I definitely think that the DAO needs to birth multiple entities to handle the pipeline: mini-grants, pre-seed/seed, main grant body/large AIPs, and VC fund.
Legally, I think this is the way:
DAO commits $X millions into VC fund. Then VC fund spins off an accelerator (if we actually want to run one, which is a whole separate beast) or just splits into two focus areas: pre-seed (<250k) and seed (seeds these days can be in millions).
DAO has zero control over or interest in VC fund. However, the premise of the VC fund is that it is “non-profit,” meaning partners cannot just take all profits. People are paid salaries + commissions, but big profits (if there are any) must be committed to further development of the ecosystem. So it’s an evergreen fund. Should the VC fund be forced to dissolve (death of key members or they want to move on, legal, etc.) and have money in treasury, the money must be put into a new web3 DAO. If members quit/pass, ApeCoin DAO will oversee new DAO creation/member assignment. Why new DAO? b/c otherwise legally this would be a for-profit venture for DAO if it expected profits on vc fund dissolution. The DAO may, however, recap it’s initial money in force majeur event (such as VC custodians dying, world war, etc.) I think legally that’s okay?
VC fund MAY choose to donate all earnings back to ApeCoin DAO at a later date, but is not legally required nor expected to do so. This is key. In 5 years people running the fund may have nothing to do with original custodians so who knows what they pick, but hey as long as it benefitted the ecosystem, this DAO’s mission is fulfilled.
Then, this DAO retains control in two distinct working group categories: mini-grants and large grants/AIPs (for AIPs, the ones that don’t fit VC model or don’t want it). A team may get pre-seed from VC fund and then upon finishing prototype go on and apply for the larger seed from the fund OR go submit for grant from DAO.
Napkin thoughts. Discuss.