Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polynya
@polynya
>99% of human coordination is subjective, which public blockchains cannot parse at all This is why "DAOs" use traditional human governance methods which have nothing to do with blockchains (except for accounting, which is the only objective thing) Ironically, if "DAOs" were autonomous, you wouldn't need "DAOs"
8 replies
17 recasts
99 reactions
Spencer Graham 🧢
@spengrah.eth
There are ways to use blockchains / smart contracts to implement subjective coordination. In fact, one thing that makes DAOs unique relative to any other org type is their ability to enforce their own rules with the full spectrum of enforcement from constraints/objective/prospective to accountability/subjective/retrospective. These mechanisms and patterns are just starting to emerge, and it’s an exciting time.
2 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Trigs
@trigs
I think I disagree with your last statement, but it might be a misunderstanding. Autonomy = self-empowered. No one else is in control of an individual's actions or output. I'd argue that it requires a DAO to actually enable non-violent coordination between autonomous individuals. Blockchains are also required because we need a credibly neutral data layer to enable accurate accounting of subjective input from these autonomous individuals. Without that there has to be a trusted executor who gathers and carries out the wishes of contributors, therefore removing the autonomy. If humans were capable of autonomy then sure, we might not need DAOs. But like @spengrah.eth was getting at, Blockchains and DAOs are what enable us to automatically execute the collective actions of autonomous individuals through credibly neutral consensus. Without that, someone with a stick has to enforce execution, and that is inherently not credibly neutral. Subjectivity isn't the issue, just tooling and process definition.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
links 🏴
@links
It’s a great line of thinking and exposes the vagueness of ideas people are executing behind. Would really suggest people have convos about exactly this in the communities they are part of - it helps to seed this understanding. 200 $daos
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
1𝐴35𝐸1
@1a35e1
They would evolve as cybernetic orgs?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
William Mougayar
@wmougayar
Yup. They often conflate autonomous with automated. Automated is easy. Autonomous is not. I have written previously about this aspect. https://wamougayar.xyz/daos-automating-governance-or-operations
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
sude
@sude
DAOs = delulus
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Alex
@asteure
you can't govern without good faith and compromise, and you shouldn't. you're making a good point :)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cynthia
@cryptocyn
Challenging train of thought, but yeah, I can’t contradict you…
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
