3 ms·

Ok I can (hypothetically) accept that. Let's imagine I'm creating a fresh business and choose to structure it as a DAO, does this mean that the ever understand

Ok I can (hypothetically) accept that. Let's imagine I'm creating a fresh business and choose to structure it as a DAO, does this mean that the ever understanding code is the CEO steering the company? Or is the DAO the product of the company itself? I don't understand the relationship here. Following on from that, I am the party that writes the code for the DAO. Now I can claim that my code is perfect and we can trust the machines to execute it. But I'm still running the deployment of it and the weakness of corruptible man can still abuse the trust given to the code they create.

daoming 5y ago
There's difficulty in translating these new concepts into examples using existing real-world concepts but as a broad generalisation: a DAO is a "company" that the shareholders govern and the DAO's code is the shareholder agreement which has zero implicit rights or behaviours. The DAO itself could have code that enables something like, "the code for this DAO can be updated as if 50% of token holders vote yes" and then 50% of token holders could vote yes to a code change that appoints a CEO who has absolute authority or they could vote to change the code so that no vote could ever take place in future, and the code becomes "stuck" forever. The code for a DAO lives and runs on the blockchain, so the integrity of the DAO is linked to the integrity of the network on which it runs: although there's no absolutes, in the case of a network like Ethereum, it is for all intents and purposes, secure, so deployment and execution is not a network-level attack vector. Does that help? The reason DAOs are considered _the future_ by some is the implicit assumption that perfect code is possible to produce. Many non-software engineers believe that _if we have the integrity of the network to guarantee the code cannot be changed without consent, then we can have absolute faith in the code_... but of course, as software engineers, we know code is very fallible, whether it's unintended side effects or malicious backdoors or just an honest misunderstanding of what the code is meant to do, there's millions of ways for code to go wrong long before we need to worry about code integrity.

daoming 5y ago

There's difficulty in translating these new concepts into examples using existing real-world concepts but as a broad generalisation: a DAO is a "company" that the shareholders govern and the DAO's code is the shareholder agreement which has zero implicit rights or behaviours. The DAO itself could have code that enables something like, "the code for this DAO can be updated as if 50% of token holders vote yes" and then 50% of token holders could vote yes to a code change that appoints a CEO who has absolute authority or they could vote to change the code so that no vote could ever take place in future, and the code becomes "stuck" forever. The code for a DAO lives and runs on the blockchain, so the integrity of the DAO is linked to the integrity of the network on which it runs: although there's no absolutes, in the case of a network like Ethereum, it is for all intents and purposes, secure, so deployment and execution is not a network-level attack vector. Does that help? The reason DAOs are considered _the future_ by some is the implicit assumption that perfect code is possible to produce. Many non-software engineers believe that _if we have the integrity of the network to guarantee the code cannot be changed without consent, then we can have absolute faith in the code_... but of course, as software engineers, we know code is very fallible, whether it's unintended side effects or malicious backdoors or just an honest misunderstanding of what the code is meant to do, there's millions of ways for code to go wrong long before we need to worry about code integrity.