3 ms·

I think you are treating DAOs as a single monolithic idea, when it is more like an infant design space. I would say the core idea of a DAO is this: how can we

I think you are treating DAOs as a single monolithic idea, when it is more like an infant design space. I would say the core idea of a DAO is this: how can we organize a disparate group of people around a common goal, more easily than in the past? Whether you think they are a joke or not, ConstitutionDAO, SpiceDAO (which I think is the worst example in this space given their lack of diligence or thought on IP issues), OrangeDAO, FlamingoDAO, etc., are all unique in that they have organized a disparate group of people more quickly than in the past, and enabled them to more efficiently work together towards a shared goal. There are many ideas being explored: 1. Can we have better laws (like Wyoming is exploring) or regulations? 2. If the DAO is decentralized enough, are the tokens still (or should they be) a security? Are there better ways to regulate something like this globally? 3. How do you coordinate a disparate group of people? How should you let in new entrants, or weight votes? How should a DAO manage its treasury? 4. What happens if all voting proposals are public and verifiable on the blockchain? Is that good or bad? At it's core, yes, I think you can say that a DAO is basically the idea of a corporation, except with most of the discussion on Discord and with on-chain voting, and plus some securities laws issues that are at best gray areas and at worst, in some cases, clear violations. But I think that is ignoring that something worthwhile might come out of that design space.

arcticbull 5y ago
I mean yes, that's fair, I am. Broadly though, it's because they seem to be unified behind the idea of issuing unregistered securities and selling them to un-accredited investors because they don't seem to think the registration of securities is valuable. I disagree, because, the Great Depression. They're not setting out to solve a limitation around business organization. You can do basically anything you want out of a Delaware LLC or C-corp except sell the shares to an un-accredited investor without registering them. There's even a light-weight way to do that with Reg CF and Reg A+. You want public voting? Ok, that doesn't require a blockchain and it certainly doesn't require a whole new legal framework for organizing a business. Twitter has managed to have polls for years. Most people actually trying to build a business of value aren't trying to reimagine the concept of a business. By all means, go with God, find a better way to organize companies. If they land one one, I'll happily use it. But so far all I see is grift, crime and frankly, little else.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Those entities eligible to be accredited investors are estimated to control the better side of 3/4 of private wealth in US. I don't see how allowing (or DAO/LAO somehow illegally bypassing security laws) un-accredited investors could possibly be a deciding factor in recreating a Great Depression. Most (private) wealth can already buy whatever "toxic" stuff they want in your own words. Also, it's possible to sell these investments to non US-persons under regulation S without bothering with the accredited investors. >Most people actually trying to build a business of value aren't trying to reimagine the concept of a business. Most people actually trying to build a business fail. It would be fallacious for me to imply that means not reimagining concept of business means likely failure, even though it is technically true.

arcticbull 5y ago

I mean yes, that's fair, I am. Broadly though, it's because they seem to be unified behind the idea of issuing unregistered securities and selling them to un-accredited investors because they don't seem to think the registration of securities is valuable. I disagree, because, the Great Depression. They're not setting out to solve a limitation around business organization. You can do basically anything you want out of a Delaware LLC or C-corp except sell the shares to an un-accredited investor without registering them. There's even a light-weight way to do that with Reg CF and Reg A+. You want public voting? Ok, that doesn't require a blockchain and it certainly doesn't require a whole new legal framework for organizing a business. Twitter has managed to have polls for years. Most people actually trying to build a business of value aren't trying to reimagine the concept of a business. By all means, go with God, find a better way to organize companies. If they land one one, I'll happily use it. But so far all I see is grift, crime and frankly, little else.

notch656a 5y ago
Those entities eligible to be accredited investors are estimated to control the better side of 3/4 of private wealth in US. I don't see how allowing (or DAO/LAO somehow illegally bypassing security laws) un-accredited investors could possibly be a deciding factor in recreating a Great Depression. Most (private) wealth can already buy whatever "toxic" stuff they want in your own words. Also, it's possible to sell these investments to non US-persons under regulation S without bothering with the accredited investors. >Most people actually trying to build a business of value aren't trying to reimagine the concept of a business. Most people actually trying to build a business fail. It would be fallacious for me to imply that means not reimagining concept of business means likely failure, even though it is technically true.