4 ms·

> Like the US Archives aren't owned by the government of the people. Instead this will be owned by a very few ETH holders willing to participate. The Constitut

> Like the US Archives aren't owned by the government of the people. Instead this will be owned by a very few ETH holders willing to participate. The ConstitutionDAO changed their website to remove references to distributed ownership. They went on to clarify that owners of the token won't have fractional ownership of the copy of the constitution. The also added clarification on the website about ownership questions: > No. You are receiving a governance token, not fractionalized ownership. Governance includes the ability to advise on (for illustrative purposes) where the Constitution should be displayed, how it should be exhibited, and the mission and values of ConstitutionDAO. ConstitutionDAO is taking donations and donors are receiving governance tokens with no expectation of profit. So someone will technically own it, but it won't be the people who bought these tokens. In theory the token holders can vote on things, but they go out of their way to clarify that the votes are advisory in nature. Anyone who buys into this is basically making a donation to this group. The crypto and DAO stuff is just window dressing.

shiftpgdn 5y ago
This is rather unfortunate. I understand they have good intentions of keeping an important document out of private collector hands but this would have been a stellar time to issue governance tokens and expose the wider world to the potential offered by DAOs.
- lottin 5y ago
  And what would that potential be? Just curious, I don't see any potential.
- javert 5y ago
  It cannot be taken for granted that they have good intentions. In the crypto/NFT/DAO space, be suspicious until proven otherwise.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    > It cannot be taken for granted that they have good intentions. This is where I pull back and kinda laugh with irony at the effort. Much of this process (most likely because of the hurried pace) seems to be "just trust us" but wasn't the whole point of the Constitution to build a system of checks and balances so we didn't have to just trust one group of people?
- astoor 5y ago
  > "they have good intentions of keeping an important document out of private collector hands" Well, out of other private collector hands, into their own private collector hands. As other commenters have pointed out, the members of the public who donate to this don't have any form of ownership.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    They could have formed a 501c3 non profit, accepted tax deductible fiat donations, established a governance model, and arranged ongoing storage and viewing of the document. Private shared ownership could’ve been membership interest in an LLC managed by Carta or similar. LLCs have no membership limit unless taxed as an S corp (to my knowledge). I bet if you brought Carta enough money they’d prioritize an option to make your ownership interest public and shareable on their backlog, by entity, individual participant, or however else you want to slice and demonstrate ownership interest.
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      > Private shared ownership could’ve been membership interest in an LLC managed by Carta or similar. LLCs have no membership limit unless taxed as an S corp (to my knowledge). You can’t offer membership interest to the public unless you are registered with the SEC and in compliance with the states you make your public offering. There are some exceptions to the SEC for limits much lower than the ~$30M raised as of now.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Nor can you with crypto. I suggested the path avoiding unnecessary tech, the regulatory requirements apply regardless. An SEC complaint would likely clear the matter up, if anyone is feeling particularly adventurous.
        shiftpgdn 5y ago
        I believe they only have to fulfill the SEC requirements if there is an expected return on investment.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  > You are receiving a governance token, not fractionalized ownership. Governance includes the ability to advise on (for illustrative purposes) where the Constitution should be displayed, how it should be exhibited, and the mission and values of ConstitutionDAO. uh, that’s what they’re doing. They ARE issuing governance tokens.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    They call it “governance” but describe it giving the ability to advise, but not the ability to govern.
wtvanhest 5y ago
I funded a small amount of it. DAOs (distributed Autonomous Organizations) could be better thought of in a corporate governance framework. A) Least distributed corporate governance: Sole proprietorship who owns 100% of their business Every other organization sits between least and most distributed B) Most distributed corporate governance: Full democracy state controlled DAOs are special because the voting mechanism lets people vote across boarders/jurisdictions etc from their computer... but it also relies on the creators giving the right level of control to the DAO voting. If they gave voters 100% control, someone could do a 51% attack and have it destroyed, or something else. But, if they don't give enough control it is effectively a rug pull. ConstitutionDAO is an amazing initiative because it puts so many assumptions up for a test, and crosses crypto world to mainstream. Its revolutionary. The 'power' struggle is real... and fully on display
- javert 5y ago
  It's not amazing. Like any company (a DAO is just a company), it could be run well, by good people, or run badly, by bad people. Whichever ways it turns out will not prove anything about DAOs.
  - wtvanhest 5y ago
    A DAO is more like a specific corporate governance mechanism than a company. For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc. I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO. If it is executed flawlessly it will prove DAOs as a viable corporate governance mechanism. If it fails or struggles, there will be learnings.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc. Ok but you can just form a 501(c)(3) whenever you want right, which actually has some force of law over its activities. > I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO. But... they don't have to. It's all fun and games until there's a disagreement over what to do. The way in which a meaningful disagreement is resolved is what will prove the viability of this model. When everyone's aligned already, it doesn't really prove much.
spir 5y ago
I think you're right that the lack of fractional ownership undermines what should be the primary benefit of the crypto + DAO model. However, I think they aren't doing the fractional ownership to avoid running afoul of securities laws-- ie. this is a coincidental drawback of this instance of a DAO under today's US laws, and less so a fundamental issue with the DAO model.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  90% of what “ownership” of a non yield-bearing asset gets you is governance over the project. We’ve seen things like UNI and ENS which are governance tokens w/o any yield component, and they keep value. So it’s sort of just a game of semantics. Plenty of people are contributing to this expecting that the governance token will be worth as much as their contribution — you’re just not supposed to be super vocal about that to avoid drawing attention from the SEC.
viro 5y ago
Oh that is top tier silly
vmception 5y ago
While also true, the reason they changed the wording is for regulatory purposes, and is not at all the limitation of the token or the project. This is standard word games in crypto projects that are acknowledging their US components. Keeps the SEC off their backs. It is not possible for projects to compete with asian crypto token offerings that say speculation inducing things. But if you understand already you can see through it and speculate wildly for great reward.

shiftpgdn 5y ago

This is rather unfortunate. I understand they have good intentions of keeping an important document out of private collector hands but this would have been a stellar time to issue governance tokens and expose the wider world to the potential offered by DAOs.

lottin 5y ago
And what would that potential be? Just curious, I don't see any potential.
javert 5y ago
It cannot be taken for granted that they have good intentions. In the crypto/NFT/DAO space, be suspicious until proven otherwise.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  > It cannot be taken for granted that they have good intentions. This is where I pull back and kinda laugh with irony at the effort. Much of this process (most likely because of the hurried pace) seems to be "just trust us" but wasn't the whole point of the Constitution to build a system of checks and balances so we didn't have to just trust one group of people?
astoor 5y ago
> "they have good intentions of keeping an important document out of private collector hands" Well, out of other private collector hands, into their own private collector hands. As other commenters have pointed out, the members of the public who donate to this don't have any form of ownership.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  They could have formed a 501c3 non profit, accepted tax deductible fiat donations, established a governance model, and arranged ongoing storage and viewing of the document. Private shared ownership could’ve been membership interest in an LLC managed by Carta or similar. LLCs have no membership limit unless taxed as an S corp (to my knowledge). I bet if you brought Carta enough money they’d prioritize an option to make your ownership interest public and shareable on their backlog, by entity, individual participant, or however else you want to slice and demonstrate ownership interest.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    > Private shared ownership could’ve been membership interest in an LLC managed by Carta or similar. LLCs have no membership limit unless taxed as an S corp (to my knowledge). You can’t offer membership interest to the public unless you are registered with the SEC and in compliance with the states you make your public offering. There are some exceptions to the SEC for limits much lower than the ~$30M raised as of now.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Nor can you with crypto. I suggested the path avoiding unnecessary tech, the regulatory requirements apply regardless. An SEC complaint would likely clear the matter up, if anyone is feeling particularly adventurous.
      - shiftpgdn 5y ago
        I believe they only have to fulfill the SEC requirements if there is an expected return on investment.
wallacoloo 5y ago
> You are receiving a governance token, not fractionalized ownership. Governance includes the ability to advise on (for illustrative purposes) where the Constitution should be displayed, how it should be exhibited, and the mission and values of ConstitutionDAO. uh, that’s what they’re doing. They ARE issuing governance tokens.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  They call it “governance” but describe it giving the ability to advise, but not the ability to govern.

wtvanhest 5y ago

I funded a small amount of it. DAOs (distributed Autonomous Organizations) could be better thought of in a corporate governance framework. A) Least distributed corporate governance: Sole proprietorship who owns 100% of their business Every other organization sits between least and most distributed B) Most distributed corporate governance: Full democracy state controlled DAOs are special because the voting mechanism lets people vote across boarders/jurisdictions etc from their computer... but it also relies on the creators giving the right level of control to the DAO voting. If they gave voters 100% control, someone could do a 51% attack and have it destroyed, or something else. But, if they don't give enough control it is effectively a rug pull. ConstitutionDAO is an amazing initiative because it puts so many assumptions up for a test, and crosses crypto world to mainstream. Its revolutionary. The 'power' struggle is real... and fully on display

javert 5y ago
It's not amazing. Like any company (a DAO is just a company), it could be run well, by good people, or run badly, by bad people. Whichever ways it turns out will not prove anything about DAOs.
- wtvanhest 5y ago
  A DAO is more like a specific corporate governance mechanism than a company. For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc. I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO. If it is executed flawlessly it will prove DAOs as a viable corporate governance mechanism. If it fails or struggles, there will be learnings.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc. Ok but you can just form a 501(c)(3) whenever you want right, which actually has some force of law over its activities. > I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO. But... they don't have to. It's all fun and games until there's a disagreement over what to do. The way in which a meaningful disagreement is resolved is what will prove the viability of this model. When everyone's aligned already, it doesn't really prove much.

spir 5y ago

I think you're right that the lack of fractional ownership undermines what should be the primary benefit of the crypto + DAO model. However, I think they aren't doing the fractional ownership to avoid running afoul of securities laws-- ie. this is a coincidental drawback of this instance of a DAO under today's US laws, and less so a fundamental issue with the DAO model.

wallacoloo 5y ago
90% of what “ownership” of a non yield-bearing asset gets you is governance over the project. We’ve seen things like UNI and ENS which are governance tokens w/o any yield component, and they keep value. So it’s sort of just a game of semantics. Plenty of people are contributing to this expecting that the governance token will be worth as much as their contribution — you’re just not supposed to be super vocal about that to avoid drawing attention from the SEC.

viro 5y ago

Oh that is top tier silly

vmception 5y ago

While also true, the reason they changed the wording is for regulatory purposes, and is not at all the limitation of the token or the project. This is standard word games in crypto projects that are acknowledging their US components. Keeps the SEC off their backs. It is not possible for projects to compete with asian crypto token offerings that say speculation inducing things. But if you understand already you can see through it and speculate wildly for great reward.