A question I am commonly asked is: what is the best way to structure impact projects? This often revolves around Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and traditional non-profit models.
First and foremost, let's get something straight. There is no one-size-fits-all model for a DAO, or any entity for that matter. Once you introduce tokens into a DAO, things become far more complex. Tokens, often used to pay contributors, create their own set of problems and can confuse people about their actual significance.
And of course, we cannot ignore the complexities of traditional non-profits. From their formation to their operation, each one can be structured in countless different ways, each with its own set of implications and challenges.
So, when people ask me about the optimal structure for achieving maximum impact, I encourage them to take a step back and ask: how do they plan to create an entity that, regardless of its structure, people genuinely want to be a part of? An entity that fills a real gap in how impact work is done?
Here's what I personally believe: People want to be closer to the impact. At both the funding level and at the "getting your hands dirty" level, there is a desire for transparency, immediacy, and tangible outcomes. For example, if I'm funding an organization, I want to know exactly where my money is going and to see the direct results of my contribution. I don't think it's beneficial to set up a DAO that just channels money to existing non-profits, where it's unclear how the funds are utilized.
If I were to create an impact-focused organization, regardless of the structure, I would focus on identifying and measuring meaningful units of impact. Take pollution on beaches, for instance. A measurable unit of impact could be participation in a beach cleanup. We could create quests around each unit of impact, with funders and doers for each quest.
Imagine earning merit badges for participating in a beach cleanup. These badges, minted on-chain, serve as tangible proof of your participation. Similarly, the people who funded the quest receive a certificate or some form of acknowledgment, affirming that their funding directly contributed to the impact made. This way, both the doer and the funder get an intimate, visceral sense of the impact they've created.
Don't get me wrong, long-term initiatives that require years of commitment before seeing any impact are still crucial. However, for many people wanting to participate, there is a need for immediate satisfaction. How do you make a donor's contribution to a cause, let's say the Sierra Club for instance, feel more rewarding? How do you make the impact of their hundred dollars donation more palpable to them?
This, I believe, is where the future of impact lies: making units of impact more concrete, more palpable, for both the funder and the doer.