Protector pfp

Protector

@protector

109 Following
78 Followers
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
https://paragraph.xyz/@protector/what-constitutes-strong-social-scalability
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
信息精度是上位者重视的，上位者最焦虑有没有人骗他，最需要对齐的助手。但忠诚会妨碍其他信息的其他特征：一个忠诚的组织，上位者信息精度是有的，但是信息创新不足，信息成本也不会分散下去，这导致组织更迭困难。 换句话说，预测市场提供的预测会非常危险，因为它需要使用者非常努力、超然的扮演一个上位者，才能使用好它。 更进一步说，如果预测市场的系统只给了信息精度的解决方案，那么它竞争不过代理人制度。因为代理人不仅要直言不讳，还要保持持续学习，也能适时保持沉默。 那么预测市场制度如何设计？Robin 提到了metadao。metadao的思路呈现了一种保守的新设计，他将信息精度承包给了分析师，信息创新与信息成本承包给了代理人。
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
如何补足预测市场？ Robin 分享预测市场的优点。市场优势在于数据精确、一致性强，有更强的预测能力。预测市场类似于一个直言不讳的聪明助手，可以揭示真相。 Robin 的观点是合理的，并且预测市场是很好实现的，这是我成为Robin粉丝的原因。但市场的优势不只是信息精度高，市场还有其他信息功能——鼓励信息创新、分散信息成本。 信息精度、信息创新、信息成本，三个信息的特征很难平衡。 除信息精度以外的重要功能们是预测市场无法承担的。设想围绕预测市场建立的决策系统，代替今天的代理人决策系统，它还是远远不够的。
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Devcon会议速记 Robin的演讲《公共认识论与预测市场》 https://telegra.ph/Publicepistemics-11-14 侧重营销的一场会议分享，以为他会尝试建立“公共认识论”的理论，并分享思考。 分享的内容是批量的主观承诺： （1）预测市场好用 （2）预测市场好用是因为曾经有人用，觉得所以它好用 （3）相比于现在的情况，只要你动脑想一想就知道，预测市场好用。
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
How should prediction market systems be designed? MetaDAO presents a conservative new approach, outsourcing information accuracy to analysts and delegating information innovation and costs to agents. https://blog.metadao.fi/a-futards-guide-to-the-meta-dao-7a6b8d66443a
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Pan Chao's 2019 sharing on MakerDAO governance, '4 Common Misconceptions About DeFi Governance', is quite interesting. He argued that decentralized risk management must ensure that rigorous, fact-based theories take precedence over individual opinions or group biases. https://www.mytokencap.com/zh/news/118537.html
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
https://x.com/shumochu/status/1857976874208526375 Ethereum has lost its moat of regulatory capture.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Long-term, large-scale infrastructure with unproven practical returns has led to this legitimacy crisis. Under these circumstances, while most resources must still go to infrastructure and Ethereum's decentralization, governance issues can only be temporarily addressed through stopgap measures. These include idol worship, mythologizing certain things and figures, sanctifying their actions and cypherpunk culture; as well as ideological screening at the organizational level to preemptively exclude potential dissenters. This situation suggests Ethereum won't undergo radical organizational changes, implying ongoing conflicts and divisions within the community.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
The Legitimacy Crisis Under Major Infrastructure Development How should we understand Ethereum's - or rather Vitalik's - inherent contradiction? The entire Devcon presented Ethereum's roadmap as a massive infrastructure project - focusing on scaling, censorship resistance, and ZK. This declares the next decade as an era of infrastructure building - characterized by high investment but low immediate returns. Infrastructure is expensive, forcing Vitalik to become a leader, constantly raising funds and recruiting. However, large infrastructure projects struggle to self-validate their value or demonstrate clear future impact. This infrastructure development seems to suppress certain possibilities, making it difficult to convince the market to trust Vitalik, thus creating a legitimacy crisis.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Throughout Devcon, there was no mention of governance issues at all, except for the distant prospect of prediction markets :)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
https://paragraph.xyz/@protector/why-cooperative-style-social-innovation-is-mid
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
'This DAO is dark and can't be seen onchain'
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
All organizations can be seen as an agent network, like a two-part model. Governance in crypto is more like a mix of the fourth and second types. It starts like the fourth type. Holders give goals, then delegates try to handle everything. It's like guessing what an elephant looks like by touch. They start making plans without clear instructions, which is challenging. Then it shifts to the second type for getting things done. Delegates figure out what's going on and make plans. Agents do the actual work. Regular company management is similar. It has two splits, creating three roles: Shareholders: set goals Managers: environmental awareness, planning Employees: action https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jpGHShgevmmTqXHy5/decomposing-agency-capabilities-without-desires
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🏰 Ξ2T pfp
🏰 Ξ2T
@earth2travis
Updated Zodiac Wiki resource for DAOs by the Gnosis Guild community https://www.zodiac.wiki/
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Graham Novak pfp
Graham Novak
@novak
Organizational debt is even harder to solve than technical debt
0 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Why & How it will change?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Any concrete examples of objective rules that smart contracts can implement to guide subjective human engagement in DAOs? For instance, could these include voting mechanisms with specific thresholds, time-locked decisions, or reputation systems that influence voting power based on past contributions?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
Most of these are just pipe dreams. It's all too common for crypto enthusiasts to throw around buzzwords like 'DAO' or 'token launch' without any real substance or follow-through. In reality, the vast majority of these ideas are destined to fizzle out, with tokens eventually becoming worthless. It's just empty hype masquerading as innovation.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Protector pfp
Protector
@protector
https://warpcast.com/seneca/0x83357301 The calcification of the network of deception and mistrust within bureaucratic structures. The mechanism of verity depletion generally unfolds in the following manner: 1. The majority abstain from veracity (to safeguard their effective influence within the community), adopting strategies of mendacity, while anticipating candor from others. 2. Upon encountering truthful discourse from others, individuals, driven by self-preservation instincts, promptly engage in criticism or denunciation. 3. Potential truth-tellers, observing these dynamics, instinctively resort to reticence. 4. Ultimately, the community is populated by a substantial cohort who, while abstaining from truthfulness themselves, harbor expectations for others to articulate veracities.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction