3 ms·

Firstly, I know that this post is from a company with money in the game, so I'm expecting it to be positive. But, curious to see if I'd missed anything, I went

Firstly, I know that this post is from a company with money in the game, so I'm expecting it to be positive. But, curious to see if I'd missed anything, I went down to the "Applications of DAOs" section, and clicked a post at random. This one.[1] > But what if underrepresented communities and their allies could more easily organize human and financial capital to invest in projects and people that mattered to them and the diverse world we live in? What if by investing more capital into underrepresented communities, we could dramatically accelerate progress in diversity, inclusion, and equity globally? > We believe that this is the future: underrepresented communities and their allies will be able to more easily coordinate human and financial capital to invest in building the world we all live in—and in the process, economically empower their communities in ways that today’s societal systems are failing to do at scale. > And all of this will be enabled at scale across the internet by DAOs. So, I'm guessing the _proposed_ application is "easier access to pools of investment money for minorities", and the proposed solution is _DAOs_. But what it doesn't explain is why DAOs are a better solution than all the other existing solutions for creating investment syndicates. [1]: https://syndicate.mirror.xyz/xeRR8PJUnGr-mUlwLJppFHe65WPpyyULFBiz89K1qfI https://syndicate.mirror.xyz/xeRR8PJUnGr-mUlwLJppFHe65WPpyyU...

slimsag 5y ago
From what I understand (and I do not believe it, to be clear) the claim is that DAO's governance structure is codified in smart contracts as being "the will of all members" it is 'better' in the sense that there is not one small group (think CEO, executives, etc.) controlling the organization, but rather the entire organization agrees on the direction via something like voting/smart-contracts/etc.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  That's cool, but we do that already via constitutions for various legal entities they typically can express purpose, how voting rights are acquired and structured, governance structure, how constitutional changes are enacted etc. In fact, there's even been organisations codify sociocracy (holocracy's older sibling with longer hair and more wild stories) into their constitutions. Constitutions for companies / charities / incorporated societies etc. work well. Admittedly, I can see an advantage that if it's all in code, there's not really any room for debate - the quorum was met, so the smart contract initiated an extraodinary vote, and here's an immutable record of how quorum was met. I can see it not being so helpful in situations where interpretation is required - e.g., your organisation wants to help minorities, that's awesome. What constitutes a minority? If you're looking for global reach, that will really differ from country to country, and how do you build that fuzzier logic into code? Rohingya are an oppressed minority in Myanmar, in Bangladesh, they're kinda part of the majority if you squint, but the forcibly displaced are still treated as an "other" by the Bangladeshi government. Likewise, Cambodians of Vietnamese descent can often be discriminated against, but then also often do well for themselves. But I also suspect that if DAOs / smart contracts etc. go mainstream, it won't be long until the first court cases over their implementation/intepretation of the constitutions follow.

slimsag 5y ago

From what I understand (and I do not believe it, to be clear) the claim is that DAO's governance structure is codified in smart contracts as being "the will of all members" it is 'better' in the sense that there is not one small group (think CEO, executives, etc.) controlling the organization, but rather the entire organization agrees on the direction via something like voting/smart-contracts/etc.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
That's cool, but we do that already via constitutions for various legal entities they typically can express purpose, how voting rights are acquired and structured, governance structure, how constitutional changes are enacted etc. In fact, there's even been organisations codify sociocracy (holocracy's older sibling with longer hair and more wild stories) into their constitutions. Constitutions for companies / charities / incorporated societies etc. work well. Admittedly, I can see an advantage that if it's all in code, there's not really any room for debate - the quorum was met, so the smart contract initiated an extraodinary vote, and here's an immutable record of how quorum was met. I can see it not being so helpful in situations where interpretation is required - e.g., your organisation wants to help minorities, that's awesome. What constitutes a minority? If you're looking for global reach, that will really differ from country to country, and how do you build that fuzzier logic into code? Rohingya are an oppressed minority in Myanmar, in Bangladesh, they're kinda part of the majority if you squint, but the forcibly displaced are still treated as an "other" by the Bangladeshi government. Likewise, Cambodians of Vietnamese descent can often be discriminated against, but then also often do well for themselves. But I also suspect that if DAOs / smart contracts etc. go mainstream, it won't be long until the first court cases over their implementation/intepretation of the constitutions follow.