Cryptex DAO Community Call — Transcript
Date: May 22, 2026 Duration: ~29 minutes Organizer: Luis (luis@cryptex.finance)
Speakers
-
Luis (Speaker 1) — Community & Governance Lead, Cryptex
-
Ivey (Speaker 2) — Seed Governance Crew
-
Dnkta (Speaker 3) — DAO Member / Staking Contributor
-
Wenmarketing (Speaker 4) — Community Member
Transcript
Luis: Okay guys, thank you for being here. Hopefully we’ll have a few more folks joining in the next few minutes. But just for the sake of time and being respectful of your time as well, we’re gonna get started here.
So as you all know, this is going to be a governance-fund focused community call. We did one maybe a couple of months ago which was a general update in which all of the core team members of the LLC participated and gave some updates. We’re gonna do that again hopefully in the next month.
But now being a very governance-specific moment — we have a couple of things to update. You guys know we have a new UI. We’ve officially kicked off our staking rewards and we have a couple of proposals to go over: a reward-specific one for staking and another one for keepers. We also have a governance structural update — let’s call it a constitution update — that’s due in the next month probably. We approved the constitution, I think it was July or August last year, which pretty much was just a framework laying out some steps. How the governance process worked — that’s still in place. But now considering that we have some different things with Aragon, we need to update that. So that’s coming in the next month as well.
So for today we’re going to cover a couple of proposals that we have in general discussions on the forum. Again, thank you for being here. We’re gonna try to be efficient with time because I know that we’re all over the place.
For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Luis, I’m based in Honduras. I take care of community and governance. I’m the bridge between you guys — the whole Cryptex community, whether that’s keepers, stakers, or whoever — and the team itself. Whenever you feel you need to relate something specific, my DMs are always open. Just shoot me a DM and we can chat. If I don’t know the answer because it’s technical or something deeply related to the business, I’ll make sure to relay that question to whoever is the right person to answer it.
That said, let’s kick it off.
Agenda Item 1: Keeper Compensation Proposal
Luis: The first thing is we have a proposal — and I’ll drop the link to the whole conversation. The Seed Governance crew created this maybe two months ago. The Seed crew is one of those new members of the DAO. We met with them — well, we knew them before — but we met specifically with Ivey and Tino over at DevConnect in Argentina last November. They came into the DAO, they’ve been participating greatly and supporting everything we’re doing here, enhancing conversations.
They created this proposal — I just dropped it in the forum. Basically what we’re trying to achieve is what pretty much all DAOs have: some sort of compensation for delegates, which we call keepers, for the work that they do. This proposal was endorsed by more than three members of the community, which is the required number in order to move the proposal to a vote. Unfortunately, we didn’t move it to a vote because the whole migration process to the Aragon UI took longer than expected. We’ve pretty much passed the time that this proposal initially covered.
So what’s being discussed right now is how do we take the same concept that was already endorsed and just add a little bit of time so we can put this to work, pass it to a vote, and depending on the result, execute it.
I’m going to give the floor to Ivey so he can expand a little bit on what he thinks needs to be expanded on.
So pretty much the concept was: we’re going to compensate keepers based on their participation — on one side, traditional voting participation, and on the other a more subjective measure of participation such as forum posts and things related to how a keeper impacts the DAO. Not just by voting once a month or every other month, but how do they actively support and do their job as a keeper?
They created a structure on how to compensate retroactively because this was measured from January. It was supposed to cover January to May, but we’re almost done with May, so we need to extend the time a little bit. I’d invite you guys, if you haven’t already, to check the whole discussion on the forum, see what you think, and leave your comments. The main goal for both this proposal and the staking proposal is to have them up for vote by the first week of June — the first of our two voting cycles of the month.
For that we need the final draft of the proposal and it has to be endorsed by at least three members of the community. Ivey, if you want to add anything, the floor is yours.
Ivey: Yeah, hi everyone, can you hear me all right?
Luis: Yep, we can hear you.
Ivey: Okay, sweet. Yeah, Luis pretty much summed it up. The idea of the proposal is to compensate keepers based on their on-chain participation — which takes 70% of the total pool of CDX determined to be distributed — and the other 30% is based on off-chain contributions. We know this can at times be a hot topic, but the way we understand governance at this point, not everything is captured on-chain. That’s just the direction we’re heading.
For example, if we look at Cryptex in particular, we know the X community, social media creators, KOLs — they play a huge role within the DAO. So that’s sort of what we’re thinking about on top of commenting on forums, giving feedback, and pushing Cryptex forward beyond just doing the actual votes.
During the period Luis was mentioning — and this extends it up to June — the original proposal was covering up to May. So this is going to be a January through June proposal. We’ve only had around four proposals during that time, so as you can tell there’s so much more going on than just voting.
The proposal structure also has a cap: the voting activity gets capped at a certain amount of rewards so the whole pool doesn’t get distributed just for voting. The off-chain side is not capped, but you need to score on a 1, 2, 3 rubric. Whoever runs the program should be the one determining how much those contributions weigh.
There are some amounts that need to be updated. The way we’re thinking, we should adapt the numbers to meet what the original USD value was — which is going to be around the 40,000 CDX mark or so. We think that’s pretty reasonable. There’s also some feedback on project management of the program itself and tying compensation to the most active keeper. We think that’s valuable and it should actually reduce the budget a bit.
So yeah, that’s pretty much what we have at this point. Any comments, feedback, or thoughts — we’re super open to discussing.
Luis: Thank you, Ivey. You mentioned something we’re all aware of — the current price of the token right now. I personally — and this is me personally, don’t take this as an official statement from the LLC or as investment advice — I feel that once we have our star product, once Bags is out, we’re going to see a dramatic spike in the price of the token. Hopefully that’s the case, given how things are shaping right now in Washington, the regulatory environment, and the dynamic of what the product we’ve been building is.
Still, that might or might not happen. But I do think the point both you and Dnkta are making on the staking proposal is fair: let’s account for what the price is right now and compensate accordingly. If the price goes up, then fantastic. But it’s still speculation until it happens.
It’s very important that we finish this conversation by the end of next week, meaning we have a concrete proposal with numbers that has been reviewed and endorsed by the community. That way we can move it to a vote on the first week of June.
Also — I’m recording here. I’ll be sharing the transcript for this call in the general channel, as we did last time, so all the folks that couldn’t join will be able to read through the comments and see what’s been going on.
Agenda Item 2: Staking Season Two Proposal
Luis: Now let’s move quickly to the staking for Season Two, which is equally important.
The way this was thought of at the beginning is we’d have multiple seasons — as many as we want. This first season was the pilot of how governance and staking would work on Aragon. Season One was meant to cover from mid-February all the way to May.
We were running two separate and simultaneous staking programs: one we call legacy staking, which is in the app — and that one was sunsetted on the 19th. So if you have tokens there, assets, or rewards to claim, I’d suggest you claim them as fast as you can and move your assets out of that program. We’re not going to put any more CTX into it.
As you may know, Tally doesn’t exist anymore as a company. There’s still a group of people providing support for projects that still have Tally as their main governance service provider, but we don’t know how long that’s going to last. The last thing we want is for something to happen with the maintenance of the sites and for you to have tokens locked there. So please retrieve your tokens, claim your rewards, and move those tokens to the new staking system on Aragon.
Back to the seasons: Season One was going to be divided into three separate campaigns, each lasting a month. Because of the delays on the migration, we had to merge the first two months of campaign into one. That’s why you’ve been able to claim since the past two weeks. And on the first week of May we’ll enable the second campaign, which will effectively end Season One.
I think Dnkta did a really good job going through and explaining the numbers we approved at the beginning of the year for Season One. I think your point about moving the numbers according to current price is compelling, Dnkta. If you want to elaborate a little bit more on that?
Dnkta: Hey guys, good to hear you. Yeah, I agree with everything that was said — also for the delegate rewards, I agree it should be in the range that Ivey mentioned, like 40 or 50K CDX. I think that’s a reasonable amount.
For Season Two, I did some calculations and the APY is a bit low if you look at USD prices. And that’s the thing we were discussing — we’re all hoping that when Bags launches and we finally see the market appreciate what you guys have been building, maybe we can adapt. If we approve this until the end of the year and then CDX price is at a much higher level, I think we should revisit the amounts again so we have some flexibility. So maybe on a half-year basis deciding the amounts — I think that’s a good idea.
As far as the campaigns, as I understood it, you’ll be able to claim monthly, right? Like each campaign is one month normally when everything is set up.
Luis: Correct. And actually, we could do this even weekly if you wanted. The problem is that the whole logic behind how you claim rolls around participation. The idea behind one-month-long campaigns was that we should technically have at least one proposal per month. We know that’s not exactly the case — we’ve had a lot of months with no proposals voted on. But we’d have two voting cycles per month, so we should have at least one proposal per month.
If we don’t have any proposals, everybody is able to claim their rewards. If we do have a proposal, then the capacity to claim will depend on whether your delegate — not you as a staker, but your delegate — actually participated.
We could do weekly campaigns, four a month. But each campaign requires us to manually create a proposal via the fast-track process on the UI, and that process takes three days for the veto period. After three days, if the proposal was not vetoed, you’re able to claim. But it doesn’t make much sense to do it weekly because you’re not going to have proposals weekly.
Dnkta: Yeah, I think monthly is like —
Luis: Yeah, it’s a fair trade. That’s something we can change, of course. But for now that works.
Just to confirm with you, Dnkta — what are you thinking in terms of the length of Season Two? Should it last three months as Season One did, or should we aim for the rest of the year — six months or nine months?
Dnkta: Yeah, I was thinking like three-month periods. Like each quarter — Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4.
Luis: Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I’ll share this specific discussion in the chat now. And again, if you haven’t already, this needs to be supported. Dnkta has a really structured comment he left earlier this week. If you’re fine with that framework for Season Two, you need to show your support there so we know what considerations to put into the proposal itself when it comes time for voting at the beginning of June.
Agenda Item 3: Governance Constitution Update
Luis: Last thing I want to mention — I briefly touched on this at the beginning: we do need to update our governance constitution. I have a draft in place. We’re just checking a couple of things, and I know, Dnkta, you and I need to sit down and structure something specifically for the subDAO.
For those of you not familiar, the subDAO has six members, right, Dnkta?
Dnkta: Yes.
Luis: Six members to manage it. They’ve been doing a great job. It’s been growing, and the subDAO has now been deployed to Aragon. In the future — not now, because some of what they’re doing works on Base and Aragon just works on mainnet — but the goal is that eventually some of those assets can move to the treasury that the subDAO manages on Aragon. That way the six members can do their operations and approve proposals directly over there.
Something important to mention about how the subDAO concept works: different from the main DAO — the parent DAO, the Cryptex DAO — in which all members of the community, all stakers and keepers, if you have voting power, are able to vote. That’s not how it works for the subDAO. The voters are specifically the members of the subDAO.
The idea of always having the proposals and concepts the subDAO wants to pursue on the forum, giving the rest of the community the chance to provide feedback — I think that’s something we should keep. We did that for the flywheel optimization, and some comments came from people who aren’t actually subDAO members. That’s valuable. But at the end of the day, it’s the subDAO members who make the final decisions on how they operate and execute those funds. That responsibility was delegated to them.
Dnkta, maybe this coming week you and I can sit down, add whatever we need to that governance update, share it with the whole community, make the final tweaks, and have it ready for a vote. Maybe that’s not going to be for the first cycle of June, rather the second — the third week. But maybe we can do that next week.
Dnkta: Sounds good.
Luis: Thank you.
Community Q&A
Luis: So that’s pretty much what we wanted to go over. I have a few questions here from Wenmarketing. Let me read them out loud.
He said: “What insights do we have on what our team is building?”
The team is primarily focused on Bags. I know on the development side they’re still working and adjusting. Chris is the best person to talk about this — but as I mentioned, this call was specifically governance-focused, which is why Chris and Benji aren’t here today. I’ll make sure to relay this question to them. Maybe next week we can provide a few bullet points on how things are moving on that side.
Next: “Do we have any updates on our institutional progress?”
Wenmarketing, can you clarify? My guess is you might be referring to the advisors. One of the most recent advisors we appointed was Canary Capital. When we discussed the Canary Capital compensation on the forum, the community asked for a report on what the advisory team is doing — specifically Canary Capital, but we can expand that to the rest of the advisory team. That report is something we still need to work on and will provide in time.
Wenmarketing: I’ll just chime in. Thank you so much for the insight. I’m specifically talking about Cryptex AI, which Joe mentioned. I know it might have been early — he said the legal team told him to hold off because it’s extremely impactful and he doesn’t want it to be stolen. Is that something we could patent? Have you spoken to Joe about what that is?
Luis: Yes, yes — thank you for clarifying. That is exactly what the legal team told him. If you guys remember, Joe was down in Miami a couple of weeks ago having some meetings. That’s when the legal team told him: hold off, you can’t mention some of these things you’re working on right now because those ideas might be effectively stolen. I know that some efforts are being made on the patent side. I don’t know the full spectrum of them, but I’ll make sure to ask. Whenever Joe has more to share, we’ll pass that along to the community.
[End of transcript — recording concluded at approximately 29 minutes]
Summary of Key Action Items
| Owner | Action | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Luis | Share this transcript and call summary in the general channel | ASAP |
| Luis | Relay product development question to Chris & Benji; share bullet-point update | Next week |
| Luis | Follow up with Joe on Cryptex AI patent status | TBD |
| Luis + Dnkta | Finalize governance constitution update draft; share for community review | Late June |
| Community | Review & endorse keeper compensation and staking Season Two proposals on the forum | End of May |
| Community | Claim rewards from legacy staking program and migrate to Aragon staking | ASAP |
Proposals Discussed
1. Keeper Compensation (January–June 2026)
-
Total reward pool: ~40,000 CTX
-
70% allocated for on-chain voting participation
-
30% for off-chain contributions (forum activity, social media, KOL work)
-
Off-chain contributions scored on a 1–2–3 rubric
-
Goal: final draft endorsed by community, vote in first week of June
2. Staking Season Two
-
Quarterly cadence (aligned with Q3, Q4 of 2026)
-
Monthly campaigns; rewards claimable each month
-
Reward amounts to be adjusted to reflect current CDX price
-
Goal: proposal vote in first week of June
3. Governance Constitution Update
-
Luis + Dnkta to finalize draft
-
Will reflect new Aragon UI and subDAO structure
-
Target: ready for community review by late June; vote in second cycle of June