Bankless DAO proposal sparks controversy after requesting $1.8 million donation despite only 9 views on tweet
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Bankless DAO proposal sparks controversy after requesting $1.8 million donation despite only 9 views on tweet
Bankless DAO seems to have turned into a Grant Hunter, a yield farmer.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy TechFlow
Recently, Bankless DAO seems to have stirred widespread anger.
Numerous KOLs in the crypto space have questioned whether Bankless DAO is abusing its grant mechanism to exploit public blockchain ecosystems.
For example, Bankless DAO recently proposed a request for 1.82 million ARB tokens from Arbitrum to enhance Arbitrum's influence over the next 12 months.
What exactly can Bankless DAO accomplish with 1.82 million ARB—worth over $1.82 million?
According to the submitted funding usage details, they plan to launch courses, write content, produce podcasts, and host events…
We don't know how effective these efforts will be, but diligent crypto KOL DeFi Made Here discovered that Bankless DAO had previously applied for grants from Optimism and conducted a 10-week campaign, offering a chance to examine their actual performance.
The results were shocking—its performance can only be described as disastrous.
Bankless DAO did not use its official Twitter account to announce these activities, instead relying on numerous small accounts, some with only dozens of followers.
In their work showcase, many tweets received only 9–30 views within 30 days.
Even posts from Bankless DAO’s official account have received only over 3,000 views to date.
According to the OP forum, this marketing campaign was funded with 70,395 OP tokens, worth $119,671.
Additionally, it was pointed out that during Gitcoin Round 19, 10 donation requests came from brands associated with Bankless DAO, making Bankless DAO appear increasingly like a Grant Hunter, a subsidy opportunist.
Criticism quickly flooded social media, targeting Bankless itself. Co-founder Ryan Sean Adams urgently stepped forward to clarify:
1. Bankless DAO is an independent entity, not controlled by Bankless.
2. Neither I, my fellow co-founder, nor Bankless have ever derived economic benefit from Bankless DAO, never sold BANK tokens, and do not intend to sell them.
3. I only learned about Bankless DAO’s proposal today; Bankless was not involved.
4. Bankless DAO has previously delivered excellent products and services, and I trust they will handle this matter appropriately.
5. David and I view Bankless as a permissionless brand, freely available for use by any DAO or individual who aligns with Bankless values.
6. Some bad actors are exploiting this information to attack Bankless despite knowing the facts.
Later, Ryan Sean Adams announced that BanklessDAO would be renamed Udi DAO.
This explanation continued to spark controversy. Prominent KOL Cobie commented:
"Bro, you initially received 25% of the total BANK supply for 'ongoing involvement,' yet now you say 'no connection, no participation.' I’m pretty sure you changed your mind. If you’re not selling or participating in governance, there’s no reason to hold 25% of the token supply."
Finally, on November 27, Bankless co-founder David Hoffman announced he would submit a governance proposal to BanklessDAO next week to formally separate the Bankless and BanklessDAO brands, and plans to burn all BANK tokens pursuant to the proposal.
With this, the incident appears to conclude—at least temporarily. Yet debates surrounding governance, donations, and DAOs will undoubtedly persist. Human nature, after all, is far more complex than code.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
