Protein Community Season 3


We’re currently in the Intermission period (01—31st May), where we’re putting together a plan for Season 3 that focusses on the next phase of Good Growth. We want to collectively explore and decide what we’re doing in Season 3 - therefore the direction we’re proposing was informed by two ongoing pieces of research conducted by Governance Team and Recelerator Team, plus a Community Workshop with members on 11th May. You can find our research findings here. These inputs have made clear our need to go deeper into good growth, to make it more clear, tangible and measurable for members and the team. Considering this, we’d like to use this forum to discuss the potential benefits, challenges and required resources for Season 3 in the context of Good Growth.

Key dates

  • Forum Discussion, 12-19th May — open for discussion & builds
  • Town Hall, 16th May — Presenting this direction & space for discussion
  • Open Discussion, 19th May — An voice call to discuss and refine the pathway
  • Draft Season 3 proposal, 24th May — Posted to Forum for tweaks
  • Snapshot vote, 27th-31st May — Final approval of Season 3 Direction and Budget
  • Season 3 Launch, 1st June — LFG

Pathway: Good Growth Social Protocol

for illustrative purposes

Democratise good growth by creating space/s to explore, discuss and define what good growth means. Create clear processes for members to add to, edit, build the definition of good growth. Introduce clear indicators and metrics for projects to measure themselves against gg standards. Collaborate with projects inside and organisations outside the community to create clear guides and measurements for achieving good growth.


The below pros and cons have been grouped and refined from the Community Workshop.

  • It feels like an important step in our decentralisation process and allows the definition to be shaped and developed by more voices.
  • Good growth isn’t deeply understood by members (and even core team to some extent), this pathway would give us a clear, tangible output that would allow for better communication.
  • This feels like a foundational step towards delivering good growth in a meaningful way. And will provide a solid base for us to build on top in a format we believe is appropriate (e.g. recelerator v2, online dashboard, project directory.


  • there may need to be a re-organisation of the current teams & pods - firstly, as it’s not yet clear how all teams will contribute to this pathway and secondly to transition from centralised to decentralised moderation.
  • this definitely feels like a more technical approach, how can we play to our communities strengths?
  • an important question raised is: is our reputation good enough to assess other organisations?
  • if this approach is building clarity in what good growth means, what comes next?

I love democratising the proess of conceiving of the indicators that are relevant to GG… just wondering whether this is something bigger that protein - eg… could we invite participation from the Proof of Humanity people, as well as other interested DAOS - lets make that process open…


@Harry_PRTN thank you for laying out this piece. Perfect foundation to open a few discussions that might require their own unique space on this forum. I’ll try to follow through some of the points and expand some reflections:

1.Good Growth: Good Growth is our manifesto, there are principles, values, and could become a long term strategic plan. As we focus on what to do season by season, there should also be a long term strategy that informs what’s been done in the short term. Although in this space defining what you want to become might be a limitation, we could still create a space within Protein where this type of vision is discussed, and shared.
This would also help forming relevant teams for seasons and long term goals.

How can our “organism narrative” inform the mechanics of our community. The ultimate goal for an organism is being healthy. What defines HEALTH in Good Growth, what are those metrics (members personal growth, engagement, quality of relationships, project output, etc. )

2.People and purpose
We stay for the people, the values, the culture within protein.100% agree. Massive job has already been done by the core team in building healthy and insightful conversation and initiatives such as recelerator. 2 questions here:
2.1 - Alongside designing and facilitating a good growth framework, how can we create the conditions for out community members to meet, share learning and point of view, and ultimately start collaborating among each others on projects. Do we want to be a digital organisation, or truly unlock decentralised and autonomous ways of organising innovation within a community.
2.2 Can we support our GG framework with better documentation of recelerator session? Mirror articles would be enough to help spread the great content and program curation.

5.Planning over doing
Linking to the point 2 above. This isn’t just about workload and bandwidth, but about decentralising (if this is what we want) the self-determination of protein community. How can we create opportunities for people to create value for them and our community as whole.
Before building a network whose nature is transactional (bounties) could we build a network where counselling, mentoring, advising is the first step toward building trust, and ultimately catalyse action and collaboration among members?
Could people share pitches of projects they work on and look for allies?
Could our token attract talent and will to collaborate?
Could we find new ways of fundraising that are community led?

Putting here a lot of questions, I know. I don’t have all the answers but I hope that this might open a few discussions. Perhaps this conversation can also be taken in the Good Growth Council channel (thank you @zhiganov )

Wish you all a good Sunday!


Thanks for all of your effort Harry, clear explanation. As I join more meetings and discussions here I see there is a lot to explore in Good Growth. I think the season 3 will help us to clarify the whole framework. My primary concern about the framework is that how can we make it available for anyone including its building and governance so people could really feel like their own thing.

I’m curious what we will come up with as we go deeper into GGth. Personally feel like it is good to have some undefined space for good growth since it could lead to new discussions/paths we can take.


Thanks Harry… i totally am on board with evolving our thinking, methods, and activities but I feel concerned about making things overly complicated or bureaucratic… in higher education we’ve been creating impact from our research (and measuring it) for about a decade and i’m concerned about the objectives and KPIs skewing the organic and messy process of doing good growth… i think of Goodhart’s Law…Goodhart's law - Wikipedia - ‘when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to become a good measure’. On the one hand, funding itself could be considered a target that skews… but i do wonder if we are creating a process where there are simply too many targets


Thank you for your thoughts and additions Andrea! Have a few thoughts and clarifications on your points below…

  1. Agree completely - we’re currently planning some work to tackle the long term vision, and also thinking about how what we do might intersect with the wider Protein ecosystem. Saying that, it feels as though the steps we’re hoping to take in Season 3 will answer a lot of question that may come up in that work.

Yes yes yes to developing the internal narrative further around the organism, we should definitely lean into this and maybe look to natural systems of regulation (?) - @gustavo, any thoughts here?

  1. Agreed! i’m looking forward to seeing some of the self-regulation initiatives implemented here as they should be key to this transition, and also pairing this with your suggestions of counselling, mentoring and advising would be awesome.
1 Like

It certainly is a rabbit hole in itself @muratgozel, +1 to making the building and governance of the framework available and accessible too. I think the visual from the Town hall deck is relevant here for all to see:

Hey @Tina, really valid point about it being overly complicated & bureaucratic - any thoughts on how we can mitigate this, either with language, tools and/or processes? Or potentially we can build gradually towards something that has wider governance practices and maintenance and start with really simple initiatives. I may have raised this today but i wondered about 1 output of the season being a report focussing on good growth within web3, could create good conditions for depth of research to then bring back to a more accessible format, while also making people/projects aware of gg

At the moment, the discussion we are having is not far off what is already out there… it seems like we are replicating existing models of support, governance, project management. I think we ought to build space into the process for disruption, innovation, chaos etc… the Economic Social Research Council was very into something they described as ‘fast failure’ which at first made me think of FB’s ‘move fast and break things’ but actually it was more a process of seed funding things quickly and seeing what happened… keeping with our growth metaphor for example, I see it as taking a random bunch of seeds someone gave me, covering them in soil and surrendering to the process… some might emerge in a day, some in 6 months, no idea what anything will look like, if one plant cannibalises another… i think we need to work through what Protein’s GG process offers the world that is distinct from other project support/funding models


From a community perspective, focusing on GG for a whole season will definitely clear away one of the most popular sentiments emerging from various feedback channels which is the unintelligibility of gg.

Developing a protocol will also be one of the most solid outputs we as a DAO can deliver IMO.

My only worry is what comes afterward but tbh I’m not a fan of making super long-term plans for a DAO since I believe in the power of emergence and collective intelligence. We will pave the way together as a community.



-I think focusing on GG to build something foundational that creates the base from which emergence can take place makes sense at this stage, so we can spread seed later.

-I agree that we need to not need to expend endless energy on reinventing wheels, and would be interested in your thoughts on whether the “social protocol” as a new way of doing things (HOW) ends up with a new/better result (WHAT).

  • Also interested on IF we agree GG is foundational and the rightful focus, how we could do this in a scatter seeds kindof a way because I recognise that the way proposed is process/bureaucracy INTENSIVE and the success of it will depend on the process design and ability to achieve high engagement

Re: scatter seed your point about how this is the pursuit of a singular outcome rather than the seed scattering. On some level, internal economics of a DAO could effectively be that - and this probably works at a scale of engagement/resource (are we there yet?).

I think the rationale for prioritising (thinning out -drastically - in the seed growing metaphor) GG is that in the workshops and feedback it came back as something foundational. Once we have a better understanding of GG then the seed can be scattered.

re doing something different.
My take is that the “social protocol” (which has hiiiihg up front bureaucratification) is creating something differentLY - though not yet clear that it will be different output… If the end result is a way of rating orgs across a range of impact areas then you’re right, we could simply pinch the Bcorp stuff, or other business scoring things, and save ourselves the process of reinventing the wheel.

I am curious about whether what will emerge from democratising/crowdsourcing will be meaningfully different though ( if set up/bureaucratised right) - so that every indicator and what “score” is considered good is the result of a community nomination and voting process such that each of those is a reflection of what “we” think GG is - with a mechanism for that to evolve. This is think IS different. (is it within our capacities? - work towards it progressively)


I feeel you on the target/measures stuff. They can distort incentives, fail to capture meaningful information… It is important to be conscious of the pull that the technology and funding innately seems to create for cold hard numbers.

I wonder whether as part of the design process … we come up with something before the actual ranges and scores…

Say… for every outcome (eg… collaborative) we decide that we need 5 indicators… of those … 2 are cold hard numbers, 1 is a suite of policies, 2 are something warmer (your area) – ?

1 Like

thinking about what is new… what are we adding to the conduct measurement of BCorp, investor liability limitation of ESG… wondering if there is some kind of role for an assessment that recognises something like “plays its part in keeping the ecosystem in balance”…which is a harder thing to measure - hence the search for reductive measures like carbon emissions - but also a way to raise the aspiration beyond the conduct measurement and certification…

Harry, this is a great summary of everything we’ve been working on lately, thank you so much! And congrats on your first proposal! I really like the discussion we’re having here.

First, I’d like to share something that came to me mind this morning:

  • should we think of creating a web3 Michelin Guide rather than a web3 B-Corp?
  • should GGth certification be about the DAO’s impact or about their member experience (MX)?
  • because inclusive and collaborative are more about the latter?
  • and also because it could be more fun to explore the less quantifiable side of web3 rather than partnering, let alone competing with ICC?

Personally I also feel more excitement about improving web3 culture and making DAOs healthier…

And while writing this comment, I’ve realized this could actually be an example of what we want to do in S3 - asking questions like this, proposing our own definitions and certification procedures… Like, I could probably set up a pod for those who want to explore this!

What do you think?

  1. Michelin Guide might be more in line with @Tina 's reluctance (and mine) to reduce everything to a number.

  2. The second part re impact/ MX… I think the split is impact/conduct… where impact is an assessment of the role their business model plays in the world and conduct is an assessment of how they behave it is important to see both because being internally collaborative might be the way to be most effective at extractive, degrading, activities…even having a “clean” supply chain is consistent with overconsumption.

so for example…Ben and Jerries say… conduct might be great ( i don’t know the reality, just speculating) - collaborative, shared ownership, clean supply chain, etc… but there is still a question about the appropriate balance of “treats and delights” versus ANY impact at all - If we think of it like there is a quota of extraction from the natural and material world , then is diabetes inducing in 500 flavours really make the cut? And then the fact that for all their great conduct… their business model is still dependent on selling as much of it as possible - so they perpetuate consumption. There may be an argument in partial defence which would be if they could be demonstrated to be displacing “less good conduct” icecreams… complex… ideally we would be able to identify which organisations behaved like the starfish in a rockpool that regulated its environment for harmony and perpetual life - to my mind this “imapct” measurement - maybe “playing its role in the ecosystem” would be a new way of analysing that moves beyond conduct (Bcorp) , liability (ESG),

  1. the harder to quantify, warmer type of things like “Is this organisation(organism) behaving like a keystone species” - would be fun, and novel

mabe the GG standard itself is a keystone that guides organisms to staying in balance?

Your comment @Tina reminded me about the Lean Impact framework (of which i’ve read but not practiced to much extent), which at the core is about testing assumptions and building a feedback loop (build → measure → learn → build etc - from lean startup) that allows you to continuously iterate and also recognise easier when the solution you’re building isn’t providing any/enough value.

What i think we’re saying here is that we’re maybe jumping too far ahead with ‘social protocol’ (fair) and we need to go much deeper into (1) the problem we’re trying to solve, (2) what assumptions we’re making about this problem, (3) what other solutions are out there and then (4) what our place in this ecosystem is. I’m hoping the product session today can start to dive into this a little… but also these won’t be answered in 1 session - so this could form the structure of season 3.

Therefore the start of season 3 could look something like…

  1. workshops around problems and assumptions
  2. research, round tables and interviews with DAOs/orgs to discuss models of good growth
  3. building several mvps (by this i dont mean just an app/website) that seeks to solve this problem

i also think an important part here is about ‘who’ - yes founders/daos/orgs… are they early stage? what type of impact do they currently have? what impact do they typically aim to have? what kind of things do they build? e.g. helping an org building a physical product vs a digital product or helping a digital product that aims to serve 1m people vs 10,000 people would result in very different indicators…


Which actually, the description of the pathway already indicates, it’s perhaps the wording ‘social protocol’ and the diagram which could be causing confusion…

how about 1 and 2 that feed into a journal, which is then also the kick off for opening up widely to ppl to create MVPS (maybe in season after/)

what I like about this is that it doesn’t assume that the social protocol is THE solution. Rather we nail the understanding of the space and then open up to everyone, to allow for emergence around the MVPs

1 Like