the Ambassador program, we have so many assets to leverage on that front, it would just be a shame if they weren't used. So hopefully we can find a way to keep those around moving forward.

Carl (Reverie):

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm sure we can all collectively figure out a good way to address that.

Mirrash (community member):

Awesome, thanks.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Thanks, Mirrash.

We've been chatting for 50 minutes. Let's close this AMA off. Thanks for your time Carl and Derek. This conversation has been helpful. I think it really provides a clearer picture for everyone in the community on what the role will be of the Ops SubDAO and it helps to hear it in person.

Carl (Reverie):

Awesome. Yeah, good for sharing all the questions and thanks James as always for hosting us. Yeah, I mean, like we said, for us the next step we'll be moving forward with a snapshot to gauge community receptiveness to this idea. And based on that, we'll move forward but ahead of that, happy to answer any more questions, feel free to give us your comments or feedback on the existing thread or just pretty much directly anywhere. And I'm more than happy to keep talking about this. It's our passion, so it's what we spend all day thinking about anyways, so it's always great to be able to be here.

James (dYdX Foundation):

Good to hear. Awesome. Thanks, everyone for listening in and for your questions. I'll try and get this out on YouTube by the end of, I guess today, my time. So tomorrow morning for most people. If anyone wants to re-listen to it, by all means then they can. Cool. Until next time, guys, see you all later. Thanks!