VDP-134 VitaDAO <> CryoDAO Partnership


CryoDAO is a decentralized collective to fund cryopreservation research. Many of the active contributors came out of the broader VitaDAO sphere to focus primarily on funding research in the space of cryopreservation.

CryoDAO shares a lot of similarities in how it is structured, operates, and wants to fund research, and is fundamentally also a longevity DAO with a focus on cryopreservation.

We propose a “DAO2DAO relationship” between VitaDAO and CryoDAO to formalize a partnership that would benefit both DAOs from a collective research agenda, incentive alignment, marketing and branding standpoint.

Team: @vincent @alexdobrin


The primary objective of this DAO<>DAO relationship between VitaDAO and CryoDAO is to join forces on our shared missions to work actively together towards making the maximum progress. This relationship will allow both organizations to benefit from each other’s resources (talent, capital, etc.), reach new audiences and grow their communities.



  • Partnerships, sharing deal flow between VitaDAO and CryoDAO, co-funding projects together, deal by deal if interesting to the VitaDAO community.


  • Asyncs aligning and sharing research projects among the core teams of both DAOs, as well as among specialised sub-groups such as working groups
  • Collaboratively work on shared issues around legal, tokenomics, governance, tech, operations and other domains

Community & Awareness

  • Co-organise events and/or conferences
  • Create a channel that is synced/mirrored between both DAOs’ Discord servers
  • Collaborate with content distribution on Twitter, Medium, YouTube and other platforms
  • Reference the other DAO during relevant public engagements


  • Exchanging $100k of VITA (at 30d TWAP of closing) with $100k of CRYO, that is used for mutual liquidity provisioning to the VITA<>CRYO Balancer pool, and with the equal commitment to keep the tokens for at least 4 yrs.
  • Additionally we propose VITA contributing $50k directly into CryoDAOs treasury in exchange for the current exchange rate, to be used fully for funding research.

Next steps

  • This proposal also needs the approval of the CryoDAO token governance community and process.
  • Agree
  • Revisions Requested [Details in Comments]
  • Disagree
0 voters

With the explosion of various project DAOs, it would be helpful to have general guidelines for collaborating with them, and what benchmarks are needed for VitaDAO to invest $$$ in them. For $150k, we could fund another longevity project. Instead of exchanging funds in a balancer pool, how about funding a joint project?

Use the funding announcement to help drive hype for CRYO and solicit proposals. $250k (150 from VitaDAO and 100 from CryoDAO) into a promising project will be lower risk and help both communities more than a balancer pool that is locked for 4 years. Give them 51% of the stake as a goodwill gesture, and offer support for using the IP-NFT infrastructure. The project that wins can be used as further marketing hype to drive more deals to them.


Fair questions. Think for clarification the proposal was 100k in token swaps, and $50k in DAI from VitaDAO to co-fund some of the initial research projects with CryoDAO for additional CRYO.

To clarify the wording: “We propose VITA contributing $50k directly into CryoDAOs treasury in exchange for the current exchange rate, to be used fully for funding research.” Vita would be receiving CRYO in exchange for the $50k in DAI?

1 Like

I consider any VITA put into most of these partnerships as ‘spent’ because the partners are weaker than VitaDAO and less likely to survive/hold value. For example, the $25k Bankless swap. The $BANK is now worth $4k (and the $Vita worth more than $25k).

While I hope CRYO succeeds, I’m not convinced it will hold the same value as $Vita 4 years from now. With a 4 year lock, we couldn’t de-risk if there is a short-term double (relative to $Vita) due to hype/being new. And value inflection from an investing win may take longer than 4 years.

So I view these balancer pools as black holes. But I also don’t understand deal-flow, so maybe I’m missing some key value add from these balancer pools that we couldn’t get by spending the $Vita on a project.


Hey all, this needs a bit more clarification… Thanks @sarahfriday @bowtiedshrike for the questions. I proposed CryoDAO does a short presentation on the collaboration for the community. I think we can update the proposal with more details then…



@bowtiedshrike hits at the key issue with how this proposal is currently constructed. Vitadao should get a premium for contributing to cryoDAO. It shouldn’t be a 1:1 swap. If cryoDAO wants $50K usd, I think getting $250-500K (5-10x) of CRYO tokens could make sense. Same premium if we are talking VITA tokens.

I think a proposal with a few premium options would be better received.


Imo doesnt make sense given everyones contribute ETH/$ at the same exchange rate, so why would Vita get such a different deal? The DAO got $450k+ in funding and much more interest - its less about the 50k, and more about a strategic partnership to advance cryopreservation together.

ETH/$ is not the same as VITA.

This is a key analogy. Anyway, it’s up to everyone to determine what a fair swap is. Judging from the voting, it seems like more people disagree with the deal as its proposed. Just trying to suggest solutions that could move the needle :grinning:

I suspect the $50k into a cryopreservation project is less of the issue than the $100k balancer pool. Cryopreservation will indirectly promote longevity.

I think even doing a joint project where they get 51% of the IP-NFT we jointly fund would be less controversial if we’re upfront about doing it to bootstrap the DAO.

But exchanges should be equal value, and new DAOs/tokens have less value because they carry higher risk. Locking the tokens increases risk even more. The $BANK example is the strongest because it happened to VitaDAO, but the Argentinian Peso to USD is a good TardFi example.

Governance of VitaDAO is a bigger deal than governance of a new DAO.

1 Like

Understand the thoughts - but imo not the right comparison - BANK swap was meant to get the two communities closer together, which happened, eg. Bankless started a DeSci chapter https://twitter.com/BanklessDeSci, got involved in delegation, DeSci podcasts etc, and it was during the bull market so their price came down.

The better comparison is early Bio DAOs at launch prices, if you take the category of HairDAO, Valley, to AthenaDAO, their tokens are now all at 5-10x higher prices compared to launch - so arguably same $ value swap is the only that makes sense.

I helped draft a similar partnership for AthenaDAO <> VitaDAO which would now be up 5x on it just for comparison, but ofc for similar reasons some people werent excited, so the DAO lost out on that partnershi at the earliest possible stage with great terms for VitaDAO and in retrospect was wrong to assume that it wouldnt benefit from a partnership.

I think it also goes largely beyond the value of governance tokens and is mainly about strategic alignment, collaborations and advancing research together.


I think Bankless would have jumped on the DeSci bandwagon regardless. But I considered that one a $25k marketing expense.

A 4-year lock doesn’t let VitaDAO de-risk the early gains. The question isn’t ‘will they 10x’, but instead, ‘will they have value in 4 years’. I rode more coins that I had paper gains on down -90% than I should have. That the price can move 10x in less than a year suggests way more price discovery and volatility, which are both risks. If VitaDAO had the option and plan to dump some at 2x, more at 5x, more at 10x, then it would be less of a 100k black hole, and more of a chance to recoup the investment. If we’re going to take a degen science portfolio for the gains, we should allocate a certain amount to being degens, and fund a bunch of DeSci projects with clear exit strategies when the token pumps.

I’m not sure that’s the best way for VitaDAO to go.

1 Like

The cryoDAO team has conflicts of interest with other cryopreservation organizations they lead. VitaDAO needs explanations for how these other organizations won’t benefit at VitaDAO’s expense. I can see these other organizations actually benefitting cryoDAO and thus VitaDAO, but something needs to be said here in this proposal on how the COIs will be managed.

Crypto is full of COIs. Let’s set a good example here by being transparent and thorough.


I strongly recommend that Dao implement this token swap proposal. I will answer some of your questions from a web3 native perspective.

1: Decision on the $BANK token swap.
I don’t think the original proposal should be rejected based on the current value of $BANK. This only represents the current value of $BANK. We should not assume that $BANK will not appreciate in the future. Even if everyone thinks that the value of $BANK will never exceed $VITA in the future. But I still don’t think the original result should be rejected. Because this represents a mutual recognition attitude, Bankless has a large number of loyal fans, and through Bankless’s token swap influence, he has led at least some people to pay attention to $VITA and join the ranks of token holders. Holder increase > $VITA market value increase > available grant amount growth > closer to the results of our vision. In conclusion, I think this proposal has achieved results in the previous time stage.

2: Is the explosive growth of DAO assets worth denying?
If we recognize desci as a new movement and compare it to defi, I think the number of DAO assets is far from enough. We need more DAO assets to run forward and pursue results in more segmented fields. And the social impact of the results will be fed back to the entire desci ecosystem. As I argued before, there are different urgent needs in each stage, and we need to dynamically adjust the strategy according to the needs of the moment. I think the urgent need in the next stage is to prove that we can produce results and change the health status of some people. So we need more segmented DAO fields. I believe that quantitative change will lead to qualitative change. Although more DAO assets will increase the chaos, I believe that people will have the ability to judge. Judging from vincent’s professional experience and past contributions, I tend to choose trust. In the future, as the desci ecosystem develops and more people pay attention, I believe that DAO will face more token swap proposals flying around.

Finally, we should embrace together more actively and enlarge the asset cake of desci, thereby enhancing the influence. The expansion of asset value will allow dao to call more funds to fund scientific research projects. Therefore, quantitative change generates quality. We believe that the value of desci will exceed defi, and it will also bring wider social impact, and all this is based on the results generated by funded projects. More contributors join > faster output results!

1 Like

totally agree with this one

1 Like