18 ms·

If the intent of the DAO was to create a decentralized system that people could buy into so that they can vote/participate in investment opportunities presented

If the intent of the DAO was to create a decentralized system that people could buy into so that they can vote/participate in investment opportunities presented by other members, then the big question I have is why was the system implemented in such a way as to hold all investment funds up front? Wouldn't a more secure implementation have allowed members to buy in for a nominal fee and keep their investment funds outside of the DAO until they voted/participated in a specific contract/investment opportunity?

21 10y ago
Marketing. Think about how everybody felt taking part in "the biggest crowdfund ever". Think how the VCs felt, investing in the future. Now think how the VCs feel when some peers maybe take a swipe at them: "so you invested in that DAO thing?". This (and money at stake) will create powerful forces towards a resolution. This can already be seen in the smart PR campaign to rollback the hack by forking.
nemild 10y ago
It's a bit of a chicken and egg, where you don't know how much to request from the DAO, if it isn't funded. It's hard to have people softly commit (unless it is a guaranteed commitment), as they could always renege on their promise when it came time to provide money. Also, the vision seemed to be to create many VC funds to consider projects, which required an aggregation of capital. An alternate way is having each investment opportunity publicize it, but that is a marketing challenge for each project, and may not raise the requisite amount (there may also be greater legal risks to soliciting capital from retail investors directly). There are a lot of issues with the DAO (long before the hack), so I don't mean that as a justification for launching the current DAO, but rather a potential reasoning for that one aspect. (the bigger question is why didn't they do many proof of concepts + then restrict the amount of money collected with the first production version).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

21 10y ago

Marketing. Think about how everybody felt taking part in "the biggest crowdfund ever". Think how the VCs felt, investing in the future. Now think how the VCs feel when some peers maybe take a swipe at them: "so you invested in that DAO thing?". This (and money at stake) will create powerful forces towards a resolution. This can already be seen in the smart PR campaign to rollback the hack by forking.

nemild 10y ago

It's a bit of a chicken and egg, where you don't know how much to request from the DAO, if it isn't funded. It's hard to have people softly commit (unless it is a guaranteed commitment), as they could always renege on their promise when it came time to provide money. Also, the vision seemed to be to create many VC funds to consider projects, which required an aggregation of capital. An alternate way is having each investment opportunity publicize it, but that is a marketing challenge for each project, and may not raise the requisite amount (there may also be greater legal risks to soliciting capital from retail investors directly). There are a lot of issues with the DAO (long before the hack), so I don't mean that as a justification for launching the current DAO, but rather a potential reasoning for that one aspect. (the bigger question is why didn't they do many proof of concepts + then restrict the amount of money collected with the first production version).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]