4 ms·
> But unlike open source development, it's not done by "good will". You can pay people for their contributions in a trustless way that allows ANYONE to contribu
by nl 5y ago
> But unlike open source development, it's not done by "good will". You can pay people for their contributions in a trustless way that allows ANYONE to contribute and earn.
You can pay people for open source work now. You can even pay them in crypto.
A DAO doesn't make any of the hard work of developing a system (eg, specifying what you need, arguing if it has or hasn't been developed correctly) any easier.
- swalsh 5y agoI hear what you're saying, and I agree given your framework of constraints its true. I'd argue the constraints are wrong on chain. If you're engineering a "system" you're thinking like a corporation. The magic of crypto are the various protocols are like legos. I think a DAO should be a simple single capability like a unix process. It should strive to do one thing well.
- nl 5y ago"money lego" works well when it's specific technical capabilities that need to be stuck together. That makes no sense at all when it's a complex process with human interactions. I think DAOs are interesting things. But the completely naive way people talk about them (like what you are saying here) is completely unrealistic and shows the lack of technical experience that so much of crypto suffers from.