Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wkyleg.eth
@wkyleg
May be of interest to those interested in intersection of law and crypto
1 reply
4 recasts
8 reactions
codeofcrypto
@codeofcrypto
Curious on your thoughts @thethriller @clinamenic @trigs
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Trigs
@trigs
It sounds like another interesting take on the idea of onchain orgs. Sounds similar to borgs from a high level look. Trying to put DAOs in a box to contain their overuse is interesting. Seems like wordplay to me, but maybe helpful to attract more businesses that could benefit from onchain efficiency, but otherwise are turned off by 'DAOs'. But the reality is, the O isn't the part that is troublesome. It's the D and the A. So they've taken away the one part of DAOs that is actually easy to make useful 😂 All in all the contracts they've designed sound useful from the description (albeit not entirely unique), however the use cases they defined sound odd to me. Why would creator collectives want to form a corporation, which implies a C-Suite org structure, instead of using the more apt concept of a co-op or even just a DAO, based on their definition of it? As a creator, I sure wouldn't want to have a CEO in control of the value I'm creating!
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
wkyleg.eth
@wkyleg
So I would argue the “Distributed” and “Autonomous” aspects aren’t actually as relevant as whether the problem is best solved by an ordinary corporation (solved from scaling internal transaction costs better) or commons based peer production. There’s a lot of examples of ordinary companies that would be useful on-chain
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
