5 ms·

It's more like a co-op. The difference is that every participant has a voice. With the traditional public company - with few exceptions - decisions are made onl

It's more like a co-op. The difference is that every participant has a voice. With the traditional public company - with few exceptions - decisions are made only by the board and the execs.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> more like a co-op The owners aren’t providing labour. Votes are tied to shares—one person can have more than one vote. And the shares are acquired with capital. Closer to corporation than coöp. If the DAO committed to turning the team over to its players or fans, and then fixed one vote one member, that would resemble a coöperative.
- jonnydubowsky 5y ago
  There are worker-owned co-ops and customer-owned co-ops. DAOs also are a fairly generic concept, made more specific by whatever terms and conditions are memorialized in their originating contracts.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > worker-owned co-ops and customer-owned co-ops. DAOs also are a fairly generic concept Totally agree. There is no reason a coöp couldn’t run on a blockchain. This DAO is not that.
- markburns 5y ago
  As far as I can recall, I had never encountered this kind of usage of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic) in the word cooperative. I was going to ask you about it but Wikipedia gave a sufficient explanation, so commenting for the benefit of other readers.
  - agolliver 5y ago
    The New Yorker is one of the few places you'll see this regularly https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-...
Negitivefrags 5y ago
There is nothing stopping a company doing a shareholder vote for every decision as far as I know.
ilikehurdles 5y ago
I don't see how this is a co-op. The voters are neither workers nor customers. Their voting power is directly proportional to the size of the stake of the company's asset's/money they own. That a publicly traded corporation decides to concentrate day-to-day decision-making power rather than hold a full shareholder vote on every small matter is an organizational choice. Many co-ops have boards and execs too.
lottin 5y ago
> With the traditional public company - with few exceptions - decisions are made only by the board and the execs. In a public company, ownership and management are separated, for a good reason. You want to be able to own a company, without necessarily being involved in its management. Otherwise, you're severely limiting the number of companies people can invest in and preventing the owners from having other jobs, or you end up with a bunch of amateurs managing the company in their spare time.

It's more like a co-op. The difference is that every participant has a voice. With the traditional public company - with few exceptions - decisions are made only by the board and the execs.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> more like a co-op The owners aren’t providing labour. Votes are tied to shares—one person can have more than one vote. And the shares are acquired with capital. Closer to corporation than coöp. If the DAO committed to turning the team over to its players or fans, and then fixed one vote one member, that would resemble a coöperative.

jonnydubowsky 5y ago
There are worker-owned co-ops and customer-owned co-ops. DAOs also are a fairly generic concept, made more specific by whatever terms and conditions are memorialized in their originating contracts.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > worker-owned co-ops and customer-owned co-ops. DAOs also are a fairly generic concept Totally agree. There is no reason a coöp couldn’t run on a blockchain. This DAO is not that.
markburns 5y ago
As far as I can recall, I had never encountered this kind of usage of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic) in the word cooperative. I was going to ask you about it but Wikipedia gave a sufficient explanation, so commenting for the benefit of other readers.
- agolliver 5y ago
  The New Yorker is one of the few places you'll see this regularly https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-...

Negitivefrags 5y ago

There is nothing stopping a company doing a shareholder vote for every decision as far as I know.

ilikehurdles 5y ago

I don't see how this is a co-op. The voters are neither workers nor customers. Their voting power is directly proportional to the size of the stake of the company's asset's/money they own. That a publicly traded corporation decides to concentrate day-to-day decision-making power rather than hold a full shareholder vote on every small matter is an organizational choice. Many co-ops have boards and execs too.

lottin 5y ago

> With the traditional public company - with few exceptions - decisions are made only by the board and the execs. In a public company, ownership and management are separated, for a good reason. You want to be able to own a company, without necessarily being involved in its management. Otherwise, you're severely limiting the number of companies people can invest in and preventing the owners from having other jobs, or you end up with a bunch of amateurs managing the company in their spare time.