💬 DAO v. DUNA diction: any opinionated preferences?

[JFWooten4]

As the first American DUNA (and only one at the moment), might we chat around the branding of our group?

We've been introducing the DUNA framework gradually through casual discussions all year, and certainly that's been the light in which official releases frame the movement. 🧠

That said, DUNAs are still relatively new compared to the generally well-known DAO organizational idea. The main difference is simply the lack of extractive profit motives, which almost frames it like labeling ourselves as a "corporation" or a "foundation" imo. But, of course, the simple middleground there is the all-encompassing term "organization."

That's what I see every collective as personally: an organization of people who come together to solve a common challenge. It's in this light that I'd like to ask everyone how they feel about the name branding, as I begin writing some preliminary documentation frameworks. 📃

[bobmahalo]

I might not be understanding the "refer" part, so I will speak how I generally refer this 'movement' to people IRL. I always call this WHYDRS. i could imagine the glazed eyeballs if I were to say 'the DUNA' or the DAO, although these monikers are prolly much more accurate.

[JFWooten4]

Maybe this is just me, but it can be helpful to have a "shorthand" way to refer to something, especially an organization. Like if I want to refer to the concept of Block Transfer without typing that out (or a simplistic abbreviation like BT), then I refer to it as "the Syndicate."¹ I think to myself what I would call WhyDRS if I'm referencing it for the twelfth time in a formal doc which I would like to keep concise.

Footnotes

1. As in BlockTrans Syndicate ↩

[JFWooten4]

I'm with you 💯% on just using the name when introducing people and such irl. 🫱🏻‍🫲🏽

[bobmahalo]

Ohhhhh!!!! gotcha!!! Just forward thinking a bit. DUNAs and DAOs will prolly be a lot more mainstream, and it might end up being another name change process. but now I get it...so repetitive names don't keep popping up in the doc....like the DTCC uses the corporation....and you use syndicate....OK...sorry for my slow ass brain, it takes me a minute to catch up...I see. I will think about this and see if I use any nicknames when I talk to people.

[JamesAlfonse]

Great idea to start this discussion, and thanks for quickly clarifying the differences between the two frameworks.

I recommend using "DUNA" and "The Organization" consistently in all official and unofficial documentation, while minimizing the use of "DAO" for more informal comparisons or explanations. This will help establish WhyDRS as a unique leader using the DUNA framework, making it synonymous with our brand identity. "The Association" could also be a nice alternative when we need some flexibility.

By primarily calling WhyDRS a DUNA, we can better showcase what sets us apart and establish a clear standard.

[bobmahalo]

OOOOO, what about 'The First Duna' it gives a little unique jab, while also not needing to clarify in 10 years when there are literally hundreds of DUNAs???

[JFWooten4]

Loving the enthusiasm, @bobmahalo! While I'm certainly with you on the groundbreaking pioneer frame, I honestly think that might be heavily implied after being said once! Namely, there are other nonprofit DAO frameworks across the globe, but our instance is really the first to face actual US legislation.

[JFWooten4]

Still waiting on @BibicJr who I understand wanted to voice an opinion on this. That said, it seems the general sentiment is in acceptance of DAO as a common identifier (broadly, across viewpoints), whereas emphasizing the DUNA aspect offers optimal differentiation.

[BibicJr]

I tried to think of a compromise, but ultimately I think DAO has more familiarity. And with DUNAs being so new, there's a chance the acronym will change in future. So I think DAO covers our bases better for documents. Maybe we could make it clear at some point in the documents that it's a non-profit DAO though?

[JFWooten4]

Thank you so much for taking the time to really think about this one, Bibic! 🧠 That's one thing I love about this format: its asynchronous-ness. While I/James introduced this to you on a weekly call a little bit ago, the conversation doesn't stop in that closed space. Rather, you can always come back and reference the topic and its majority discussion points, as you've prudently done! ✅🫱🏼‍🫲🏻

Hope everything is going well for you, and please forgive my explicit public prodding. 😅

[JFWooten4]

Re closing things out to move forward, I'm marking this as resolved for now. We can always reopen it later, reference it in a new discussion, or even leave additional thoughts in further comments. 💬 That said, here is my understanding of where we're at, based mostly on this thread but also on some live conversations in voice chat:

• DAO is generally more popular and understood, even if it is more of a crypto-industry term.
• DUNA allows for better differentiation and serves as an ongoing reminder of our nonprofit mission.
• Both represent innovative legal frameworks that we can collectively lead in pioneering.

That said, the "official" poll here is split 50/50, which makes everything super easy to decide. 😜 Ultimately, smart people have told me it can be challenging to enforce diction or style choices outside of compile-time processors. But I believe this is a rather limited view based on the narrow scope of traditional computer science coding.

Namely, I posit that the language we use matters. It matters across society—in the way we treat, view, and help each other. And it matters in how new community members approach, understand, and interact with the Association. Might the advanced planning of our thoughts on cultural choices like these best develop in collaborative efforts like this one, so prudently spearheaded by @bobmahalo, @JamesAlfonse, and @BibicJr?

We've chatted about this sparingly in some Taking Stock discussions, and I've tried to lean my tone toward furthering collaboration after recent conversations. There's so much opportunity waiting in the winds here. Couldn't it help to exercise prudence in both our developments and communications to best express our grassroots views?

That's why I started this conversation. I'm happy with the meticulous, nuanced, and considerate answers everyone has shared so far. I believe I've voiced my specific reactions in the replies above, and I’ll move forward with the following steps myself:

• DAO for mainstream introductions 📺

  • In places where a visitor might see WhyDRS for the first time, I'll try to keep things simpler by referencing the Association as a DAO.
  • This means leaving the docs site subdomain as dao.whydrs.org for now.
  • In quick mainstream media appearances, where nuance can get lost, it seems like "DAO" will make everything a whole lot easier to explain, as listeners can better connect with the structure.

• DUNA for community interactions 🫱🏼‍🫲🏽

  • Eventually, we will have a voting interface where users log in with their Stellar wallet. I think DUNA appropriately fits the level of user understanding and frames member interest around mission over money.
  • While this wasn’t explicitly discussed much, I think "DUNA meetings" could provide a common way to reinforce not only our distributed organization structure but also our underlying nonprofit drive.
  • Lastly, I believe quite strongly that all SEC communications should use DUNA as the technically accurate term and as a point of differentiation from certain other for-profit industry lobbyists.