Graham Novak

@novak

194 Following

282 Followers

Graham Novak pfp

Ugh I regret not being active on farcaster when it was blowing up It was an insufferable period where people were playing all of these awful follower games to boost their audiences Lmfao whoops

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

Organizational debt is even harder to solve than technical debt

0 reply

1 recast

3 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

Before onchain organizations, there were governments and companies. Analog organizations enforce governance with legal maneuvering that is ultimately backed by a governments. Onchain organizations ensure functioning governance through indisputable smart contracts

0 reply

1 recast

6 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

I am once again struggling with threads on warpcast so here's a summary of the research piece on Onchain Organizations https://x.com/gnovak_/status/1815420488451006485

1 reply

1 recast

5 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

having a discussion with a small working group on the ontology of Onchain Organizations, tomorrow at 11am ET. comment or shoot me a DM if you'd like an invite to join there's a research piece that's getting published in conjunction with this too

0 reply

1 recast

3 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

i remember a lot of your takes on your podcast ~4 years ago were much more left leaning (pro-Bernie, pro-dem). how has it evolved over the last few years and what does that mean for you & your choice in the election? (out of curiosity, not judgement or anything)

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

what would you add to this chart on autonomous DAOs emphasis on orgs that are truly controlled by smart contracts and have onchain governance

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

Well deserved, Paul!!

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

yessir 🫡🫡🫡

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

wrote a thread on twitter about the new paper out of the UK Law Commission. if you're in DAOs, you probably want to read it https://x.com/gnovak_/status/1811527414742422003

2 replies

1 recast

5 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

well, i'm an idiot and apparently don't know how threads work on here, so here's a link to the twitter post: https://x.com/gnovak_/status/1811527402490651034

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

Impressive Nuance. The commission has a clear understand that there's heavy disagreement about simple things, like the A, of DAO, "Autonomous," referencing "independent from jurisdictions" or "automatically executed by smart contracts"

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

Setting the Scene. The commission absolutely NAILs the common philosophical goals of DAOs. They touch on transparency, decentralized decision making, censorship resistance, incentives, and the allowance of pseudonymous participants

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

The Law Commission of the United Kingdom just published a huge paper (289 pages) on DAOs today. It's really good, but unbearably long. For all of you with TikTok attention spans, I've got some goodies for you:

6 replies

2 recasts

7 reactions

Graham Novak pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

id say the incremental friction of bank APIs vs an onchain actions makes a big difference APIs fail, access can be revoked, requires a bank account to start with

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Graham Novak pfp

Expect a massive amount of organizational diversity, nowhere close to one-size-fits-all

2 replies

1 recast

3 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

The main challenge with crypto regulation (esp in the US) has always been this phenomenon where if you do something useless, or something where you're asking people to give you money in exchange for vague references to potential returns at best, you are free and clear, but if you try to give your customers a clear story of where returns come from, and promises about what rights they have, then you're screwed because you're "a security". The incentive gradient that this "anarcho-tyranny" creates ends up worse for the space than either plain anarchy _or_ plain tyranny. I would much rather see us move to the opposite situation, where issuing a token _without_ giving a clear long-term story for why it will maintain or increase in economic value is the riskier thing, and if you _do_ give such a long-term story and follow basic best practices then you're safe. Actually getting to this will require good-faith engagement, both from regulators and from industry.

6 replies

20 recasts

98 reactions