daos

I'm finally digging into a16z's decentralisation matrix.

https://www.lw.com/en/decentralization

👀 One piece jumped out below:

--> DAOs - to be deemed 'Partially Decentralised' in software development - need 'community approval' for any pushed code. ⁉️

I help run the /daos channel |
CEO of Stay Liquid | Bringing DeFi to everyday CEOs |
Gamer, Sountrack fan & dog owner|
https://linktr.ee/tommy.stuart

I don't think that would be efficient for software higher up the stack. 

In reality you would have a Working Group chair and they would be responsible as per the DAOs charter.

I think the statement is intended for consensus on the protocol layer. eg. Increase fees from 0.2%-> 0.5%. Contract upgradability etc.

Founder at https://lighthouse.cx . Interests (🎥,  /cinema-stills) , (🌊, /emergence)

I would not say that a concrete rule and its to early for me to speculate. 

It's more about developing a risk profile that in inline with your d10n objectives.

Just commenting on what is practical/pragmatic ATM. 

In the future we could havecontracts that act as AppRegistries and route to DAO approved instances. IDK.

Got ya. So on re-read it appears that my UI example isn't valid.

As you say, it's protocol only changes this covers

Saying that, what do you think is the best process then if there's a discovered vulnerability in the protocol.

Surely a vote to approve a fix isn't ideal ?