Dukalis
@dukalis
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
13 replies
37 recasts
202 reactions
42 replies
135 recasts
597 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
1 recast
38 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
As some of you have noticed, a big theme on this Farcaster profile is objectivity vs. subjectivity
The human experience is extremely complex, multi-faceted, diverse, and thus deeply subjective
Financialization is an attempt to dumb some things down into objective numbers. For some things, like capital allocation, exchange of goods, it works brilliantly. Blockchains are exclusively the domain of the strictly objective.
But for almost everything else, forcing subjective matters into objective outputs leads to potentially catastrophic outcomes, and the root cause is plutocracy - determining governance by wealth, to the worst-case scenario, truth itself. I don't need to tell how that's peak dystopia and an affront to humanity.
Fuck "info finance" with a bag of stale scrotums 9 replies
13 recasts
129 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
3 recasts
28 reactions
7 replies
3 recasts
46 reactions
3 replies
10 recasts
13 reactions
The reason why "DAOs" require traditional governance is because blockchains can only do strict global consensus
The assumption is you need a token to organise said governance, but this is not true. Indeed, some DAOs would be much better off following the worker cooperative or consumer cooperative model, rather than the public company model, with democratic voting and vetos for checks and balances (instead of being controlled by few whales, as it is for almost all crypto projects now - not just not decentralized, but very centralized. VCAOs, if you will, pun intended)
Yeah, I get it, token gambling is crypto's big usecase, but it doesn't have to be. Building the best possible protocol to attract the most users might not be such a bad idea for the long term 11 replies
42 recasts
171 reactions
Though well-written and inspirational, I believe this post fundamentally misunderstands Ethereum and blockchains.
Ethereum's distinctive property is objective, strict global consensus, and absolutely nothing else. It's great for usecases that require strict global consensus, but it's impossible for everything else, because Ethereum cannot parse any subjectivity or rough consensus at all.
As such, while money, contracts, governance, identity, law are presented as examples, Ethereum can only parse very, very limited forms of the above, where it's objective. In some cases, like governance or law, it's almost entirely subjective with negligible scope for Ethereum to help.
99.99% of economics, institutions and the like are deeply human and subjective, which Ethereum or blockchains in general cannot interpret at all. Indeed, we've seen many a times how forcing subjectivity into objective code has led to many disastrous outcomes in crypto.
(Contd...) 9 replies
106 recasts
196 reactions
0 reply
4 recasts
5 reactions
10 replies
38 recasts
147 reactions
4 replies
13 recasts
23 reactions
