Conclusion: The notion of a decentralized talent network is an interesting concept broadly speaking - however there is some inherent risk to the DAO structure.
Overview:
General Thoughts:
BrainTrust is a decentralized talent network akin to that of fiver (gig economy) in Web 3.0. The project believes that network effects are the most powerful tool in the ownership economy - meaning that talent should be able to set pricing and extract the majority of the value from their work.
BrainTrust’s framework is a community based system powered by the $BTRST token which acts as both a reward and vote in the governance of the protocol. The more one contributes to the network the more one is able to influence its structure through DAO voting.
The Benefit of BTRST Network:
Let's dive into the pros / cons of the tokenomics:
Max Supply: 250,000,000 BTRST
MarketCap: $363m
Fully Diluted Market Cap: $1b
Token Distribution
$12.5m - 5% CoinList Sale (3-6 mth lock)
$47.5m - 19% Early Contributors (4 yr release, 1 yr cliff)
$55m - 22% Early Token Purchasers (2 yr lock, 1 yr cliff)
$135m - 54% Community Incentives (Unlocked Immediately)
Usage of $BTRST:
DAO Voting:
BrainTrust forked the Compound governance protocol, to establish a one-token, one-vote system that gives token holders proportional control over how the network is governed. The more tokens one owns, the more voting power one has.
Main Question: Is the combination of a utility currency and a DAO/voting structure(s) in the form of the $BTRST token sound?
The protocols usage of Compound governance (via a fork) and the notion of 1 token = 1 vote are broadly good ideas however, currently the top 10 holders own 53.3% of the total DAO votes (with the largest holders being 1. 39m tokens 2. 33m tokens 3. 18m tokens).
The double edge sword of combining a currency with a governance token is that:
On the positive side individuals are incentivized to participate in the network for a monitory reward, well simultaneously earning a vote that can govern the direction of the network. This also allows early contributors who have not sold their positions in the secondary markets to have a larger voice when it comes to voting during the early growth phases.
On the negative side, the combination of the tokens by its very nature forces the participants in the network to face a choice 1. keep the tokens and help shape the network or 2. sell the tokens to earn a reward for their work in fiat currency. This duality combined with natural token distribution has likely lead to the early concentration of voting power to the top 10. Rapid decentralization as first coined by a16z, Jesse Walden, and others is likely needed as the network grows. Additionally, the currency aspect of the token forces the protocol to be on secondary markets i.e gate.io, mixc global, coinbase, bitforex etc.
It is plausible that in the future (not today as there is not enough float in the secondary) centralized Web 2.0 comps/entities (or individual bad actors) could attempt to take a stake in the protocol via purchasing $BTRST in the secondaries. Giving themselves the ability to draft proposals and execute a majority in the voting - examples being: higher fees on creators, that would intern disincentivize them from remaining on the platform - and derailing the existing flywheel.
Although these are fringe cases, it shows the vulnerability of not spitting the governance and currency. My suggestion would be to spilt utility tokens and currencies (similar to what Aragon attempted) well simultaneously developing a system that allows creators to be rewarded in both $BTRST and $BTRSTDAO (example name). The former token would be earned through services or secondary purchases in exchanged for goods, the latter would be art-dropped based on a scale on contribution to the network (with no monitory value attached, perhaps there NFTs :)
Until tomorrow - let me know what you think better or worse. DM with any questions, would love additional #thoughts