I realized what bothers me about @vitalik.eth d/acc essay. Even though it is optimistic, it shares with the pessimist side a presumption that technology, as an evolutionary process, *can* be governed according to some notion of human intent.

“Tech can/cannot be governed” is a bigger divide than optimism/pessimism

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

If we treat governance as a form of tech, what does that mean in this context?

To me, it's asking the question of "governed how exactly?" Through regulatory enforcement? Through economic incentives? Through artificial hard constraints (physics? smart contracts?)? New forms we haven't discovered yet?

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

Why wouldn't it be? Anything that enables us to do something better or something we couldn't do before is a technology. Why should it be limited to physical devices and digital mechanisms, but not abstract frameworks?

✏️ WIP @oco 🪽 Angel // 🌶️ MCDAO ETHos Pod (🍄,🍄) @SporeDAO // 🌑 🏘️ nonce 👹 MCV

Why wouldn't it be? Anything that enables us to do something better or something we couldn't do before is a technology. Why should it be limited to physical devices and digital mechanisms, but not abstract frameworks? https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x65235834

what would be your basis for treating governance as a form of tech?