Proposal to consolidate current Marketing, Growth & Globalization Workstream


This proposal aims to reorganize the Marketing & Growth workstream, and establish the separation of LatAm (lead by ) into a separate workstream. The primary change is transferring leadership of Marketing & Growth from ( ) & ( toast) over to (). Simultaneously, the Growth and Marketing Workstream will utilize this proposal to readjust and lower its budget in accordance with the DAO’s general initiative to cut costs during poor market conditions and maximize resiliency.


In establishing the separation of LatAm/Globalization into its own workstream, it will control its own budget and be led by . Here is a link to the new LatAm/Globalization Workstream Budget (maintained by ; direct inquiries regarding this budget to LatAm and Globalization–this proposal is primarily about the go-forward Marketing and Growth team). New goals/KPIs for that workstream will be updated by them to the community within 30 days of this proposal. In the time leading up to the 30-day cut off, LatAm/Globalization will continue working on the current set of goals/KPIs.

This proposal will also cover the change of hands for leadership of the Marketing & Growth Workstream. will be leaving as a workstream leader, and will be assuming leadership going forward.

Hunt will become an outside consultant/ advisor for the LaTam stream. With stepping down, Marketing & Growth will be issuing 3 hedgey NFTs equal to current monthly pay (1 month locked for 3 months, 1 month locked for 6 months, and 1 month locked for 9 months) to fund the wind-down, severance and advisor process (three months starting August 1, 2022) for .

I will also be stepping down as the workstream’s current leader and handing the role of Workstream Leader to . Going forward, I will be reducing my role to interim Marketing PM for 1 month to assist her in leadership transition, but the ability to remain on is at the discretion of the new Workstream Leader .

Budget and goals will also be changing on the Marketing & Growth Workstream. Reduction of budget and staff have been made to account for the current market condition and to extend the runway for the DAO. Here is a link New M&G Budget, which will be a reduction down to a total of $82,650 in a blend of USDC & FOX Tokens. The budget will comprise $39,580 of USDC per month (considerably below the ask of ($60K USDC per month) and $48,275 worth of FOX Tokens per month.

New goals/ KPIs will be shared with the community in a similar fashion as LatAm/Globalization within a 30-day window publicly to the community via forum by the new workstream leader ( ). Budget control will also become a responsibility of the new workstream leader to be altered but not increased (without a new proposal) at their discretion.

These changes would take effect 5 days after passing & remain in effect for the remaining term of the current Marketing & Growth Workstream (Nov 1, 2022) and at the discretion of the new proposed leaders and the community to renew at that time.


The goal of these changes is to establish a new singular Workstream Leader that can run Marketing & Growth on a far more conservative budget with a focused team.

Latam should be spun out into its own workstream to reduce the size of the original G&M to enable each stream to be more nimble, agile, and accountable to their spends. The community at large will be in a better position to judge the ongoing merits of smaller teams.


  • Reduction in Marketing (including LaTam) spend from $126,300 to $87,900 per month

  • Decrease stable coin payouts with the new proposed budget comprising of 45% USDC and 55% FOX Tokens.
  • Singular leader instead of co-leads for greater accountability
  • Standing up LatAm as it’s own workstream, achieving smaller, more accountable teams


The workstream will be going through a transitory stage likely with reduced output as the separation occurs into two workstreams. Smaller teams may mean tough choices in projects they can undertake.

(post deleted by author)

  1. -

    Thank you for the hard work to get this together over the last few days.

    I shared this with you privately, but also want to share it publicly on the forum.

    There is a ton of decisions that are being packed into this proposal, my opinion is that there is at least three items that the community should be given the opportunity to vote on independently from one another.

    New leadership for Marketing and Growth

  2. LaTam as a stand alone workstream
  3. The request for Hunts severance / fox stream

I believe that ultimately it will move forward much faster than people deliberating on it as a whole.

All of these items are individually important enough for the communities voice to be heard.

Thanks for the consideration,


Thanks for the reply .

A few things around why these are not independent.

1./2: New Leadership for Marketing & Growth/ LaTam - This comes with not only new leadership but also new budget. To meet some of the cuts and get the budget in a tolerable place from the community LaTam would need to be removed. If the Marketing & Growth propsal passed it would go into effect 5 days after passing and could mean that LaTam would not have a sufficent amount of time to get their proposal passed and potentially lose funding. They are moving very quickly and any delays/ loss of budget could be detrimental for a decent size team that is accomplishing all of their KPIs on a very tangible budget under $14,000 / month.

3.I did use the word severance in the proposal to find a word that wrapped up what this payment is for. It covers a variety of purposes, back paying when Hunt was underpaid by previous leaders but providing the same if not higher level of work that he is doing now. It also covers any fees overage that he may possibly need (rather than out of pocket) for Latam while he is an advisor. The payment would also allow a transition time where duplicate roles will be happening while (if passed) LaTam is becoming its own stream. Last but not least the word severance is used because this is also a payment for being written out of his position as a workstream leader.

These are tied together because of timing, payment logistics and to satisfy the requirements workstream leader(s) being asked to step down while simultaneously optimizing a budget with the new potential leader during this bear market.

If it makes it more palatable I can change the wording in the proposal from severance to transition payment or something along those lines.

Thanks Toasty, for bringing to light many questions about the fate of topics being discussed in the DAO. Despite this storm that is hovering over our organization, I can see that LatAm remains the lowest cost and best benefit, a bold team that is multidisciplinary and manages to meet several demands.

I deeply thank and for being amazing leaders, I also hope that hunt fulfills its mission within the DAO according to the described proposal. We built things together and your legacy will be passed! I understand that proposing a separation to LatAm is a big responsibility and I accept it wholeheartedly.

I would like to ask the community to share their impressions about the latam team that has been working in Growth and is now present on the world stage. We grew a lot in a few months, from a small community we now occupy the biggest events in Latin America, and it doesn’t have to stop there, we have plans to expand LatAm to crypto hubs in Ibero America - Portugal and Spain, why not? 1f609 Furthermore, i’ve been talking with some leaderships around SSDAO’s KPIs and and I’m sure we can get valuable metrics as a whole, including LatAm strategies, partnering with Ws and teams.

PS: the Latam team is at NFT.Rio taking the word in Latin America, in fact, we (as a team) are organizers of the biggest crypto event in Latin America - $0 cost for the DAO. ShapeShift will be there and I’m proud to spread our word and Ethos over the world with and the latam team.

Thanks for working on the reorganization of the M&G WS. We all know all of the DAO WS leaders are doing an incredible job with the budgets during these tough times.

I have a few questions… However, I think

  1. summarized some of them and I agree that the community should be given the opportunity to discuss them.


In its current form, , and are co-leaders. What responsibilities will be passed to Lindsaylou during the transition? Would you mind defining that, please?

I know

  1. is a great professional and I am excited to see her in this role. Will her absorbing the two leadership roles be sustainable?


I know the importance and the work LaTam has been doing, however, shouldn’t they be making their own proposal to have their own WS, as well as making a proposal to elect as the WS leader? I think the community should have that discussion separately, or, as far as I know, this is how it has been done for other WS.

I like the idea of small WS, DAOs are experimental, however, the DAO had some issues in the past when Marketing/ separated from Growth/ - .

The LaTam budget is increasing from $13,500 in its actual form to $18,750 (I think the formula total is not picking up

  1. salary). Please, review.

    The non-severance

If the severance is not a severance, it should be adjusted in the proposal and named as it is… salary, advisor fees, etc. also, if the role is changing, shouldn´t the retribution change too ? (this could be in both directions, higher or lower). As far as I see, it is going from $14,500 in its current form to $14,750

Also, if

  1. is LaTam´s advisor, why is this retribution in M&G budget? should be in the LaTam budget WS?

    Proposal passage

If the proposal doesn’t pass, what would the M&G WS look like? would it stay the way that it is now?

Thanks for creating such a detailed proposal, the support provided and the answers already given…. and for taking the time to read my questions.


Thanks for the Qs. I will prioritize answering these tomorrow but nice catch on the numbers. Updating those as well to reflect the correct amounts.

Hey thank you for preparing this and getting the conversation started.

Very excited to see

  1. as new M&G leader! She has my full confidence.

    However, I can’t support this proposal in its current form, because it’s conflating the M&G Workstream and the Latam Workstream into one proposal and budget sheet.

    There needs to be at least two separate/independent proposals:

    New M&G Workstream w/ M&G Budget

  2. New Latam Workstream w/ Latam Budget

Then each can be discussed and voted on properly. If is receiving further payments for continued contribution to Latam as he stated, that needs to be expressed as such in the Latam proposal from the Latam leader ()

Hello, .

You have a fair point and I do appreciate the open dialogue.

We are running with atm, I hope answer your Qs as soon as possible.

Numbers have been updated. Thanks for pointing those out, when adding columns and sum totals something always breaks at some point.

Im going to answer your questions in the order you pasted them.

During the transition period admin tools and understanding will be the first to be passed along. So making Lindsay in-charge of Colony and the budget while showing her how to operate and pay everyone on the stream. Also during this time

  1. will have 30 days to deliver (or keep the same) goals and KPIs which she may ask for our help with historical reasons on how they came to be (however she was here at the start of the stream and helped create the current ones so this should be a quick one). Other things to be transitioned to Lindsay and her direct reports were will be some of the projects and background information on them to either run with them or sunset them. There is a handful of other daily/ weekly items that will also be fully owned by the new Workstream leader but I think just the few above will be taken into effect immediately over the 5 days after this were to pass.

Has my full vote of confidence and I share your excitement. If the stream were to be the same size as when created I would say the role would not be sustainable and why we had 2 workstream leaders. However, with LaTam becoming its own WS and the hard cuts that

  1. and myself had to make over these past 2 months the stream is much smaller.

Here is a link to our past budget that will give you an idea of the initial size -

  1. Marketing, Growth, & Globalization Budget - Google Sheets
  2. And in the budget above you will see the new size being proposed of under 5 contributors once my role is sunset.
  3. I see where you are coming from on this one and if not for lack of timing to split this out. We are in drastic budget cut mode and want to make sure the transition from old WS leaders takes weeks not months.

If LaTam were to propose their own WS with the exact same budget as projected above then it would take a couple weeks to pass. Once passed our proposal would go into effect of having the workstream leaders change as it is a requirement for

  1. stepping down from his role.
  2. If LaTam were not to pass they would still be under Marketing & Growth’s budget.
  3. Thanks again for pointing out the budget issues, they have been corrected.
  4. As mentioned to 0xcean we can change the name if need be to reflect some of his on going participation but it does also include a portion to severance for being removed as WS leader.

If we do receive enough pushback and have to split LaTam into going first on their own proposal we could include

  1. ’s line item on there but at the end of the day this item is included as salary on marketing and growth so it made the most logistical sense to come from there.
  2. Also it is correct at 14,750 as that is his current salary (see sheet above).
  3. I think if not to pass we would try to work with the community to have multiple proposals but the Workstream would look the same outside of those until we could get something passed.

Thanks . I fully support being the new M&G WS Leader. I think the whole team has worked hard to come with this new budget, and overall I think it’s a good next move.

I agree with a couple folks who have commented above that the two workstreams should be separate proposals. If it takes longer to pass, then could LatAm personnel still be paid under the existing M&G proposal until that happens?

At a minimum, the LatAm Workstream should create a proposal following these guidelines: How to propose a new workstream

And to answer ’s question about sentiment toward LatAm - I think y’all are great and are making good things happen and should be funded going forward. I do think the opportunity to ask questions separate from creating the M&G workstream is important for governance.

Thanks Toasty for posting this. I appreciate all the work that went into it and I would definitely support a lot of the changes outlined.

I am excited that the LatAm team is planning to continue on with their own workstream. I think they’ve been doing great work, and I really appreciate the SEO dive and conversations that TheSmith is spearheading. However, as others have mentioned, it is also my understanding that a new workstream should go through governance with their own proposal. If they do put forth a proposal, I look forward to it!

One thing, the “severance” concept in general is hard for me to understand, considering that everyone in the DAO is self-employed. The other thing is that Hunt is not the only workstream leader who has stepped down. Others (Josh, CAO, you) did not ask for nor take severance. If we, as a DAO are going to consider this idea for workstream leaders that step down, it should be its own proposal in my opinion, and if it were to pass, I would expect that it should apply to anyone who has stepped down.

I was reading a bit, and I appreciate the considerations that have been taken with the cuts, for all the situations that are taking place

I have had a certain enthusiasm with the LaTam guys and they have done a great job in the last few months, so in case of having a new WS would have my support, but I would like to have an understanding of the positions within LaTam, in the link shown above in the budget, there are some that can be clearly understood, copywriter, growth, but what is the job of “contributor” to justify the salary, some more data about everything would be amazing –

Also all my support to I trust she will do a good job with the flow

discourse-post-upload20231125-65354-x25e3m.png losttouch:

I am not in support of this proposal. I find it unreasonable for a workstream leader to receive such a hefty severance after making many personal attacks at DAO contributors and leaders. While may have assisted in the early stages of DAO developments, his actions are clear that he is not looking out for the DAO’s best interest or any contributors working under him. Since becoming a DAO, he has deliberately and personally attacked many individuals and their character. These actions should not be rewarded and should result in a clean cut.

I also believe it is inappropriate for a new budget to be created by workstream leaders who were making a cash grab at the DAO and were often MIA or creating conflict throughout the organization. There should be a clean cut of dying branches, and I believe the new and improving contributors should make their own proposal, budget & workstream organization.

In what other organization (decentralized or not) would those who have received scrutiny for inappropriate actions be enabled to make decisions on behalf of those they will no longer be managing because of poor actions & performance?

Although this post was deleted, I agree with this sentiment 100%. is a moderator of this forum and knows the rules. No name-calling, no ad-hominem attacks, and certainly no personal threats to neutral parties like and —it’s not really shocking that he continues those attacks in this thread, but he shouldn’t be a forum moderator, at the very least.

discourse-post-upload20231125-65354-s0p1ot.png hunt:

Are you scared or is the “community” just theatre to you? Lets be real to the “community”.

It’s clear is a bad actor. It’s clear he doesn’t want the DAO to view his payment as an ‘advisor’ as severance or hush money for threatening the DAO. He’s not civil. Several reasonable people have pointed out his posts are offensive and abusive. These are the rules he is supposed to hold others to as a moderator of the forum (let alone a leader of the DAO) and it’s clear he has no intention of being civil.

The “real community” knows he’s a troll and the sooner he is gone, the better. He should not be serving in any advisory capacity and his claims of reimbursed expenses and/or that he was underpaid are extremely laughable. He is the manipulator; the pompous bozo with an inflated ego who champions decentralization and then asks for a severance.

The DAO’s not dying, even if this fool wants to burn every last bridge like an unhinged nutjob.

it doesn’t matter if passing separate proposals will take more time—that is the formal process. And thank you for your civility in this situation. Your hard work and neutrality are much appreciated.

I have to agree, seperating out the Latam group stuff would make things better/easier. and its the same time frame as this one. you could just put that into ideation right now (as this is the discussion part, and looks like solid behind thesmith) (imo)

The two outgoing leaders had a number of tactical responsibilities beyond leadership, including nurturing partnerships, managing social media, standing up email lead gen campaigns and overseeing the writing or bounty work for those, digital promotions, and digital ads (the last three are fairly new activities to this stream, so iterative to what we’ve done in the past). We are looking at cutting members down to three people capable of playing any role in these, on top of what we did previously, so no, this is not sustainable and a concern in an environment where there is very little appetite for hiring additional talent or sacrificing metrics. For this to be successful, we as a DAO will have to be ready to transition some responsibilities to appropriate teams, prioritize some projects over others, and get focused on what is important vs what is fluff. We can’t have it all: Cutting a bunch of people and still doing the incredibly high volume of work this team has been pushing through monthly (and higher, with the new focus on the needed digital marketing), while also earning even better metrics than before. The DAO must accept us doing some bounty work within the budget allocated, reducing scope, or some combination thereof. We’ve been offered advisor support (very appreciated!!), but frankly, we also need hands to help move things forward or need to prioritize. My thoughts there.

Hey , , and a few others that recommend we split this into separate proposals. I am working now with , , on a separate proposal for LaTam.

I am going to take your advice here for timeline and push this forward sooner than later and separate from M&G. Once LaTam has made its way through the process we will start back up this process for M&G’s changes.

I appreciate the dialogue being discussed here, of course we want to make it clear. Everything made in Latam so far takes into account DAO’s ethos, that’s why we are endorsing our commitment with the community by building a new proposal basically from the scratch and following the formal proccess.

Thank you all for your understanding and mostly for being so professional.

(post deleted by author)

It’s over bro. The door is there.