This proposal for Allo.Capital’s DAO design presents a novel organizational structure called “Castles & Raids,” designed to overcome the limitations of traditional DAOs and foster a more agile, effective, and engaging environment for funding and building web3 projects. “Castles” act as persistent hubs for knowledge sharing, community building, and resource provision, while “Raids” are short-term, focused project teams launched from these Castles. The design prioritizes action and execution, leveraging Farcaster as the primary social layer for communication and coordination, and integrating AI agents to streamline processes and augment human decision-making. A simplified, single-token model ($ALLO) powers governance and a refined Proof of Flow staking mechanism, incentivizing informed participation and community curation. The proposal also outlines a streamlined funding lifecycle, a commitment to “magical interfaces,” and a regenerative economic model that ensures long-term sustainability and fosters a pluriversal approach to on-chain capital allocation.
I’m really just a carrier signal for information that is emerging from the experiments of other communities. My conception of Castles and Raids might be a bit different from how it is being articulated by RaidGuild, DAOhaus, MetaFactory, and the Farcastle team since I have attempted to adapt this mental model to the needs of Allo.Capital. This proposal is deeply indebted to the ideas of MetaDreamer, Vengist, Victor, Dekan, peth, the Farcastle team (Sam + E2T), plor, and others.
Note on process:
This proposal is essentially a combination of interviews I conducted with the above mentioned, combined with learnings from the Pluriverse lorecrafting DAO experiment, synthesized with my own hallucinations based on successes and failures from the last cycle. As such, you may find many references to experiments or documents that have not been throughly cited. If anyone is interested in seeing the specifics I can provide them.
hey @T_W I’ve read your document and really love your “hallucination”! It made me feel I channeled my proposal from the same source as yours, just from a completely diverse perspective and frame. Meaning that I feel a deep allignment among our both proposals.
Would you please have a look at mine (make sure you read the replies as well )?
hey travis, i’ve been diving into this proposal and have a few questions i think are worth discussing:
“This DAO is, first and foremost, an intelligence network.” - i love this point and think there are many downstream implications of this… i wonder what ways we might be able to build a dao design that incentivizes the creation/sharing of the most important knowledge…
im wondering how we can adapt this proposal to more systematically find product market fit in our builds… how might we leverage the castles & raids framework to surface builds with genuine product market fit? are there specific metrics or signals we can incorporate into the proof of flow mechanism that could help us differentiate between hype and sustainable traction? (probably GMV/TVF, qualitative feedback)
what mechanisms can be put in place to create a feedback loop between early adopters and builders? for instance, could the knowledge base or farcaster channels be used to quickly surface user feedback and iterate on builds?
considering the focus on rapid execution through raids, how do we balance the need for speed with ensuring that products are truly solving real problems?
im keen to try doing one of our upcoming builds as a raid… to get a sense of the mechansim and build some muscle memory around it.
Credit to @metadreamer and the Farcastle team for this diagram! My proposal is a complicated distillation of ideas emerging from DAOhaus, RaidGuild, MetaFactory, and other MetaCartel (RIP) members. Our first steps should be to figure out how to incentivize and integrate this incredible ecosystem of experienced builders, wise researchers, and frontier explorers into our Pillars.
Hey @owocki,
Thanks for the questions. I’ve been ruminating upon my design more intentionally since you and @deltajuliet starting expressing serious interest in it. As always, my ideas are long-form and complex, but I have tried to format them for clarity while doing justice to the entanglements.
TW’s Supplement to Allo.Capital DAO Design Proposal
1. Reinforcing Core Concepts
My proposal is built on several foundational ideas. Let’s briefly reiterate them here for clarity:
Pluriversalism: This isn’t just about diversity; it’s about fundamentally accepting that multiple valid approaches, strategies, and worldviews can and should coexist within Allo.Capital. Our structure, particularly the autonomy of the Pillars, is designed to embody this, allowing different methodologies to flourish and be tested without forcing premature convergence. Unlike pluralism, pluriveralism fosters these multiple worlds without competition.
Dissensus: I’m proposing we actively value constructive disagreement. Rather than seeking consensus as an ideal, which can lead to mediocrity and groupthink, we encourage rigorous debate and the exploration of divergent paths, especially between Pillars. This friction is seen as a generative force for innovation and robustness.
Metric-Driven Development: To navigate pluriversalism and dissensus effectively, we must commit to transparent, meaningful metrics. How do we measure the success of a Raid? How do we evaluate the effectiveness of a Pillar’s strategy? Defining and tracking these metrics is crucial for learning, accountability, and ensuring capital flows towards genuine value creation.
2. Clarifying my Vision for the Allo.Capital Structure: Laboratory & Studio
The proposed structure separates functions into two main components:
The Laboratory: This is the heart of innovation and execution.
Pillars (or Castles if we prefer) = Intelligence, Software, Fund: Persistent hubs of deep expertise. Think of them as centers of excellence, developing unique strategies and nurturing talent within their domains. They are autonomous and encouraged to pursue distinct, even antagonistic, visions. They provide expertise and support to Raids.
Allo DAO: The public goods funding layer for the Lab. It manages essential operational resources (via its treasury) and ensures the smooth functioning of the ecosystem in service of the Pillars and Raids. It is explicitly designed not to be a top-down governing body or a governance layer, but a supportive substrate with minimal overhead.
The Venture Studio: This entity interacts with the external environment by attracting investors and fuels the Laboratory.
Role: Provides financial capital, primarily by broadcasting needs/opportunities (“calls to action”) and funding Raid parties that form to address them.
Reciprocity: In return for financial capital, the Studio receives intellectual capital – reearch, validated strategies, products, market models – generated by the Raids and Pillars. This intelligence informs future Studio strategy and funding decisions.
Ethos: Aims for minimal overhead. Founders participate as peers/contributors, not salaried managers directing the Lab’s operations. Studio operations are completely separate from Lab operations.
3. The Raid Model: Deep Dive into Action-Oriented Execution
Raids are central to the proposal’s action-oriented ethos. Misinterpretations can easily lead back to traditional operational models, so clarity is vital.
Ideal Function:
Need Broadcast: The Venture Studio identifies a need or opportunity and broadcasts it publicly as a “call to action” with associated funding parameters.
Self-Organization: Interested community members autonomously form Raid parties to address the call. They define their approach and team structure for themselves.
Execution: The Raid party executes the project, operating at maximum transparency. Pillars may offer expertise, resources, and other forms of cultural support (stronger together). There is a stack of tools we should use to ensure trustless and permissionless execution here. Specifically, smart contracts for escrow, milestone-based releases, splitting between party members, tithe back to the DAO treasury, distribution of project tokens if needed, etc. These tools are extremely important to minimize overhead!
Value Flow: The Raid receives financial capital from the Studio directly. Upon completion (milestone based stages), the Raid delivers its output and the intellectual capital generated (learnings, insights, data) back to the ecosystem, accessible by the Studio and Pillars. Obviously the Studio retains equity in the project, but the ideas are shared.
Contrast with Ineffective Models (“How NOT to Run a Raid”):
Internal Proposals: Raids shouldn’t be ideas proposed, approved, and funded solely by a small internal group. The power comes from broadcasting needs outward.
Opacity: All Raid communication, progress, and outputs must be public within the Allo ecosystem. No private channels or hidden work. This protects both entities, Studio and raid party, with social/reputation/trust-based accountability. This also encourages strong open source sharing and enthusiasm to ensure highest possible quality and to ship at all costs.
Top-Down Control: Raids manage themselves. The Studio provides context and resources, not directives. Each raid maintains total autonomy on how they execute the work, so long as they ship the best possible product and meet their deadlines.
Vague Incentives: Clear mechanisms must reward Raids and their contributors for both execution and the valuable intellectual capital they generate.
Founders as Bosses: Founders contribute expertise but don’t manage Raids hierarchically. If Studio partners want to proposed and execute raids, they should do so according to the above guidelines. Otherwise it’s called Studio operations.
4. The Critical Challenge: Communication & Collaboration Infrastructure
My proposal highlights communication as crucial, and subsequent analysis reinforces this. Our pluriversal, decentralized model cannot function effectively with fragmented tools like Telegram silos and scattered Google Docs. We need a strong communication tool and single source of truth knowledge repository.
The Problem: We need a system that supports:
Transparency: Open access to Pillar strategies, Raid progress, Studio calls to action.
Knowledge Persistence: A searchable, organized repository of learnings and intellectual capital.
Attribution: Clear tracking of contributions from individuals, Raids, and Pillars.
Facilitating Dissensus: Enabling constructive debate and exploration of different ideas without devolving into chaos.
Cross-Pollination: Making it easy for individuals to discover and engage with different Pillars and Raids.
Evaluating Options: While platforms like Farcaster/Warpcast align with web3 principles (as I discussed at length in my proposal), we must ask if they are fit for purpose. Are they optimized for project collaboration, deep knowledge work, and metric tracking, or primarily for social broadcasting? We must also consider network effects and potential cultural baggage and noise (shit posting) causing interference. The specific platform is secondary to the principles of openness and fitness for our unique needs. Composability is a huge plus, but not the only determining factor.
A Dedicated Solution? Given the shortcomings of existing tools for complex DAO operations, we must seriously consider researching and potentially developing a tailored communication and collaboration infrastructure. This wouldn’t be an everything app or another shitty Notion clone, but a focused tool designed specifically for the Allo.Capital workflow and principles.
5. Roles Revisited: Pillars, DAO, Studio
To summarize their interplay within the Laboratory-Studio structure:
Pillars (previously referred to as Castles): Develop deep expertise, generate strategic options, support Raids, embody pluriversalism. Optimized to form, ship, and die while minimizing attention towards fund raising, payments, and other frictions.
DAO: Facilitates essential shared resources, serves the Pillars and Raids. Optimized for supporting common infra and minimizing decision making. Automated as much as possible.
Studio: Injects capital based on strategic needs, receives and utilizes intellectual capital from the Lab. Optimized for ROI and minimizing overhead.
6. Revenue Generation: An Open Exploration
The primary focus is building effective capital allocation infrastructure in a rapid and agile manner, so the proposed structure has inherent potential for being a potent revenue generator, which is crucial for long-term sustainability.
Potential Avenues:
Pillar Outputs: Tools, services, or insights developed within the Intelligence, Software, or Fund Pillars could become commercial products.
Studio Ventures: The Studio might incubate or spin off ventures based on successful Raid outcomes or synthesized intelligence. With reciprocal tethers in place, the whole ecosystem wins by accelerating new products/services to market, not just the Studio.
DAO Tooling: The bespoke communication tools I mentioned, if developed, could be productized for other DAOs. To start, we should build a communication tool to serve our needs.
Cultural Value Capture: Mechanisms allowing Pillars/Raids/Contributors to share in the upside of the value they create. Mechanisms for attribution, royalties, reputation, trust, attestation, etc.
Integration: Revenue considerations should influence incentive design and the relationship between the Lab and Studio (e.g., price discovery for Raid funding, product-market fit exploration). This is just my opinion, and will certainly be adapted to fit the Studio’s thesis.
Love the response and thoughts, will keep things short and brief with a couple of questions.
What Allo based tools could support operations or could be iterated upon to fit the DAO needs?
Any metrics you have in mind for measuring the success of raids?
Raids are inherently about creating a group of people to go on a quest to slay a dragon, do we have a good sense of the dragons? If not, what is needed to get a clear picture quickly?
In the raid model value flow comes after execution, wondering if it can come both before and after?
)?