Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/cryptoleft
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rathermercurial pfp
rathermercurial
@rathermercurial.eth
If your "DAO" makes you negotiate with token holders for fair pay, decent working conditions, or to modify your working agreements.. You don't have a DAO. You have a boss.
1 reply
1 recast
11 reactions
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
How should a DAO work?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
rathermercurial pfp
rathermercurial
@rathermercurial.eth
There's no one answer, but I think most people should agree that it should be: - Decentralized: Not concentrating power into the hand of those with the most wealth, over others with less wealth - Autonomous: Not forcing participants to accept domination by other paries through coersion or withholding of resources - Organized: Not a chaotic stew of influence and politics, but a structured, comprehensible system for collective action. The methodology I use an advocate for is to build operational daos (where people work to achieve shared goals) as purpose-aligned networks of small, autonomous teams in which working groups are engaged voluntarily as sovereign entities with 100% of needed resources (or as much as practical) provided upfront upon engagement, agreeing on only the enabling constraints neccesary for each party to commit safely and and with reasonable affordances. Not "decentralizing" key business functions onto an army of unpaid laborers whose surplus labor value accrues to token holders.
2 replies
1 recast
1 reaction
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
But that sounds like you still have a boss? We're just redefining a boss as being all the participants. It's not like a DAO should let me simply take whatever compensation I choose to have and do what I feel like.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
rathermercurial pfp
rathermercurial
@rathermercurial.eth
That's not a boss, it's a counterparty. I'm saying we *shouldn't* create dynamics in which the token holders hold coercive power over workers, but engage them as autonomous teams and Guilds, with fair compensation negotiated upfront. That's not a boss. It's a client.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
(Farcaster nit: If you reply-chain rather than doing each reply to the original cast, it'll order/thread better.) I think we need to better define what it means to have a boss? An employment contract with a boss is an upfront contract too. We can have clients who underpay and aren't fair. I think we're fundamentally aligned about what we want here but we need better terms than "boss"/"client" IMO. Also we shouldn't undersell how hard it is to build consensus within a cooperative (or DAO). It's still made up of people, with agendas and pet causes and greed.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
rathermercurial pfp
rathermercurial
@rathermercurial.eth
Lol noted. Thanks. By "boss" I mean someone who dictates the terms of an agreement in a one-sided fashion. Employment contracts are rarely negotiated (and when they are, it's usually by threat of withheld labor en masse), they're dictated by those who hold the most resources. Both bosses and clients can be decent or shitty. The difference is economic coersion vs. free association. Good point re: cooperatives. Many cooperatives act as general assemblies of members which in many cases (above two-pizza scale or so) are prone to coordination failure... But there are many types of cooperatives, like worker, member, producer, retailer, buyer, consumer, etc.. There's no one-size solution. Picking the right one is key. Generally, a collaborative workgroup, or a con/federation of collaborative workgroups, is very easy to coordinate with few rules and a reasonable amount of supports. Just look at dOrg.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction