It’s time to refresh our Discord server. A lot has changed at Popcorn since the last major updates, and we need to ensure our server supports clear communication and workflow for everyone — from new members to long-time DAO contributors. This proposal aims to revise our server’s channel structure and roles to better suit our current needs.
Reduce clutter by retiring channels that are redundant, have very low activity, or are no longer relevant.
Create new channels to support needs that have emerged.
Group channels together that are related but currently separated. This is primarily aimed at the overlap between our Hubs, Working Groups and POPstar program. There’s an opportunity to create a public community layer and a private contributor layer within Working Group topic areas.
A revised channel structure is proposed below, with channel categories in all caps, channels bulleted underneath, and notes for clarification in italics. This would be accompanied by revised roles for community members to select if they want to opt into channels dedicated to specific topics, as we now with Hubs.
Begin your journey
Onboarding tasks (will include creating a Catapult profile and any future Working Group application tasks)
Onboarding chat (chat channel specifically for newcomers to Popcorn)
POP RESOURCES (read only channels)
Info center (key links and information about Popcorn)
Governance updates (forum and snapshot activity)
Ideas and suggestions
[all current language channels]
All channels below this line would be either opt-in by selecting a role, or available only to contributors
DAO CONTRIBUTORS (only visible to Working Groups, POPstars and core team members)
POPstar HQ (private channel for POPstars)
Pop mods (private channel for moderators)
WG Leads (private channel for WG leads)
Contributor voice (voice channel available to all contributors)
GROWTH & COMMUNICATIONS
Growth & comms chat (public channel for community members who opt in by selecting the “Growth & Communications” role or indicate interest on Catapult)
Growth & comms working group (private channel for WG members)
Growth & comms voice (private channel for WG members)
DAO chat (public channel for community members who opt in by selecting the “DAO Organization” role or indicate interest on Catapult)
DAO working group (private channel for WG members)
DAO voice (private channel for WG members)
Impact chat (public channel for community members who opt in by selecting the “social impact” role or indicate interest on Catapult)
Beneficiary chat (updates and discussion about beneficiaries and Popcorn grants process)
Impact working group (public channel for community members who opt in by selecting the “Social Impact” role or indicate interest on Catapult)
Impact voice (private channel for WG members)
4. Next Steps
Please ask questions and provide feedback. If you have ideas for improvement or think any important channels have been left out, let us know by replying below. We would like to move quickly on this and ideally implement changes next week.
I believe we should have a proposal channel where people can share what they’re proposing to bring into popcorn. Instead of always asking who to DM, they just go to that channel and put their proposal up and the core team filters it and DM the authors with good ideas.
I like the idea of having public channels + optional channels. Adding to what @Mukhtar_yah said, it could be nice to have a governance or ecosystem related channel for Popcorn improvs.
Also, I think that having a proposal only channels will make a bias to think that the flow of proposals can b done trough Discord. I agree in having a more general channel where people that wants to enhance the ecosystem could validate their ideas and not just ask who to DM.
@denny-pop and @Mukhtar_yah I added a channel in POP CHAT called “ideas and suggestions” for this reason. If community members want to drop a quick thought or get input on an idea, they can post there.
I agree with you @denny-pop that we want to direct community members to put proposals here on the forum rather than in discord. Otherwise we’ll end up having proposal discussions split across platforms and hard to track.
As part of our Catapult onboarding, I also created a partnership inquiry form we can start using, which should help with DM requests.
I went back and forth on having a separate “governance chat” channel but ultimately decided to err on the side of minimalism. In our current Community & Gov Hub, there’s a chat channel with very little activity. Open to ideas here!
I would like to see a token gated discord with a staging area for non-token holders. I’ve noticed some trolling which could be eliminated by having only token holders participate in substantive discussion. This could act as a beneficial filter and seems like an obvious pre-requisite to be able to be a part of the community.
Additionally, there are no conversations happening in the global section and that section requires more resources to moderate. What’s the logic in keeping that? I’d advocate for tighter and brighter. Go for substance, go for depth and not breadth. It’s easier to moderate, conversations have more visibility and quality should go up.
@0x0a1n which channels do you think should be visible in the “staging area”? My first thought is to include most (if not all) of the channels above the opt-in line, since we want to encourage not-yet-token-holders to use our products, get interested in the DAO and become token holders.
As for the global section, I agree that it’s rarely used. My only rationale for keeping it was that the occasional conversations happening there seem to take place between community members with very little need for moderation. But tighter and brighter makes sense to me, and I’d be fine with retiring it unless I hear a strong argument otherwise.
@JoeyN I also agree most of the channels in the global section are currently, rarely used. One way to go about the section is to retire most of the language channels and keep some frequently used language channels? Or language channels we think its usefulness will come up with time (we can do major languages - just thinking loud).
@ifun There really aren’t any language channels that I’d characterize as frequently used right now. If we want to err on the side of simplicity, maybe the best route would be eliminating the global section for now and bringing back specific language channels if and when the need arises.