Evolving GreenPill as a Brand, DAO & Mutual Aid Network

Greenpill Network Proposals
1

:seedling: Proposal: Evolving GreenPill as a Brand, DAO & Mutual Aid Network

Hey GreenPillers,

As we continue to grow in numbers, energy, and ambition, it’s time we think more deeply about how we evolve the GreenPill network intentionally—not just as a loose collection of Telegram groups and projects, but as a cohesive brand and a DAO-of-DAO-governed movement.

This post follows up on thoughts shared in Owocki’s post about bringing the Network on-chain (Bringing Greenpill.network On-Chain & Proving Out Revenue in 2025). It is also an attempt at synthesising an ongoing discussion about strategy, growth and organization that’s been happening in the last several weeks in Steward syncs and our various community calls.

:cyclone: GreenPill as a Brand: Time to Embrace the Idea

Let’s start thinking of GreenPill as a shared brand—a set of values, principles, aesthetics, and trust signals that people recognize. It gives legitimacy to our Chapters, Guilds, Pods, apps, and projects. But like any brand, its strength depends on how well it’s protected, curated, and evolved.

Just like open-source software needs good governance, the GreenPill brand needs a Brand Council—a small, trusted group at the “top”, perhaps with rotating membership, tasked with a very limited scope:

  • Reviewing and proposing to accept/deny new Pods / Guilds / Chapters (we’ll refer to these as our “nodes” here)

  • Ensuring ongoing alignment and value creation by existing nodes

  • Setting minimum standards for coordination, transparency, revenue sharing, and shared stewardship.

  • Revoking or slashing brand privileges if a node acts in bad faith or causes harm

We’re not proposing centralization. Such a Brand Council would put all key decisions up for a vote by the collective of all Stewards, and they must conduct their sessions in the open. But it is an important “brand stewardship” role and requires some dedication. It should also come with some compensation for the work involved.

:balance_scale: Ownership and Accountability

Each new and old node (Chapter/Guild/Pod/project) could perhaps earn time-weighted, performance-based stewardship in the network. Think of this like equity in the brand. Why? To incentivize the right behaviours and disincentivize actions that might harm the brand. For example:

  • The longer and better a node performs, the more “reputation equity” it accrues.

  • Bad behavior or inactivity risks slashing that stake.

  • This creates positive competition: who can continuously do the most good, most visibly, and most collaboratively? It also gives incentives for our Network to grow through new nodes to be formed, and for external projects to apply to become part of the GreenPill Family.

:light_bulb: Inspiration: Think Keiretsu, Not Monopoly

In Japan’s Keiretsu system, businesses with overlapping focus areas support each other rather than dominate. We should emulate that.

Examples:

  • The DevGuild shouldn’t own “all things dev.” A potential hypothetical new “DevGuild for External Projects” or a “PM Guild” should be welcomed if they offer value and have a distinct mandate.
  • Similarly, a new “Grant Guild” might complement an existing WritersGuild—sharing learnings, specializing, or collaborating on big grants.
  • Proposals for Pods also don’t need to wait for busy central coordinators. Just read up on the criteria, start one, and once you’re going then check in with the Brand Council to get “GreenPill certified”

This kind of healthy pluralism helps us scale. The Brand Council should encourage—not suppress—such initiatives, while still setting coordination guardrails. This way, the work of the central team becomes easier, while at the same time nodes are more empowered and the Network as a whole becomes more decentralized, not less.

:classical_building: Governing on Gardens.fund

Eventually, we’ll want multiple signaling pools on Gardens. This can take several forms, but here is an initial suggestion which build on our current org structure:

  • One pool for new Pods

  • One for new Guilds

  • One for new Chapters

  • One for Apps that want to use the GreenPill brand

The Brand Council should manage thresholds and criteria, but voting could include stewards from across the network—at least for major decisions. We also should figure out if anyone should be allowed to make a proposal, or if only the Brand Council should be mandated to do this.

:round_pushpin:What This Proposal Doesn’t Solve (Yet)

This proposal doesn’t directly address compensation. But it does give us the framework to solve for it. How?

Each node is a semi-autonomous mutual-aid unit, proposing internally how to fund and reward its contributors, while agreeing to:

  • Collaborate across the network

  • Report transparently

  • Share a significant portion of revenue/profit/equity/tokens with the broader GreenPill ecosystem, for example by establishing some form of Service Agreements with the Network. (These will probably be significantly different between Guilds/Pods/Chapters, and may even be unique for each node.)

This proposal also doesn’t address which specific nodes to be created. We’re hoping it will result in a lot of proposals though. Here is some food for thought, example of possible nodes based on all the awesome activities already happening in our broad ecosystem, which may benefit from scoping as separate nodes:

  • Treasury management and general accounting
  • Grants writing and coordination of grant milestone delivery
  • Partnerships with other Ecosystems
  • Operations & platform management (e.g. ITTT, calendar, task board, Twitter, etc.)
  • Resource curation for education and promotion
  • Etc. etc. regenerative stuff

:red_question_mark:Open Questions for the Network

We’re putting this out there to get your input. Some open questions:

  1. What should the Brand Council’s mandate be? How much power should it hold? Should they have a monopoly on proposing Entry/Exit Signalling Polls?

  2. What should the Brand Council’s name be? Stewardship Circle? GreenPill Council? Brand Stewards? Network Custodians? Council of Stewards? Brand Ambassador Council?

  3. How big should the Brand Council be? 3 people? 5? 7? Elected? Rotating? Or liquid democracy based on top runners in an evergreen Gardens conviction poll?

  4. Who should be eligible to vote in signaling pools? All stewards? Only stewards of active nodes? Members of active nodes?

  5. How do we define a “node” (Chapter/Guild/Pod/project/app) and what standards should they meet to get accepted?

  6. What are some good initial nodes to set up? Could a new Grant Guild be the first new one? Or an App Guild for apps developed in Chapters or externally? Which other suggestions do you have?

  7. What revenue-sharing rules feel fair? Should it be a flat % of grant wins and donations? Of licensing revenue or profits?

  8. How do we keep this inclusive without losing coherence? For example, can other brands be GreenPill Certified? (e.g. Funding the Commons, VDAO, Regens Unite, Bloom Network, ReFi, 2077, Atlantis, all the Noun-ish communities, Flows.wtf, Kolektivo, Crypto Altruism, Breadchain, GLO, Climate Coordination Network, Ma Earth, Blockchain for Good Alliance, Public Goods Club, etc)

  9. How do we measure “performance” for time-weighted stewardship equity?

  10. How do we onboard, refuse and/or sunset nodes cleanly and compassionately?

:compass: Path to Consensus

If this post sparks different opinions (which we expect!), here’s what we propose:

  1. Let’s have an open discussion here for ~2 weeks.

  2. Let’s set up a Gardens signalling poll on key decision points within this proposal, for example on open questions 1-10 above, or others, if needed.

  3. Once we’ve collected a few coherent paths forward, we’ll draft a summary proposal with 2–3 concrete options.

  4. Each node can appoint 1–2 representatives to attend a strategy call and finalize the proposal.

  5. If needed, we can set up a snapshot vote or Gardens signal to ratify the final proposal.

This is about maturing GreenPill as a movement without killing its spirit. It’s about decentralizing all aspects of operations of the Network while still retaining coordinated stewardship of the GreenPill brand. It’s an intentional and minimally invasive DAO-of-DAO structure for the Network. We believe that by growing the brand, aligning around minimum standards, and allowing room for competing-yet-collaborating nodes, we can create something regenerative, self-healing, and wildly impactful.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts :seedling:

— Kaz - with input from Coi, Matt and Afo
on behalf of those dreaming a wilder, stronger GreenPill network

5 Likes
2

What a well put prop, family! It feels that it’s a natural and needed evolution for any movement that wants to scale without losing soul. Stewarding emergence - that’s what we are talking about.

My thoughts:

Mandate:
Keep it minimal, functional, and clearly scoped.

Rotate power structure members annually or biannually?

Speaking of name, Mycelial Gardeners came in mind) almost as poetic as this whole octant v2 concept.

Size:
5–7 people feels like the sweet spot: Small enough to move fast, large enough to hold diverse perspectives. Use Gardens polling + minimum rep thresholds for selection.

A “node” = a coordinated unit contributing distinct value to the GreenPill ecosystem, with clear purpose/mandate, minimum transparency/reporting standards. public-facing impact or deliverables. willingness to participate in mutual aid and revenue sharing.

Performance Metrics Ideas:

  • Number of collaborations with other nodes
  • Grants/donations earned
  • Retention and contributor well-being
  • Transparency of operations
  • Regenerative impact delivered (on/off-chain)
  • Community reputation (could be weighted)

What New Nodes to Propose? Despite grant guild, good idea to get set up the App Node - Devs building GreenPill-aligned tools, Impact DAO Guild - Measurement, reporting, tooling for on/off-chain impact? Ecosystem Partnerships, Education & Culture Pod - curation, memes, quests, decks, onboarding kits, merch

3 Likes
3

Thanks @lumina.envision - love the feedback and your thoughts. AppNode!!

1 Like
4

Thank you @lumina.envision, @alwynvanwyk, and @atlantian001 - I really appreciate your thoughtful replies in Afo’s thread. I agree with a lot of what’s been said, especially the importance of building on what’s already working rather than over-engineering something that’s been growing naturally. What we have is a beautiful thing and should be celebrated!

At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore that there have been cracks. Not everything has been smooth. People have had confusion around roles, unclear growth paths, suggestions go untended, burnout from invisible labor, unelected leaders who no longer show up, and frustration around how decisions get made or who gets to do what. My proposal isn’t meant to criticize nor create bureaucracy, but to provide just enough (minimal) structure to reduce friction, and allow the network to grow more intentionally.

The idea isn’t to approve or deny chapter activity, far from it. Chapters should continue doing what works. But if we’re serious about growing this into something bigger, then we need a clearer way to support new chapters and nodes, elevate contributors, and maintain shared alignment without burning out the few unpaid folks currently holding it all together.

Formalizing a lightweight structure for how leaders emerge, how we recognize and elevate them, and how we share lessons across the network is a critical step toward that. It’s not meant to replace organic growth, but to support it as things scale. If we do it right, it should feel like momentum, not overhead.

Not to mention that it also brings us more on-chain, as outlined by Owocki in January.

1 Like
5

Does this qualify as GIP-01?

LOL!!

Or does someone else claim that title… I’m sure many of Owocki’s and other’s prior posts would be great contenders.

6

Oh yes, Kaz! I wholeheartedly agree with what you say above! ^

If it can be as lightweight as possible with clear guidelines and principles written down somewhere, then it will hit the mark for me.
For example, the most confusing part of setting up a new chapter, to me, was the actual mandate and questions that I could not find answers to online.

  • What should the chapter focus on?
  • How does it become eligible for funding support?
  • What is Greenpill exactly all about?
  • Who are the allied communities?
  • What do other chapters do and useful case studies to learn from?
  • What is the chapter stewards’ creed and code of conduct?
2 Likes
7

First of all, I want to thank Kaz for raising this important question and providing such a detailed and thoughtful solution. Starting a community-wide discussion around brand maintenance is already a valuable and commendable step. It’s not only a matter of system design but something worth engaging all chapters, stewards, and pods to think about together.

At a high level, brand stewardship is critical for any organization. For Greenpill—a network that spans diverse geographies and practices—the challenge of maintaining brand consistency while embracing local diversity is both timely and complex.

Currently, it seems that those who are already deeply familiar with Greenpill’s values and operations have been carrying out most of the brand-related responsibilities. If this new team is composed of the same individuals, we might simply be creating a new department in name only—while duplicating existing responsibilities. This risks structural overlap without necessarily expanding capacity.

It’s encouraging to see the proposal includes a rotation mechanism for members. However, considering the significant power this team would hold—such as approving or rejecting new chapters, guilds, or pods—the decision-making role requires a depth of knowledge and experience. At the moment, this level of understanding might still be concentrated among the current core contributors.

On another positive note, the proposal’s idea of creating distinct funding pools and signaling pools within the Garden platform is quite inspiring. Using signaling pools to gather community sentiment is an inclusive and potentially effective approach to guide decision-making. That said, it’s always helpful to remind ourselves not to implement Web3 tools just for the sake of being “Web3.” These systems require time and energy from contributors—often intangible but deeply felt. So thoughtful design and a balanced approach will be key.

Lastly, the emphasis on chapter reputation is another meaningful highlight. Greenpill’s many local chapters are one of its greatest assets. Their active participation helps build the brand’s credibility and value from the ground up. Over time, a reputation system that supports and reflects chapter trustworthiness could meaningfully strengthen the network’s overall legitimacy and governance.

(I wrote it in Chinese first, and support by AI when posting)

2 Likes
8

Thanks for putting this together @Kaz. Definitely agree we’re at a pivotal transition period for Greenpill. We really need to think deeply about how to formalize some structures so the Network can continue to grow as an anti-fragile DAO of DAOs that is both highly interconnected internally and with the rest of the space.

The concept of Greenpill as a brand is the conclusion that Puncar from How to DAO came to when he was kind enough to shoot the shit with @afo @Coi and I a while back. Makes a lot of sense from a fully zoomed out view.

Feels like we need to discuss the overall restructuring of things before really diving into how the specifics should be managed. I’m about to post a reply into this broader proposal thread with some more detailed thoughts that tie into my response below - Open Space To Share Proposals For Network Structure & Strategy

I do think we should have working groups and also individuals in charge of specific tasks but not sure if we should have a Brand Council. Or maybe the opposite is the case, and if interest exists then having a decent sized group where things are distributed enough and nobody is required to exert much bandwidth could also play well. It depends on the scope of the rest of the org structure and the interest that exists to contribute. But we don’t actually have a legal structure in place to police anything so not sure it makes sense to have a council whose sole focus is branding. We def should define if/when we should politely message parties and ask them to stop doing something though and maybe how we address things publicly.

Defining what it means to be an active Chapter/Guild in good standing is slightly different than the requirements to be eligible in a Regen Coordination grant round but as usual solid documentation is the solution there. Can hopefully agree on some system involving all the Stewards for dealing with an individual/group that is acting in a way that requires a response from the Network. But as long as we continue to scale slow and steady I doubt that will come into play or require much effort. I think curation of resources is the biggest aspect of this and not sure we should have a working group specifically for that. Have some thoughts on a more distributed curation concept in the paragraph below.

Agree with @SwiftEvo that signaling pools are a solid idea. Kinda think we can use it for curation of resources and communities that we endorse/promote on socials/greenpill.network and actively try to support/use within Chapters and Guilds. GreenWill can help us get more granular with vote weight and requirements for approval (two thresholds are how many people need to allocate some conviction and how much conviction total). There’s a lot of rich onchain data that can be factored in. Could even have Chapter impact accounting be distributed across the individual Steward/Leads/Contributors within Chapters for the purpose of vote weight. And the time weighting you mentioned makes sense. Can define how to actually remove something from the curated map but in general I think we just build out from there. Between everything the Greenpill and Regen Coordination touches it should expand pretty easily. Can lean on the Carbon Copy ReFi landscape as well ReFi Landscape | CARBON Copy.

Having elections/votes for roles and task management is definitely a good move. Once the wheels are in motion and we have a structure to enact change as needed then we will no longer be stuck in this state where it is hard to say how we should actually decide on stuff. The optimal pathway is also heavily influenced by compensation plans and in the short/medium term I think we should strive to keep things as minimalist as possible to extend our financial runway.

Your section on Keiretsu makes a ton of sense and I really like that framing. But yeah, we mostly just gotta define requirements. Think sharing revenue/profit/equity/tokens is opt in for now but as long as we are organized than as usual it can’t hurt to start to organize ideas on how something like that could work if somebody was interested. My gut right now says that should be pretty deep on the backburner but hypothetically yeah we should absolutely figure out how to make the most of capital and help each other. I think a higher priority is coming up with how Network funds travel to Chapters/Guild/Pods outside of grant rounds and how that is tied to standardized impact reporting.

1 Like
9

Hey everyone, finally joining this important thread and first i want to thank all of you who’ve been holding it with such clarity and care.

Huge appreciation to @Kaz for stepping up with this proposal and naming what many of us have been feeling: the need to evolve intentionally, without losing the soul of what makes Greenpill special.
To @lumina.envision, for recognizing the evolutionary aspect of the shift stewarding emergence is exactly the work here.
To @explorience, for naming gaps and offering that beautiful reframing from “council” to a lighter governance cell that really unlocked something for me.
To @afo and @MattyCompost, for all the invisible labor and structure holding that brought us to this moment and especially for helping us transition into this new phase.
To @alwynvanwyk, for sharpening the strategic lens with the right questions.

What’s emerging for me now it’s different from what I originally thought. I used to think the “brand” would be the first thing we’d want to govern together. But I now see these are different dimensions of responsibility. We definetly need a clearer separation between Brand Stewards and Governance Stewards.

The brand layer should remain curatorial. Less oversight, more sensemaking and coherence. Not a “council” (that word feels too heavy), but maybe something like Brand Stewards, a discrete role for people already acting as signal curators. This could be even embedded within the Network Stewardship flow and connected to our emerging pods structure, not reinveinting the wheel and respecting what was already being envisioned.

The governance layer can emerge separately, from proposals, budgets, signaling pools, and strategic direction. All of which are now being scaffolded through the Steward Strategy Cohort i’m co-developing with GravityDAO. With this co-hort we want to map existing trust flows, identify leverage points, and co-create the DNA of a strategic governance cell.
If you want to join or nominate someone for the cohort, here’s the intake form.

Appreciate everyone in this conversation, feels like a true turning point.
If we get this right, we’ll have something incredibly powerful:

Open to refining this further as things crystallize.

:victory_hand: :four_leaf_clover:

1 Like