[Notes compiled by envy##9950]

could also function as “Juno Lite” - anything Juno developers haven’t tackled, we can consider bringing into our ecosystem

Tiered system

means of ranking everything within our ecosystem in terms of value/effort/risk/reward
web app drafted, likely to release ideas in next few days

Tokenomics

NETA would stick to its SoV functionality and act as governance token, JUP would be secondary derivative to provide rewards and act as spending token
starts with ~80/20 split between NETA/JUNO holders - same distribution schedule as JUNO, 2x JUNO max supply
two-tiered system allows for NETA to function truly as a SoV
don’t have to start with a two-tier token, NETA can still act as governance token
JUP model in Community Accelerator paper was based on Core-1’s initial draft, wolfcontract drafted an N2 token in an example plan
ongoing discussion on tokenomics, not interfering with establishing DAO - much to do in setting up proper DAO governance, we have time

NETA Trooprs

launching 4/18 at 9pm UTC
rarity checker: in the works from several individuals, just a manual “enter your number” without Keplr integration
if it looks like we’re hitting too many issues, we will still be able to release something by end of week

DAO Testing

number of both minor and major issues found in DAODAO platform and reported to team for bug fixes - established direct line of communication to them
DAODAO releasing major contract upgrade within the next two weeks - NETA DAO will hold off on launching before that and continue testing - Troopr funds to remain in wallet during interim

Validator: Start our own validator or help other projects/aspiring validators?

if helping out existing validators, can target lower end of active sets to further decentralization and mitigate risk - delegate our funds to a large set
be aware that if one ends up getting pushed into active set, another would be pushed out
good way to work with many teams and build connections
both models generates revenue, can be done in either order, and neither option rules out the other
if we start our own validator first, we can help others build/refine; if we help others first, we can learn best practices should we choose to build our own

Constitution

ethos and general project goal of NETA rather than “constitution” as an affirmation of rights
what we are, who we are, what we’re doing
formalization of social norms we’re agreeing to (ex, “is this ok or not?” in that we don’t want to run into an issue of contention like JUNO #16)
after we have the DAO set up, tested, established, iron out constitution through governance - don’t just mirror commonwealth discussions and assume

Community Engagement and Consensus

Official Twitter analytics:

Tweet impressions 621K Profile visits 292K Mentions 1,007 Followers 3,409

TrickyCrypto willing to do a Twitter Space with Cosmos_Spaces/NETA_DAO accounts to help establish clarity
need explicit clarification from Core-1 about what their intentions were with NETA when Juno whale issue is settled (any continued work from them? multiple DAOs?)
Core-1 has been swamped with Juno work - NETA is very low on their list and for us to be able to achieve interim functionality on social media, some things have to be makeshift

Priorities for following week #

Speak With:

Do:

continue NETA DAO testing and working with DAODAO on bug fixing
collect community feedback following NETA Troopr launch
continued discussion of possible NETA use cases, both general and in the context of a proposed secondary token
continued development of discussed use cases outside of NETA Discord by individuals or groups
re-evaluate community’s prominent time zones to potentially adjust meeting time (or host a second intraweek meeting?)
continue activity on commonwealth.im/neta-money for formal discussion
NETA Constitution - what is our mission statement and our core purpose? what do we want our initiatives to represent?