3 ms·

Article does not support the assertion in the title. To be clear, I'm a cryptoskeptic. But by the article's account, ConstitutionDAO never "lost its way." They

Article does not support the assertion in the title. To be clear, I'm a cryptoskeptic. But by the article's account, ConstitutionDAO never "lost its way." They just didn't raise enough money to accomplish their goal. It seems like the founders acted with integrity throughout and did not make any moves that could even clearly be labeled as a mistake.

rvz 5y ago
Perhaps the choice of the cryptocurrency that they used and showing how much they raised publicly was their 'mistake' then.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Maybe. Those are not clearly indicated as mistakes either (i.e. the article does not demonstrate or even argue that another choice would more likely than not have led to a better outcome). And the article conveys some justification for the choices that did get made. For example, they couldn't use certain "second tier" Ethereum features that would have reduced gas fees, because they aren't approved in states like New York? So maybe you argue that such features should have been used, but then you're optimizing for a different outcome -- the outcome where you don't win the auction. With the benefit of hindsight, sure, but the leaders didn't know before the auction that they would lose. So it was certainly a reasonable choice to take the approach that seemed most likely to raise the most money.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > Maybe... Definitely.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > showing how much they raised publicly was their 'mistake' then. I’ve seen countless people mention this as an issue, but the only time this would really matter is if you win, but the other bidders used the information to bid up the sale price. The fact is the other bidder had unlimited resources and desire to win the auction and so would have outbid the ConsitutionDAO even if they didn’t have knowledge of their budget, it’s not as though Ken Griffin would have given up before his maximum budget because he didn’t know ConstitutionDAO’s total funding.
dang 5y ago
Ok, we've put that in the title above.

rvz 5y ago

Perhaps the choice of the cryptocurrency that they used and showing how much they raised publicly was their 'mistake' then.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Maybe. Those are not clearly indicated as mistakes either (i.e. the article does not demonstrate or even argue that another choice would more likely than not have led to a better outcome). And the article conveys some justification for the choices that did get made. For example, they couldn't use certain "second tier" Ethereum features that would have reduced gas fees, because they aren't approved in states like New York? So maybe you argue that such features should have been used, but then you're optimizing for a different outcome -- the outcome where you don't win the auction. With the benefit of hindsight, sure, but the leaders didn't know before the auction that they would lose. So it was certainly a reasonable choice to take the approach that seemed most likely to raise the most money.
- rvz 5y ago
  > Maybe... Definitely.
throwawaycities 5y ago
> showing how much they raised publicly was their 'mistake' then. I’ve seen countless people mention this as an issue, but the only time this would really matter is if you win, but the other bidders used the information to bid up the sale price. The fact is the other bidder had unlimited resources and desire to win the auction and so would have outbid the ConsitutionDAO even if they didn’t have knowledge of their budget, it’s not as though Ken Griffin would have given up before his maximum budget because he didn’t know ConstitutionDAO’s total funding.

dang 5y ago

Ok, we've put that in the title above.