Warpcast

DAO's for extremists? They're too transparent. Plus it's much simpler and more effective to set up a group chat on signal or a telegram.

But this does bring up an interesting discussion around Safety and on-chain activities... 🧵

DAO's for extremists? They're too transparent. Plus it's much simpler and more effective to set up a group chat on signal or a telegram.

But this does bring up an interesting discussion around Safety and on-chain activities... 🧵

https://x.com/ryansadams/status/1750981000673333589?s=46&t=1ZDvHMLPn6N00kZnomPAig

I've primarily been exposed to two perspectives: The doomer who believes crypto is only being used by the worst of society, and the crypto enthusiast who dismisses this as FUD with confidence that the pros outweigh the cons and we must press on. Reality is always grey ofc.

For context, I am in the latter camp. Crypto is great! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about these edge cases that can cause disproportionate damage to the onchain explorer. Let's dig into a concrete example - censorship resistant social media + extremists

"Just block them! It's better than having a platform with the power to deplatform anyone and use these extremes as an excuse to wield that power!" I'm torn, because I agree-granting power to centralized entities can lead to bad, but doing this🙈doesn't prevent future harm either

This is where I think applications revolving around digital identity while _also_ preserving the privacy of the individual is a game changer. Applications like gitcoinpassport, proofofhumanity, worldcoin, and more I may not be aware of are crucial.

In my example above, having a censorship resistant site that incorporates some sort of DID can help the community exposed to the harmful content to collectively decide if they wouldn't want that human to participate in their space.

This gives power to the community and address possible recidivism while also preserving the privacy of the offender. 
DIDs can help in other areas like source verification of content submissions (see disinformation, ai generated media, and more, but that's another thread)

I welcome any and all feedback of course, the summary of what I was trying to get at was - yea nocoiners will cry wolf on worst case scenarios, but we shouldn't ignore them, we should always bias towards action and consider them in our applications. We want mass adoption, right?

It's important for people to freely express their perspectives, but what happens when their perspectives have the direct intention to harm others? It's difficult to hold someone accountable who could be doxxing another anon or posting traumatizing media.