Curation Committee Update Proposal

I created with @lucaspon this rough draft for an internal regiment for the Curation Committee.

The idea is to:

  • formalize a process for admissions on the Curation Committee and a fixed term
  • provide more openness of the Committee to the DAO, providing some insights into the acquisition rationale
  • determine a well-defined budget for acquisitions and operations
  • determine a term

Very curious to hear your feedbacks. After we discussion, the proposal should be voted on Snapshot

Google Docs with the draft:


I think a good idea is for this change to be coupled with some soft benefits for committee members, such as being mentioned in the Fingerprints’ website and other official channels, and more things we can ideate around.

This looks like a great framework. I’m excited to get curation going. A few comments/questions:

Point 2 - each nominee should create their own individual forum post? Or will there be one large forum post where all nominations occur as replies?

Point 4 - will the total annual curation budget be formulated by the curation committee itself? I’m sure this is already being envisioned by you guys, but it would be good to have the committee get input from the DAO as they formulate their budget.

In terms of executing acquisitions - is there a set process for this or will the Curation committee determine the best way to do this for each individual acquisition?

Overall, well written framework, and I’m looking forward to seeing the committee in action.

1 Like

I think ad-hoc is ok since the best strategy will likely depend on the context of the acquisition. Also, they’re unlikely to be so frequent as to warrant a formal process.

Very formal, well redacted and professional …
One thing surprised me :
I wonder the benefits and sense of having a comitee member who isn’t a DAO member
Should be mandatory at first sight for me

1 Like

Some knowledgeable people from outside our circle could make very useful committee members and might not have the capital to acquire a Fingerprints membership.

1 Like

For sure, but I believe in the ‘skin in the game’ theory
People may perform better being part and invested …

Great write up!

I would add more color to the formation week. Example: The Formation Week begins one week before the end of each tenure. In that week, the candidates will send their pitches in the first two days, and the vote will occur in the following five days. The candidates’ pitch shall be posted on the dedicated Forum topic and limited to 200 words.

Extremely well written and thought out with strong ethical considerations!

Do we have existing rules around how a curation committee member makes an acquisition proposal or that should be decided by the curation committee when formed?

Point 7, is that amount the compensation for the curation committee?

In rules of engagement point 2, we should define and expand the conflicts of interest

Can committee members be re-elected? Or we would prefer rotation?

Last point, maybe 7-8 slots for the committee can be reserved for DAO members with 2-3 people coming in from outside.


Excellent work Luiz and Lucas - thank you for putting this together.

@Plutonium_F raises some good points here, thank you for your comments:

  • I personally think the process of acquisition proposals should be simple or informal, with a member sharing the proposed work to other committee members, and then this being discussed within the commitee discord channel and voted on at the bi-weekly meeting.

  • Defining conflict of interest more clearly would be a good idea. I know a lot of us are active collectors and as individuals we are more agile and can acquire more quickly than the DAO. Thus we often consider works that many members already own.

  • I would also like to see some process about the actual acquisition spelt out. ie. perhaps a committee member is the designated contact with the finance team, who actually execute the purchase through multi-sig or whatever appropriate means.

  • Maybe members should also be expected to work with marketing to provide copy when new acqusitions are made. I dont mind if this is one member for the whole tenure, or whether it is an itinerant role.

1 Like

Great framework :facepunch:

One thought: the vision laid out in the “Engagement” session is very horizontal. Don’t you think we could benefit from a little more accountability? I’m pretty sure ideas like these have been suggested in the past :point_down:

Maybe elect (or draw) a committee leader (3-or full 6-month term)? Responsible for (1) holding the bi-weekly calls, (2) bringing curation suggestions from open forums to the committee; (3) communicating call agendas to rest of members; (4) communicating acquisitions; (5) alerting/cutting off inactive committee members ?

These activities are shared among committee members today - it works; I just feel it can be more functional when there’s someone accountable for them. As far as I remember, Sam once played this role, but then it dissipated and wasn’t reinstated. Curious to hear your thoughts.


No rules other than the ones currently being proposed in here. The idea is to have the committee organize itself internally.

This is an allowance for staff compensation each committee will have, not for the committee members themselves.

I think the general idea of these proposals is to make it as minimal/short as possible, and avoid over-regulating the DAO needlessly. We can always extend the rules in the future if we run into problems.

No limits on reelections. I suppose if a committee member has been doing a good job, no reason to disallow him from continuing to do so. Also, we’re not likely to have enough candidates to rotate the entire committee too often.

I agree, but I don’t think we need to make it a formal rule in the proposal. Keeping only the critical things in there is the way to go IMO.

1 Like

I think we can trust the judgement of committee members.
If members are unsure of whether there’s a conflict, they can bring their doubt to the rest of the committee. Otherwise, we might make the proposal needlessly long. We can always extend it later.

I think the idea is to allow each committee to choose their own working framework. I expect them to arrive at a standard model, but I think this doesn’t have to be formalized in this proposal.

This will definitely happen. We already have people in place to take care of announcements that will be in touch with the committee staff. No need to include this in the proposal though, IMO.

The idea is to make these sort of DAO regulations as light and short as possible, that way more people can read and understand it, the “legislation” process becomes shorter and we avoid scaring people off from becoming committee members.

Definitely! These things are supposed to be attributed to committee staff, though, which this proposal creates an allowance for.

1 Like

Conscious that the (presumably) arbitrary date set for the new curation committee was yesterday, and am just wondering what next steps would look like for implementing the regiment.
Are we re-drafting with suggested edits and then putting to wider DAO for snapshot voting?

Yes! We should incorporate the comments and post the updated draft in the next few days before moving to a Snapshot vote

I think it looks really good!

This proposal has been moved to Snapshot and is currently open for voting:

1 Like