PandaDAO 4D Interview: DeWork's largest DAO organization disbanded, what lessons have we learned?

Original author: Jack(0x137), BlockBeats

Last month, PandaDAO, one of the largest DAO organizations in China, announced its dissolution, which caused quite a stir in the encryption community . In less than a year, PandaDAO has grown from an uninterested interest group to the largest DAO organization on the mainstream decentralized development platform DeWork. But like many grand projects, its split and dissolution can also be described as "collapse". While the community was angry and disappointed, it also began to reflect on what went wrong with PandaDAO? Will these problems happen to other DAO organizations?

With these questions in mind, we interviewed the founder and multi-signature holder of the PandaDAO community , and key members of the community.

PandaDAO's Short Journey

< p>

Before entering the conversation, let us first understand the development timeline of PandaDAO.

PandaDAO started with a very simple idea. At first, Panda teamed up with several engineers from Tencent Byte, and wanted to be a big data search engine to provide query, retrieval and association services after formatting various information data. After having an idea, several developers started preliminary work such as ES architecture design and K8S cluster construction.

At that time, the team was just an interest group in the community, and everyone focused on Product development and iteration. Later, as more and more people joined, the team had the idea of establishing a project. After a heated discussion in the community, PandaDAO was born.

After the establishment of the DAO organization, the team spent some energy designing community governance and writing white papers and financing plans. Panda stepped in to lead the way, and the developers continued to code in peace behind the scenes. In April, the newly established PandaDAO opened financing on Juice Box, and the very popular Cult DAO launched a proposal to invest in PandaDAO. After hearing the news, many people FOMO in. Before the proposal was passed, PandaDAO reached the soft cap of fundraising. In the end, PandaDAO raised a total of more than 1,900 ETH in this fundraising, far exceeding the team's expectation of 500 ETH.

However, the cooperation between the two communities has not been realized, and some people who came in because of the proposal FOMO regretted it Got it and started looking for a refund. Afterwards, the team wrote a proposal, and the community voted to pass it. The engineer put down his work to do the refund contract and audit work, and refunded nearly 500 ETH to the community.

After the refund, the team hopes to exchange ETH for a stable currency and generate income through DeFi. The original proposal was to replace ETH with UST for fixed income strategy. However, the proposal encountered some obstacles in the community. Some people believed that ETH should be kept and not exchanged. After a heated debate, the treasury multi-sig holder 0xAA rejected it due to potential risks. In accordance with the requirements of the multi-signature, the team disclosed to the community the corresponding risk and risk control management plan of UST, and revised the proposal again, first replacing ETH with DAI. Not long after, UST crashed and the community escaped.

< p>

From here on, most of the team's time and energy are shifted from product development to governance. A lot of manpower and time were spent on the corresponding contract writing, security audit and revenue plan design.

By May, the community already had a lot of stablecoins, while the crypto market was not very boom. At this time, some people in the community proposed that they hope to use the funds from the treasury for Token repurchase. The team felt that a lot of funds in the national treasury were idle, and the community did not need so much funds, so they agreed.

The repurchase price was set at US$0.005 from the beginning, and the core members initially made it public The market conducted a public repurchase, and the PANDA Token worth more than 500,000 US dollars was repurchased. However, many people in the community are worried that there will be insider trading. After discussing in the community, the team decided to write a repurchase contract, put all the repurchase funds into the agreement, and let everyone go to the contract and exchange stable coins.

< p>

At the same time, the community believes that it is necessary to take advantage of the hot NFT market to create its own community NFT. Panda initially vetoed the proposal, but at the insistence of the community, agreed. After discussing with the team, Panda hopes to combine NFT with the repurchase contract to do something different.

Finally, Random Panda Club (RPC), the community NFT of PandaDAO, is designed as a An NFT DEX agreement backed by PANDA assets, repurchase and contract guarantee. RPC has an NFT liquidity pool, in which anyone can mint or replace their own NFT at the original price, and the agreement charges a corresponding handling fee for each interaction, providing endorsement and value-added for the entire NFT series. Holders can also withdraw at a fixed price through the repurchase contract (Note by BlockBeats, see "What to buy in the bear market? PandaDao NFT— —RPC Project Analysis")

After several months of development, RPC and The repurchase contract was launched together in mid-August. The protocol interaction data is very good, and the anchor price has risen from 50,000 PANDA to 58,000 PANDA, an increase of about 20%.

< p>

But then the situation took a sharp turn for the worse.

On August 15, the repurchase contract was officially opened. The first recharge of 300,000 US dollars was exhausted within 8 hours. Subsequently, the team recharged the contract several times during the period from the 15th to the 28th, and almost all of them were exchanged immediately. Seeing this, the team immediately stopped the repurchase, stopped recharging the contract, and had a quarrel with some members of the community. The panic and division in the community escalated rapidly.

In the next ten days, the community began to accelerate its collapse in units of days edge. Some members of the community are also constantly looking for Panda and the core team to report the situation, hoping that the team will recharge the repurchase contract as soon as possible. Panda hopes to design a veToken model to increase the linear unlocking of Tokens and reduce some repurchase pressure.

But the panic and community splits didn't give the team much time. On the 14th, after the last recharge, the team stopped buying back completely. The community fell into chaos, some members sold a large number of tokens in their hands, and some accused the team of Rug Pull. Finally, after several discussions, the dissolution and refund proposal opened for Snapshot voting on September 21st. On September 24, the proposal was passed by the community, and the largest DAO organization on DeWork announced its dissolution.

Founder Panda: "The biggest success of a DAO is to give the founder to the DAO"

< p>

Panda is the founder of PandaDAO. Before that, he was engaged in network security work. After entering the encryption field for 17 years, he has accumulated some quantitative experience. After the establishment of PandaDAO, Panda has always been the soul of the community. Together with the engineering team, it developed two products, Pansight and Random Panda Club, and participated in the drafting and resolution of most of the community proposals.

Jack: How did PandaDAO land?

Panda: In fact, at the beginning of PandaDAO, we were To do some data formatting issues, we were doing this with several development engineers at the end of last year. At that time, I didn’t even think about calling it PandaDAO. I just formed an interest group, not a DAO organization yet. In the process, we joined the People DAO, and later it became bigger and bigger, and more and more people joined, so we established a DAO organization.

Jack: Before the establishment of DAO, what did the Panda team mainly do?

Panda: It was mainly development work at the time. We mainly do some data cleaning. From personal websites, such as the interface on Twitter, we crawl the data on a large scale. After crawling and cleaning, then see how to use the data. (Interview Note: Pansight was influenced by previous work.)

Jack: But XDash in the community mentioned that Pansight did not find a good market fit, what does Panda think?

Panda: I agree with what XDash said, his evaluation of the product is very objective . I basically agree with the problems he mentioned, but the reason why this situation still happened in the end is because there is no time to do product update iteration and development later.

Jack: Indeed, I checked on Pansight two days ago, and the aggregation of information is still in July.

Panda: Yes, we have not done any updates and iterations in this area since then, you can understand that basically all Since July, most of the core developers have focused on the governance level or governance tools.

Jack: Why did PandaDAO create Random Panda Club later?

Panda : RPC was also born in chaos. At that time, the NFT market was still in a stage of FOMO. At that time, the community already had FOMO sentiment. They believed that NFT was so popular. As the largest DAO organization on DeWork, it must issue its own NFT project.

But I don't think it should be sent in such a hurry. Although it is true that mint can be completed quickly, one key point is that you have not changed the industry. You may have just issued a bunch of PFPs. When NFT holders have losses, there is no way to take care of them. This is a very crucial point. So when we were discussing in the community, (the proposal) was rejected by me.

But the Slogan of our community is "What people want, what Panda build", since the community If you want it, let's make one. So later, with limited energy, I made the ERC-1155 Genesis NFT. This NFT is airdropped for free, and only a small part is around 0.02 ETH, mainly to make up for the reimbursement of Gas fees during contract deployment. At that time, there were 333 airdrops in total, and the rest were sent directly to the black hole address.

But later, because the number was too small, the community began to hype each other, and the FOMO sentiment was too serious. At that time, the highest price of the free airdropped Genesis NFT was pulled to 0.8 ETH, and it stayed at 0.5 ETH for a while, until the bubble came, and it returned to a very low price.

Jack: When did PandaDAO start having problems? where is the problem?

Panda: For me, starting from the beginning after purchasing the plan. Since almost April, some invisible mines have been planted. By April, there were already a large number of stablecoins in the community, and the entire encryption market was not very prosperous. Someone mentioned at that time, can some funds be transferred from the national treasury for repurchase?

What I thought at the time was that (the treasury) didn’t need that much money because we The initial target value was only 500 ETH, and then jumped directly to 1900 ETH. So much money is of little significance to us, and many funds are idle. At that time, I wanted to use a large amount of funds for Token repurchase and then destroy it.

At that time, the price we set was in the range of 0.005. Initially, Uniswap and other open markets were repurchased, and more than 500,000 US dollars were repurchased. But some people in the community were worried about insider trading, and we stopped the repurchase after encountering this problem. Since everyone is more worried about insider operations, then write a contract directly, put all the repurchase funds into the agreement, and everyone will send the Token to the contract and get back the stable currency.

But I overlooked a problem at the time. According to the circulation of Token at that time and the number of stablecoins held by the community, repurchase at the price of 0.005 is actually not a big problem. But later, on the one hand, Token is increasing this circulation, because developers and community mod members, the income they get is distributed with PANDA Token as an incentive. At the same time, another point is that your stablecoins are also being consumed. So in fact, there is no way to support the repurchase price later.

All the voters in the community did not find the bug in this logic. After the problem was discovered, (the team) put a stop to this aspect of the behavior. This repurchase is not something we can afford, and it also caused the community to collapse and fall into a death spiral.

Jack: So the main problem with PandaDAO is this buyback program?

Panda: Until that day with After communicating with MC79 and other people, I thought, this is not just a question of repurchase. I think the deeper reason is that this DAO is becoming less and less like a DAO organization, it is more and more like a centralized organization, or more like a Web2 company. Many people are asking for my opinion, asking for my thoughts, and wanting me to make a decision, and everyone is unwilling to pay for the decision they make.

At the same time, what we (most of the time) are thinking about is not where the product is not perfect, but the peers Or what new products in the market can be used for our reference. It is no longer a discussion of these issues, it is all about governance. I have to take care of the interests of everyone, including the interests of Core, developers, and Token holders, all of which are decided by me alone.

Jack: Some community members want the team to recharge the contract as soon as possible. Why didn’t Panda choose to do so in the end?

Panda: Because at that time everyone has discovered the repurchase There was a mistake in the calculation of the amount, and we were too optimistic about the market at that time. At the beginning, we thought that the PANDA circulating in the market was 700 to 800 million. I thought that if I put more than one million US dollars in it, I wouldn’t be able to hold on for a month. But the real thing is that after recharging, it will be gone in seconds. After holding on for more than half a month, you can see the K-line chart. At that time, 0.005 was strong for a period of time, and it was all supported by the repurchase contract.

The total number of tokens circulating on the market at that time should be around 700 million. For the repurchase, all treasury funds are thrown into the repurchase contract, and there may still be about 200 to 300 million yuan that will not be repurchased. After discovering the problem, we stopped the repo.

At that time, I faced a dilemma. Some of them can indeed be repurchased. But how to survive after the repurchase (bear market)? This is a very critical question. And there are some developers who quit all their jobs and come in full-time. They also need salary every month. If all the funds are transferred to the repurchase contract, I can’t guarantee that the developers will be safe for the next year. of.

Very difficult, you can’t make 100% happy, you can only take care of everyone the rights of some people. On one side are NFT holders and Token holders. They hope to start the repurchase, so that the currency price can perform better as soon as possible, forming a relatively large arbitrage space. On the one hand, the core developers are worried that after the repurchase is launched, it will be very difficult in the future, and even the rights and interests of a small number of people will be sacrificed, and all subsequent conflicts will be passed on to the Core team that wrote the proposal.

Jack: So when MC79 and other community members came to Panda, the treasury funds had already Starting to dry up?

Panda: Yes, the repurchase funds began to dry up, and then there was more panic in the community. At that time, everyone was less concerned about the subsequent product development, and more concerned about whether there was money in your repurchase contract, which was similar to the feeling when Luna crashed. At that time, if you continue to recharge it, the problem will actually be more serious.

If it was continued at the beginning, I think it was a relatively irrational behavior. If you continue to recharge it at that time, the refund may not even reach 0.003. At the same time, the contract has also reached the upper limit of repurchase, which is almost 2 million US dollars. If you want to continue to recharge it, you must re-issue the proposal.

Jack: Community member MC79 has a point of doubt that the state treasury allocated during this period The salary for developers is a bit high? What does Panda think?

Panda: There are two types of developers in our community, the first is full-time type, the second The second type is part-time. The part-time job type is more based on the weight of the Task he leads. If the difficulty coefficient of the Task is high, it will give a relatively high Bonus. And in the early stage, we tried our best to use community tokens as incentives for part-time developers.

There are two incentives for full-time developers, one is PANDA Token and the other is stable currency. The stable currency (reward) is around 4,000 US dollars, and the PANDA Token will be locked. This part of the PANDA Token cannot be moved until the community sends a proposal saying that it can be moved, and then the funds can be used. Now the community is facing dissolution, and all the more than 50 million Tokens locked by everyone have entered the destruction process.

Jack: When the treasury money started to dry up, did you consider lowering developer salaries a bit?

Panda: This is really a drop in the bucket. Because there are only six or seven full-time developers in the entire community, the development salary of 20,000 to 30,000 is the average price of the market.

Jack: The community has problems and finally disbanded. Who is more responsible?

Panda: Everyone has it. I wrote the proposal. As the initiator of the proposal, I may not have noticed the corresponding risks brought about later, and I must be responsible. The voters did not read the content of the proposal, and everyone cast the same vote because everyone only thought about short-term solicitation. The multi-signers did not find any problems with the proposal, whether the repurchase amount was set too high, the multi-signers did not notice. Then, as a Core member, when I sent out the draft, I didn’t check to see if I could meet these standards based on the draft. Everyone didn’t read it.

Everyone has a corresponding responsibility, I have it too, everyone has it.

Jack: Did you make any regrets during the whole incident? If you could turn back time, what would you want to change?

Panda: There must be. When we made the repurchase proposal, the direction was wrong. We should not repurchase according to the stablecoin (anchor), or (repurchase funds) should be repurchased in small batches every month according to the rate of return obtained by the community. Someone also mentioned that we should send a separate proposal when Ethereum was $800 to buy back all the ETH raised at that time, and then make a permanent refund. In fact, I could have done it at that time, but I didn't do it.

These are several business levels. If we say that time goes back and then forward, it may be said that after the financing is completed, then after it is converted into a stable currency, and then it happens to be during the big dive of Ethereum. At that time, the community should be completely autonomous and should no longer rely on me personally. All the funds should be bought into ETH, put into the repurchase contract, and then let the community self-govern, which should be done at that time.

Jack: Why did Panda decide to disband in the end?

Panda: To disband is also to let the community have a better develop. Because at that time, I had already discovered that the fundamental problem was not simply a repurchase problem, but more problems appeared at the governance level. Although it is a DAO, it is becoming less and less a DAO.

Mr. Xiao Feng, chairman of Wanxiang, also said that there is no so-called "founder" in a DAO community, only the so-called "sponsor". As a DAO promoter, I should not control this community. But although I have tried my best to decentralize my rights, the community is still guided by you. You need to ask for your consent to do anything in the community. It is already wrong to start from this, so I think it should be radically cured.

At the same time, a DAO should allow anyone to exit and enter freely, but I found that PandaDAO has Not anymore. For example, if you want to join Core members or other groups, there will be a series of approval procedures, which are cumbersome, and there is no way to make contributions freely, and the entire DAO is very closed. So I think disbanding is the best for it, and it is also the best solution I can do so far.

Jack: One solution proposed by MC79 is to reshuffle the core team, there is no need to Disbandment, what does Panda think?

Panda: I have thought about what MC79 and others said, whether to completely remove the previous team from Core stripped out. However, after thinking about it, I think there is still a problem. Where is the problem? Even if you pull out all the cores, everyone’s opinions still have to be asked to you. This is the most critical point.

Jack: Does the community cease to exist after the dissolution?

Panda: It should be said that after the dissolution, it can only be said to be completely autonomous. Because you are just the initiator, in fact you have no way to control his life or death. Just the previously created Discord channel and server, as well as Twitter, will be logged out.

Jack: After PandaDAO is disbanded, how will the assets of the core team be disposed of?

Panda: We got a lot of Tokens in front of the Core, almost 40 million PANDA, which basically belong to For the pledged and unlocked status, I made up some more, almost more than 50 million PANDA. All have been transferred to the multi-signed treasury and will be destroyed in a unified manner.

core member PANDA Collection Transfer

Treasury PANDA Destruction Contract Record

Jack: What about the future of Pansight? Is it still being maintained?

Panda: There is no maintenance at present, because now the main energy is to keep the refund contract The entire refund process has been confirmed and opened as soon as possible. After this incident, everyone's minds have calmed down, and they don't need to worry about governance work anymore. They may spend most of their time reviewing and summarizing the previous product development process, and then look at what needs to be updated. Includes some updates on direction, product and technology.

In the future, we will form a small team (to develop Pansight), and everyone may return to a part-time job , After the dissolution, they need to find a job again. I think there will be a directional adjustment next, that is, whether you want to do data deep processing, format and clear things, or do Alpha information alarms, and then you need to make a directional choice.

Jack: Has Panda participated in the new DAO formed by MC79?

Panda: I haven't joined the new community yet, and I don't have the right to speak. This is very good, and it completely gives him autonomy. In the past, we have always been in the relationship between the operator and the trader. I was the operator of the previous community, and the others were traders. I did not manage the entire community, but joined the community as a trader.

But after this time, everyone has become an operator, and everyone has to go Considering the newly established community, how should the multi-signature treasury be established? Where does the treasury's future funding plan come from? How should the RPC protocol work? At this time, the identity has been completely changed, and it can be regarded as achieving the goal I wanted to achieve before, so I completely gave myself to DAO.

Jack: Is the failure rate of domestic DAO really higher?

Panda: I don’t think we can talk about domestic and foreign DAOs alone. There are quite a lot of overseas DAO failures. Everyone is exploring in this field. It’s just that in China, it is more like an interest group. Maybe you don’t have too many financial and interest entanglements in the early stage, so naturally you don’t think about the distribution of cakes. However, once domestic DAOs involve the distribution of interests, it will become quite complicated. This is true.

Jack: PandaDAO has refunded from the largest DAO organization on DeWork before Disbandment is indeed a pity.

Panda: I don’t feel pity. Because now that the community is fully autonomous, no one knows how the community will develop in the future, and I have no right to speak. Everyone is now in a period of chaos, very similar to the moment when ConstitutionDAO was disbanded. When it was disbanded, everyone was thinking about what to do. Some people dumped People Token in large quantities before disbanding, some people kept holding it, and some people started to form new communities.

I think this is what a DAO organization should look like. Everyone can join based on the original Token, and they can also leave freely. After the (PandaDAO) community is disbanded, some people may go to build investment research groups, some may do governance work, and some may develop other products. Everyone is equal now, and everyone can build what they want on the basis of the original community and foundation.

BlockBeats note, at the end of the interview, Panda expressed the hope to pass BlockBeats to the original PandaDAO community own voice. See the original paraphrase at the end of this article.

Multi-signature holder 0xAA: "PandaDAO Disbandment Refund , at least a good start"

0xAA is a core member of PeopleDAO and the PeopleDAO elected by the community Multi-signature holder. PeopleDAO provides initial incubation resources for the PandaDAO community, and the PeopleDAO multi-signature also serves as the PandaDAO treasury multi-signature to review and execute the financial proposals of the PandaDAO community. 0xAA played an important role in rejecting the UST mining proposal and preventing PandaDAO from being involved in the Luna crash disaster.

Jack: Does 0xAA participate in the decision-making of PandaDAO?

0xAA: I am mainly one of the multi-signers, Execute their community proposals and multisig transactions. They have 18 proposals, and there may be about 100 multi-signature transactions. Because we (PeopleDAO) hope that each sub-DAO can develop relatively independently and do not want to affect it. During the incubation process of PandaDAO, we provided some initial financial support, as well as some talent support, including developers from the community. At present, PeopleDAO is also incubating some web3 public goods projects, such as Lost Children of Benin Cit, a research organization determined to solve the problem of human trafficking in Africa.

Jack: Can 0xAA analyze the reasons for the problems with PandaDAO from your own perspective?

0xAA: I think it is a comprehensive problem, plus this The rendering of bear market pessimism.

First of all about refunds. In the middle of PandaDAO, many people wanted to exit because of the bear market. Then PandaDAO launched a refund proposal at that time, and each PANDA was refunded at a rate of 0.005 DAI. This refund is set too high, because you may think that not so many people will refund at first, and then set the amount according to the market price. However, there were too many refunds later, and it was later discovered that this excessive amount could not be sustained. In this way, many people think that there is a problem with the reputation of the team, and distrust between the community and the team begins. The increase of distrust may lead to the breakdown of consensus, and then more people hope to withdraw. This is the first one.

The second is the issue of governance, maybe the community thinks their voice is too small. There is a review system in the middle of PandaDAO's proposal, which is a review team composed of 14 people to review each proposal. In fact, many DAOs have such a system, because if you have too many proposals, there may be too many voices, and the really useful proposals may be drowned out. However, the review team of PandaDAO may have too few people selected from the community, so the community feels that many voices cannot be heard.

Jack: What is the composition of the review team?

0xAA: part is the core The core of the team is partly elected by the community, and the proportion of the number of people elected by community members may be less than 50% (I am not sure about this figure). There must be something wrong with this, I think it is a system design problem. If the DAO (new PandaDAO) is to be done again in the future, the proposal process needs to be made more decentralized, at least to allow all community members to have a sense of decentralized participation.

Jack: MC79 believes that if the repurchase contract is recharged earlier, it will not appear Crisis of Confidence. What about 0xAA?

0xAA: This view It's not right. Because the amount of refund is set too high, if the people in front exchange it, the people behind will not be able to redeem it. Therefore, the refund at that time was not a long-term solution, and the treasury did not have so many assets to support the refund.

Jack: Is disbanding the best solution?

0xAA: Yes, I I think this is the consensus of everyone, the community members hope this, and finally the team also hopes this. I also agree with their disbandment, that is to implement according to the results of the proposal. I think that 99% of Web3 projects may end up with most of the failed projects, or projects that cannot maintain a good community. Investors’ funds are not guaranteed, and the founding team may run away with (funds). I think PandaDAO (dissolution refund) has at least made a good start. Even if there is a consensus problem between the community and the (team) core, refunds can be made in this way of liquidation.

Jack: Will the problems encountered by PandaDAO appear in other DAOs?

0xAA: Maybe most DAOs are actually very Centralized, so there will be (trust) problems between the community and the (team) core. The solution after People DAO is to provide a governance layer (system optimization) when we incubate sub-DAOs. The People DAO conducts statistics every month or every week to see if the opinions of the community have been conveyed to the (team) core, and to continuously optimize the system.

Jack: Has People DAO encountered similar governance issues?

0xAA: People DAO is currently No, because our proposal is a very liberal approach. The second is that we did not issue Token. The People Token was issued by Constitution DAO before. We just used it, so there is no conflict between investors and the core team.

Jack: 0xAA What do you think of the new PandaDAO community?

0xAA: I listen to this Having said that, it was also done by MC79 and some big community members and community members, I think it is very good. After the project party is disbanded, all assets can be refunded. You can choose to refund at any time, or you can take PANDA Token to build an autonomous DAO. I didn't go in, but I think it's pretty good. Whether successful or not, I think it is a good attempt.

Community member MC79: "When problems arise, the team needs to have the spirit of a strong man"

h3>

MC79 is PandaDAO is a very recognized PandaDAO "community leader". When there was a problem with the repurchase contract and panic spread in the community, MC79 worked hard to communicate with the core team to maintain community harmony and confidence, and even bought back a large amount of PANDA Token for the community at their own expense.

Jack: Why did you join PandaDAO in the first place?

MC79: I bought PEOPLE before, and then I have been I prefer the form of DAO, and feel that this form should be a form of "future company". Moreover, Panda has personal charm. I used to follow some of Panda’s tweets on Twitter. I think he is a better person and his personality is more like mine.

So when PandaDAO released the 0.005 repurchase announcement, I think it is an opportunity, maybe I will go along the old road of People, so I rushed in at that time. The market price at that time was a little lower than the repurchase price, but when I went in, I was already collecting directly against the repurchase price, and I didn’t actually make a profit.

Jack: What does MC79 mainly do in the community?

MC79: I don't. Even if I am the largest holder in this community, I am more active in the community, and everyone recognizes me. I have been involved in this matter from the beginning to the end, and most of them are private chats with pandas, so I still understand the situation better.

Jack: According to MC79, where is the main problem of PandaDAO?

MC79: I think it is mainly on the repurchase question. At that time, in May, some large investors felt that the price of the currency had been falling, so they proposed to use the method of repurchase, similar to that of PeopleDAO, to support the price of the currency and their confidence in PANDA. At that time, they reported it to Panda in the community, and finally Panda agreed. When the proposal was agreed, Pandora's box was opened. Everyone thinks that this mechanism with bottom support is very good, and it may revive the confidence of the market, at least it inspired me.

In fact, if you follow the original idea of Panda, I guess if you just do repurchase, the problem will be Shouldn't be too big. But it may take a relatively long time to make a repurchase contract, or it may be that Panda wants to use it on (RPC) NFT. So on the same day that NFT was issued, the repurchase plan was started.

But because of the previously promised repurchase price of 0.005, it can be said that it is tied to a chariot, and can only be done with the repurchase price of 0.005. This led to an unlimited repurchase in the end, and the entire national treasury was not enough because of the announcement and wages (expenditures). And now it is a bear market, if everyone sees that your treasury is not enough, you will definitely run more and more, and finally it becomes a run.

Jack: When will MC79 start reporting community issues to Panda?

MC79: Probably in August 30th. The repurchase contract we opened on August 15 has been recharging since then. But after I saw that the recharge had been repurchased on August 30, I was a little anxious. I hope that Panda will recharge as soon as possible to give retail investors some confidence. So starting from August 30th, I chatted with him privately and suggested that he recharge as soon as possible.

Jack: When did the community find out that there is a problem with the repurchase contract?

MC79: The community should actually Some people already know it, but they don't say it. (Community) A large number of people trust Panda, so they did not carefully check the data on the chain, nor did they consider whether the amount of treasury and Token is sufficient to support it.

After I persuaded him on August 30, he didn’t answer me much, just Tell me (the repo) will be a little later. At that time, I thought it was okay. After all, I just finished recharging on August 30, so I don't think the problem is big. By the time of the 31st, some people in the community who had no time to leave started to quarrel, demanding to recharge the repurchase contract. Under such circumstances, on September 2nd, because I was worried that these people would cause the collapse of the entire community, I first used my own funds to help the team do a part of the buyback, which made a few particularly noisy ( Members) repurchase and leave first. After all, many people in the community will follow suit. If there are always people making trouble there, it is easy for everyone to run away.

Jack: Has the team notified the community in the form of an announcement?

MC79: None. So the community is dissatisfied with the team's handling, which is also the reason. At that time, Panda said in the community and in the group that I will block you and prevent you from walking freely. If you want to leave, you can exchange them in the market (at the market price). Because those noisy people do not hold RPC, they are just some old people in the community, and they have long wanted to leave.

So Panda should actually be angry, or he actually knows that the amount of repurchase cannot be fully supported. In short, it was delayed from August 30th to September 14th, and then the $500,000 was put in the repurchase contract again, but I also communicated with him several times in the middle.

Put this money in as much as possible, otherwise there will be constant disturbances in the community, and if it is delayed for a day, more people will come out to make disturbances. Because RPC’s external publicity is a permanent guarantee, then you can’t let it (unable to repurchase) cause you to lose credit. At that time, I was only worried about a run, and I didn't think that the treasury was not enough to support it.

Jack: What asset is the RPC guarantee based on?

MC79: Panda original The idea is to bind the stable currency to go out, because if you don’t go out from the stable currency, it is equivalent to a dual-currency DeFi. So in fact, everyone knows very well that there must be a 0.005 guarantee in the end. I think the idea of Panda at the beginning is that no matter how bad the issuance of NFT is, there will be some income. If there is this income, the treasury is actually enough to support it. But when we issued NFT, in the end the treasury did not have any Ethereum income, only the income of PANDA, and most of the income of PANDA was bought by these old people.

Jack: From the perspective of MC79, did the team deal with the whole thing? mistake?

MC79: In my opinion there are several key points , can actually do better. The first one is on August 30th. If it were me, I would have paid more money, and there would be no window period for the (repurchase contract). Because although many people want to leave, there are still many retail investors after all. If you can maintain your confidence as soon as possible, I believe it will not collapse so easily.

The second is from the perspective of the team, I think when you find that the treasury is empty Sometimes, you need to use the spirit of a strong man to deal with this matter, which is to issue an announcement as soon as possible to inform the community of our current situation, and then let the community make a choice, instead of delaying again and again, so that your reputation has reached the lowest point. When everyone in the community discovers this problem by themselves, it is difficult to cover up. So you can either rush forward to fight, or inform as soon as possible, so that everyone has a choice.

And on the 14th, everyone has found that the treasury is indeed not enough, I also In communicating with him, I hope he can cut the salary of the team, modify the incentive plan, or reorganize the Core team. If you are willing to reorganize, then someone from the community (the core team) can first help find some loopholes that caused this incident, and second, at least some people in the community can remain. And if you are willing to cut your salary now, if you can raise funds or release other products well in the future, the community will agree to get more rewards. This is my idea, I didn't think about disbanding directly, I didn't have this idea.

Jack: MC79 thinks what are the main aspects of the reorganization of the Core team?

MC79: the current Core In the team, I know that there are about 11 people, 8 of whom are in technology, which is the technology recruited by Panda, and the remaining 3 are representatives selected by the community, but I think this allocation is very unreasonable. First of all, if all decisions are made by these 11 people, then 8 people must be able to hold power, right? Of course, there is a meeting room that can make proposals, but any proposal needs to be reviewed by the Core team even after the meeting room passes it. Only after the Core is passed can the Snapshot be voted on. Then this is equivalent to the entire rights being controlled by Core.

Jack: How does MC79 see the decision to disband?

MC79: I was very angry when I heard the news of the disbandment of. At that time, Panda directly issued an announcement. I think it has not reached that point yet. You should announce the situation to the community, and then let the community choose. Panda was disbanded directly according to a clause in the original white paper. I was quite angry at the time, but after thinking about it for a few hours, I feel that this is indeed the "least bad" way. Because if the announcement is made to the community, the team may be under a lot of pressure, and the community will almost certainly be everyone who will blame them. Some people may be able to stay, but most people will definitely leave. It might be better for everyone to disband in this way.

Jack: What is the mood of the community about the disbandment right now?

MC79: There is still a part People are willing to believe in Panda, and of course there are many slanderous voices, saying that they are corrupt or have run away. But in my personal opinion, it is actually not right. Panda is actually just a selective mistake, because there is a problem with the product, and it is really difficult for you to make up for it in a bear market. I personally think that Panda is a person with ideas, not the kind of person who will run softly.

Jack: After the whole incident, how about the loss of community members?

MC79: If you press For Ethereum, the loss is indeed not particularly large. However, everyone’s anchoring psychology must not be based on Ethereum. Many people have lost 70% (dollar denominated). I am better, because a large part of my funds were bought when it was relatively low So at the current price of about 0.03, I will probably lose about 40%. Some people who don't pay much attention will throw and smash the market in that market. Most people who still have coins are still waiting for this refund contract.

Jack: Why do you want to form a new PandaDAO?

MC79: I still have a little influence in the community, Everyone still recognizes me, and I don't want PandaDAO to die out like this, so I still want to get people together again, and then see how far the community can go.

Jack: Main directions for the new PandaDAO?

MC79< /b>: At present, some of our friends are also re-communicating with Panda, and we currently intend to continue to run RPC. Because at that time, the main reason why RPC could not continue to run was also the problem of this repurchase. The repurchase was stuck, and the treasury did not have enough money, so there was no way to do the repurchase. But it’s different now. Now we have made a guarantee for the refund contract, so the logic of RPC still exists. As the only NFT on the market that uses Ethereum to guarantee the bottom forever, I think it still has its own value. After the refund, if those who stay are willing to continue, then we will move on.

Jack: Where will the new DAO treasury be funded? Who will manage it?

MC79: We are now The multi-signature of the election treasury, and then these people who are willing to stay will do this multi-signature treasury. As for the source of funds, I thought about it for a while. Now that the RPC is running again, only one initial reward is needed. We plan to use the method of donation, that is, big players and even Panda are willing to donate, and we donate part of the money to make a reward pool to make RPC work again. But after the RPC is running, its handling fee can be replenished back to the treasury, so that it can be rotated.

Jack: What has changed in the new community governance mechanism? Who will review the proposal?

MC79: We are currently Elect the governance committee, which is elected by all DAO members. Regarding proposals, we want to do some optimization so that anyone can make a proposal, and then judge whether it is necessary to post a Snapshot based on the like rate of the proposal. Now DAO governance is still being explored. When we were in the old community, we actually organized a DAO discussion group, but it was disbanded before the results came out. Now we may continue to explore again. Because there is still plenty of time, after all, the most important thing now is to get RPC running first, and there is no rush for the rest.

Conclusion

< /p>

On September 29th, after several rounds of security audits, PandaDAO's refund process officially started. From a simple idea of "doing decentralized data media", to issuing Tokens, designing repurchases, and launching NFT agreements, becoming the largest DAO organization on DeWork, the development and changes of PandaDAO in the past year have exceeded the expectations of everyone in the community. Its success is surprising, and its disbandment is also embarrassing.

After experiencing the incident of PandaDAO, we can't help but think about what a DAO should be Keep your original intention and development direction? How should the entry and exit of members be controlled? And how to balance different values and interest distribution in the community?

After interviewing various members of the community, it is not difficult for us to find that the biggest problem of PandaDAO The reason is that the community has accommodated too many members with fundamentally different values and interests when the governance mechanism has not yet been perfected. A DAO organization that wants to be a decentralized data media not only attracts developers, but also attracts many Token and NFT traders for speculative purposes. This also made the development of the community deviate from the original direction, and the distribution of benefits became more complicated, and finally the problem broke out completely through the imperfect governance mechanism.

Actually, the PandaDAO incident is not an isolated case, many current DAO organizations, more or less Encountered a problem similar to this. As Vitalik said in an interview, "The hardest job on Ethereum is not technical development, but satisfying everyone in the community." How the community is governed, how products are developed, and how benefits are distributed, all of these reflect the long road ahead for the emerging organizational form of DAO. But although the dissolution of PandaDAO has added some pessimism to the bear market, the exploration of DAO should not stop.

Finally, we end with what Panda left for the community:

“I think it’s at this point today, although it’s not perfect , I still hope to say something to some DAO members who are still there through BlockBeats.

Although we have done some correct things before, there are also some wrong things, whether it is core members or It doesn’t matter to other operating groups, developers, or even other ordinary community members. But no matter what, the entire community is now facing dissolution. I would like to say sorry to everyone for some incorrect decisions made before, no Sorry, as the leader, I also have some corresponding responsibilities for some wrong things done by DAO.

But I think the dissolution does not mean that it will die. After disbanding, it will form a complete, decentralized autonomous organization. After that, no one needs to consult anyone else to build whatever they want in the DAO community. They can Contact engineers to do various things they want to achieve, like traders, they can connect together, and then do various transactions, the same is true for investment. The entire DAO organization will be more At the same time, it will be more autonomous and the power will be more balanced.

First of all, I think DAO is a trust-free network. Regarding this point, we The refund contract has been written out, and all people can refund based on this refund contract, which basically belongs to a transparent and trust-free network. For other colleagues, I think we should avoid as much as possible Some ways, don't treat DAO as a company to operate. DAO is not equivalent to a company, but it is not equivalent to an interest group. It should be a new organizational structure. Some small partners and colleagues who are doing DAO may need to pay attention to this point. At the same time, the founders of DAO should not have too much interference and control over the community. These are some lessons and experiences that I think colleagues can learn from.

Last point, I hope that after PandaDAO is disbanded, its rebirth will be better and better. I think the success of a DAO is really giving the founder to the DAO. This is the biggest success of this DAO. After this disbandment, I no longer have any right to speak to the entire community, and I hope to completely give myself to DAO. I hope that other people in the community can make better use of their strengths and advantages in the new community, thank you. "

欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：

Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia