3 ms·

If the DAO has to plug back into existing legal/technical infrastructure (which includes almost everything outside of a few narrow cases like token market maker

by wyager 6y ago

If the DAO has to plug back into existing legal/technical infrastructure (which includes almost everything outside of a few narrow cases like token market makers), there's not really any meaningful improvement from using a DAO over a traditional legal structure.

chrisco255 6y ago
Of course there is. First of all, these systems will cause legal systems to change over time to adapt to their existence. Second of all, they're borderless, open, permissionless, pluggable systems for the coordination of human creativity and capital. There are thousands of ways to take advantage of that that far exceed what you can do with a Delaware C-Corp.
- wyager 6y ago
  > borderless, open, permissionless None of this matters if the actual real-world resources of a DAO are under the legislative power of a government. The DAO is no better off than a normal corporation with a charter.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Sure it would. For one, you can have the capital and funding controlled by the DAO. Right? This model obviously works better for software or more abstract mostly-digital businesses such as banks or exchanges or insurance but it could still fundamentally improve the accountability of a physical-asset backed business. Look at Uber as an example of how a taxi company is managed despite the fact that Uber doesn't own any cars. All that was needed for Uber to exist was smartphones with GPS and the right incentive structure in place to keep people honest. But it's clearly better than Uber, for example, if a decentralized ridesharing organization were to exist. Because in a DAO situation, the early drivers and customers of this DAO-Uber could have been rewarded with governance tokens that helped guide the development of the protocol. Maybe Uber would have been a less toxic corporation if it was basically owned by its drivers and customers. The DAO would have the treasury, the community, etc. It would have managed incentives based on on-chain voting. This is how Uniswap works today. This is how MakerDAO works today. This is how Aave works today. We're already disrupting exchanges and banks. A lot of other business models will be disrupted in similar ways.
    - wyager 6y ago
      > you can have the capital and funding controlled by the DAO Only the capital tied up in crypto tokens, which is probably very small compared to the capital tied up in offices or machines or whatever, which a government has control over. > The DAO would have the treasury, the community, etc. As far as I can see, none of this is easier to do on a DAO than with some more traditional method of organization.

by wyager 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

Of course there is. First of all, these systems will cause legal systems to change over time to adapt to their existence. Second of all, they're borderless, open, permissionless, pluggable systems for the coordination of human creativity and capital. There are thousands of ways to take advantage of that that far exceed what you can do with a Delaware C-Corp.

wyager 6y ago
> borderless, open, permissionless None of this matters if the actual real-world resources of a DAO are under the legislative power of a government. The DAO is no better off than a normal corporation with a charter.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Sure it would. For one, you can have the capital and funding controlled by the DAO. Right? This model obviously works better for software or more abstract mostly-digital businesses such as banks or exchanges or insurance but it could still fundamentally improve the accountability of a physical-asset backed business. Look at Uber as an example of how a taxi company is managed despite the fact that Uber doesn't own any cars. All that was needed for Uber to exist was smartphones with GPS and the right incentive structure in place to keep people honest. But it's clearly better than Uber, for example, if a decentralized ridesharing organization were to exist. Because in a DAO situation, the early drivers and customers of this DAO-Uber could have been rewarded with governance tokens that helped guide the development of the protocol. Maybe Uber would have been a less toxic corporation if it was basically owned by its drivers and customers. The DAO would have the treasury, the community, etc. It would have managed incentives based on on-chain voting. This is how Uniswap works today. This is how MakerDAO works today. This is how Aave works today. We're already disrupting exchanges and banks. A lot of other business models will be disrupted in similar ways.
  - wyager 6y ago
    > you can have the capital and funding controlled by the DAO Only the capital tied up in crypto tokens, which is probably very small compared to the capital tied up in offices or machines or whatever, which a government has control over. > The DAO would have the treasury, the community, etc. As far as I can see, none of this is easier to do on a DAO than with some more traditional method of organization.