We propose changing the name of our DAO from StakeBorg DAO to Construct. This is to better align the branding of our DAO with the main product we plan to launch, Construct, as well as the ecosystem we plan to build around it.
Not only that, but DMOB is just as much building Construct as StakeBorg is, and we want to make sure that our organization’s name respects the collaboration.
Construct is a no-code solution that allows creators & brands to launch their decentralized application, token, DAO or their NFTs and open up the channels for them to have two-way interactions with their communities and monetize their efforts in a completely decentralized and censorship-resistant way.
We believe that this change will be beneficial for our organization and its members as we want people to easily associate Construct (the tool) with our DAO, thus boosting recognizability. It’s of utmost importance to assure continuity and synergy between the brand and the product and this proposal aims to do just that.
It makes sense to change it if Construct will be your most important tool but “Stakeborg” still sounds better. Even Elrond sounds much better than Multiversx but who knows .
Hi frens, the name of the DAO is StakeborgDao and i dont see any sense to change it. I love this name and i grow with this name, is in my heart. Don’t need to change. This is my opinion with this change. Thank you.
I’m ok with changes, but Construct is the only one possibility? We can be more creative and find something more resonant.
I’m just saying.
Formula Dao, Rethink Dao, Build DAO
How this sounds? Let’s hear more options
To be honest I’m not a fan of changing the name. Some people may think that Elrond did it and now other projects want to do it too for more recognition or hype in the web 3.0 space.
I think people are already familiar with StakeborgDAO and there’s no need in changing the name.
What we’ll really need, in my opinion, is advertising and people to understand and recognise the benefits of this tool that Stakeborg has.
@AdrianDorin@sekoballin and everyone else, thank you for the feedback! picking a name for this proposal wasn’t specifically easy, especially since there are so many fitting words in the lexical field of “building”.
However, since we know that the tool is called “Construct”, it makes sense to have complete exposure to its name and have the maximum chances of being recognized for it when it comes to fruition. Certainly there are other couple of names but we decided to stick with this one for the purpose of this proposal
Now we’re talking!
Congratulations for the initiative Core team.
This alligns more/best to the original idea of Digital Colony and evolving into a Platform as a Service is a logical step that would indeed benefit the whole organisation and it’s members, …and $STANDARD price :D.
If this new proposal is not just about the name change (as written in title), and it is indeed about building a DAO owned business, offering the mentioned tools, most community member would be happy, confident to invest, get involved, and promote this community more.
I would also buy some Construct NFTs to support such efforts should you consider to fund it and distribute the shares this way…
I think it would be even better if this idea would be video presented to the community in more detail, develop a roadmap, gather feedback and suggestions from community.
Come to speak about details, it is important, cause, for example, if this whole idea would continue on Ethereum, I would not consider it.
However, before we change the name, we should allign it with the new/renewed vision and properly build it as a brand.
Again, congratulations and I hope to see this evolve into it potential.
As far as I know, the Construct architecture is made to run on the Ethereum network, as well as the tokenization of the DAO. Although the tokenization can be ported to another network like Elrond, I think it would be wiser to stay on the ERC-20 Ethereum-based networks like Polygon which can rolls thousands of L2 transactions up into a single Ethereum transaction. But as you said, more information from the Core-Team will elucidate our speculations.
The proposal is solely for the purpose of changing the DAO’s name and does not include any additional actions besides this. Construct, as a product, is intended to be launched on Ethereum as previously stated.
Unfortunately ConstructDAO as a brand is already used by other entities/persons. Domain names, Twitter account, *.eth, ASO are unavailable. Optimally, I would go through an internal brainstorming process and choose the top two or three names, ensure their brands, and then come up with the proposal.
Just my two cents.
This will also transform the DAO into something ruled by 2 legal entities? (Stakeborg SRL and DMOB) What will remain of Standard? How it will keep its value?
Since DAO won’t be part of the name, can you clarify if this has any implication on the organization form of the entity behind the Construct product? Aka Construct (ex-StakeborgDAO) will still be acting as a DAO?
@GSPing, @ostanescu it’s nice to see you guys. and with great questions too
STANDARD will continue existing as-is - the core of our DAO. For this purpose there won’t be another token and the value will be enriched through Construct (the tool) and its usage by the larger crypto community. The proposal also has the role of recognizing DMOB as part of the core team, as stated.
And, although DAO is not part of the name, it will still be (and, therefore, act) as a DAO. On-chain and off-chain governance as we had until now
.
