Thanks for your thoughts here @llllvvuu! As someone who is leading the marketing team (which was responsible for community relations OKRs last season) , I can attest that the issue of community relations is slightly more complex (or maybe just outright complicated) than it appears on the surface.
Our community reaches far beyond our investors of GTC. Token holders are one of 8 stakeholders (last time I counted) that we feel accountable to engage with…each with vastly different needs and desires as it relates to engagement with our org.
Grantee needs and desires are very different from the community of developers wants to build on our protocols which are vastly different to the needs and desires of our stewards, etc, etc.
This kind of stakeholder segmentation is natural, of course. The issue is that there is no a shared definition of who our community is, how that community ladders up to org objectives. Is our community the sum of all of our stakeholders? Is it a subset of them? What constitutes community engagement vs stakeholder enablement? How would we like to engage with our defined community to help drive org objectives?
There are a lot of unanswered questions as it relates to community strategy. MMM will not be taking on the task of answering these questions this season for a variety of reasons.
My recommendation would be to have community engagement initiatives live in their respective stakeholder workstreams–but I also feel that there’s value in creating coherence across these segments with a “Head of Community Relations” role. I imagine as we discuss our organizational structure at ETH Denver, we will further this conversation to make sense of what’s needed.
Very much appreciate the inputs and insights in this conversation. I think it provides great food for thought on steward/GTC holder needs.