6 ms·

Same thing with DAOs democratizing governance. Have you been to a city council meeting? You want ANYONE to be able to create a proposal that everyone else has t

Same thing with DAOs democratizing governance. Have you been to a city council meeting? You want ANYONE to be able to create a proposal that everyone else has to vote on?

alasdair_ 4y ago
Yes. With some kind of minimum number of initial votes pledged towards it and some other anti-spam measures.
pphysch 4y ago
Too many people are married to the idea of how "democracy" and "decentralization" works in ideal conditions and turn a blind eye to their practical faults. Makes em easy to dupe...
wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Yes I do. We could accomplish so much more with a direct democracy. This Roe v Wade thing? We could have a referendum and be done with it. Instead it will be fought over by ineffectual politicians for the next decade and accomplish little. Yes I realize that sometimes referendums give sub-optimal results (i.e. brexit), but I'd much rather live in a truly representative democracy that occasionally gets it wrong than a republic that doesn't represent the people's wishes at all.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  I would like to hold a referendum to decide the organization's official stance on what is more attractive on a man between these two options: A. Hitler Mustache B. KKK Hood Do you think everyone should have to vote on that?
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    I don't think you understand how referendums work. They require a certain number of signatures to even be considered. There would obviously be a filtering mechanism for trolls.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Until you recruit enough trolls.
  - jefb 4y ago
    The perquisite to successful DAO's is actually a strong centralized universal identity system (which is ironically counter to cryto-bro anarcho-capitalists philosophies). From there it's pretty easy to associate real political capital with digital decisions. E.g. Automatic n+1 "ban proposing user" option added to all proposals. If after n votes (where n is large) the sum(ban proposing user) > 0.25*sum(all other options), proposal is removed and user is banned until a proposal to unban is passed.
- pohl 4y ago
  Or, just like everything else, the same forces that brought us to this point would weaponize direct democracy as a denial of service attack against itself and we'd still be able to accomplish nothing.
- mook 4y ago
  There's enough support on either side to have a referendum on the same topic every week. I don't see how that's going to be helpful in any way…
  - handmodel 4y ago
    Agree. Especially if you change the wording a bit. I do think something like Brexit is fine for a referendum. It's a singular issue and clearly very important. In California we have referendums for weird tax issues that become impossible to be informed on and it leads to bad outcomes.
    - kd913 4y ago
      Brexit was fine for a referendum? Are you kidding me? This Country hasn't held a fair, informed referendum. Whether that be the AV , Scottish independence or brexit. The game has changed, you have social media companies, Russia, Palantir and Cambridge Analytica types weaponizing misinformation. The electorate got pushed to voting against their interests for both Brexit and AV by absolute bullshit lies. (E.g. 350 million to the NHS, AV referendum killing babies...) At this point in time, we have seen the same thing happen in India, Brazil, the US, UK...
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        With direct democracy we have people voting on issues they don't understand. With representative democracy we have people voting on politicians, whose positions the voters don't understand, to deal with issues the voters don't understand. Why is the latter better? Also, I would very much like to see a 5 hour free form interview with major political candidates. I feel like politicians mostly just repeat prepared remarks and don't really have a thorough understanding of issues and/or are not that smart.
        kd913 4y ago
        Neither are better, but at least corruption and lobbying are somewhat more obvious with politicians. That and at least in theory representative politicians should be more conscious about the consequences of their decisions by hopefully being held accountable to their constituents. At the moment, the issues surrounding external influences, Cambridge Analytica/PLTR style voter manipulation occur outside the scope of electoral regulators. In reality, both systems are failing spectacularly given they are being abused by lobbyists, monetary interests, gerrymandering, FPTP, and sheer electoral fraud. E.g. The Tories openly lying (Brexit empty promises, Scaremongering, AV killing babies). The Tories splitting by campaigning for the left vote to abuse FPTP. The Tories openly ignoring electoral spending restrictions because the fines are ineffective. The electoral college system/voter boundary abuse resulting in people in London/California having far less voting power than those in rural regions. Neither system will be fair until the above aspects are rectified. In the future, we are going to need to take unpleasant actions for which the current government models fail absolutely. Take climate change, or even the most recent pandemic. The current government models in the West failed spectacularly compared to places like China or Singapore.
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  There is currently no need to get 50%+1 voters on board with any arbitrary policy that politicians/corporations/others want passed. Hence the current mismatch between the policies that are passing and their current popularity. If 50%+1 of voters becomes the metric to hit, it will almost certainly be achieved. Looking at California's ballot referendums, it's clear that it's no impossible task to get voters to approve something against their best interest or ostensibly against their stated political values and beliefs. See: The ballot initiative exempting commercial property from Prop 13 that failed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...), and the initiative to overturn California's law requiring ride share drivers to be classified as employees that passed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...).
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  Ah yes, the wonderful California ballot proposition system is really something that we should extend to all of government.
- ralusek 4y ago
  Roe v. Wade being overturned is making it so states can vote on their own abortion policies. That's closer to a direct democracy and closer to local democracy. You've also referred to Brexit as a suboptimal result, when Brexit was a move about breaking away from a large bureaucratic body of mostly unelected decision makers. The EU is the least democratic body in the West, so I'm having a very hard time understanding exactly what it is you want. Also, just wanted to point out that you said you'd rather live in a "representative democracy" when talking about direct democracy. Representative democracy is another term for a republic.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    >Representative democracy is another term for a republic. Not really. Since we're talking about Brexit, it's worth noting that the UK is a representative democracy but is definitely not a republic.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- handmodel 4y ago
  California essentially has a referendum system. But it's very confusing. Every ballot has like ~20 of them so as an informed person I have views on many of them. But then there are ones like "Should we fund this stem cell research project for 4B that looks into this" and people have no idea how to vote. Things sound good and then you realize it was funded by very specific group of people and the money would go to their own project. Even though we shit on legislators having super well-informed people with staffs actually does lead them to work out kinks and negotiate good policy that pleases a larger swath of people.
  - zeven7 4y ago
    Exactly, I don't want to have to be an expert on every issue that needs to be decided. And I don't want to trust regular people with other jobs and areas of focus to be those experts either. Job specialization was an important invention. Let's give people the job of figuring out policy, and let's hold them accountable by regularly voting on whether they stay in office.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > This Roe v Wade thing? We could have a referendum and be done with it. I don't think "be done with it" on abortion is remotely possible. The two sides are completely intractable. In my long life I've never heard anyone be persuaded by the other side. Besides, overturning RvW will not federally prohibit abortion. It will leave it up to the states, which will decide democratically. This satisfies nobody. For example, here in Washington State, there is no chance that abortion will be outlawed by the State. But that hasn't stopped major demonstrations protesting the Supreme Court.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vmception 4y ago
    The "two-sides" were created by Roe v Wade. There were always other sides, a 50 year false dilemma where you couldn't even bring it up because "yeah but which side are you on?" Glad that's over! Kind of sad about the inconvenience for people in areas where they expected something different, and I'm moderately annoyed at the next decade where people try to recreate the two sides at the state and congressional level. But it does force room for inspiration!
  - logifail 4y ago
    > It will leave it up to the states, which will decide democratically. This satisfies nobody. Not wishing to be unnecessarily provocative, but if each state were to have to set the policy isn't it likely it would be that which is most popular in that state? Wouldn't more people be satisfied overall? Even if some states end up hating each other a bit more ... than they already do
  - rglullis 4y ago
    I was pro-choice until my early-20s and I changed my view. I've met others who were in favor of complete freedom for abortions and now oppose them because they see as veiled eugenics. Not to mention the countless stories of women who attempted or had abortions and regretted it for the rest of their lives and became vocal opponents of it.
- boc 4y ago
  Direct democracy is great unless you're a minority (or hold an unpopular policy stance) and the majority keeps voting to make your life worse.
- tlear 4y ago
  You think voting on Roe vs Wade would solve it? Not a snowball chance in hell. Republic is there to make it so that wishes of different parts of the state that do not align at all do not rip the state to pieces and lead to a civil war. Governing by simple majority in long term never worked and never will. Everyone likes to talk about will of the people. Well here is news. Different people have different desires, in different regions of the country majority wants to do different things. Only way to keep lid on this without the whole thing blowing up is to have representation of the this and slow the process down as much as possible, quick changes are the most disruptive/dangerous.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    >Different people have different desires, in different regions of the country majority wants to do different things Sure. But there is a big problem when the minority of people in an area end up getting what they want because the system that is in place isn't able to properly enfranchise the majority.
- chasd00 4y ago
  isn't direct democracy basically a "3 wolves and a lamb voting on lunch" scenario?
- fredgrott 4y ago
  funny thing about stable governments, we need irrational actors to slow down popular impulses to make immediate drastic changes.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > Yes I do. We could accomplish so much more with a direct democracy. Absolutely not, lol. The world is way, way too complicated for every individual to have a meaningful and informed opinion about every particular topic. That's why we delegate to experts in the field. There's no way I want some corn farmer in Iowa voting on monetary policy. Most people here haven't the faintest idea how monetary policy works. The comments here are horrifying, and this is a pretty elite group to begin with. Similarly there's no way I want some city-slicker who's never held a hoe to vote on farm policy. That's before we even start in on civil rights. It's a flawed, backwards idea best left in the dustbin of history. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Specialization is good. Delegation is productive.
  - andreilys 4y ago
    Most economists have no idea how monetary policy or macroeconomics works.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      That's a great opinion, but even if so - you know who has less idea? You and me. And you know who has even less idea? Some random corn farmer. So why on earth would you advocate for the people who know the least about a topic to make the decisions? It's bananas. There's no janitorial staff on Apple's board. There's no cooks on the Facebook board. There's no software engineers on the Twitter board. At least in industry we've - more or less - accepted that the folks with the relevant experience should be making the relevant decisions. This should be no less true in governance.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        >There's no software engineers on the Twitter board Yes there is. 3 out of the 11 members the board are clearly software engineers.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        Formerly, not actively. Now they do things like sit on boards.
- fredley 4y ago
  UK citizen here. We implemented direct democracy by having a largely ill informed and sometimes deliberately misled population vote on the highly technical and complicated matter of EU membership. Ask us how it's going.
- treeman79 4y ago
  That’s what the court ruling is. The law makers need to decide the issue. Not the court.
krageon 4y ago
The alternatives are a corporatocracy, a dictatorship, etc. All of those things will be bad for you to live in, except if you are at the top. If you are at the top now, you should not weigh in here. As such, I have to assume you are not at the top - which makes me wonder why you hate yourself so much you believe you should have no voice. Doesn't sound healthy to me.
- jkubicek 4y ago
  I have a voice, I vote with my feet. I don't get to choose what products Apple makes or what games Nintendo releases, but I do get to choose wether I engage in their ecosystems. In any system I'm not obligated to participate in, I prefer benevolent dictatorships. If I disagree with the dictator, I can take my business elsewhere.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  No I'm not a president or dictator, so no I'm not at the top of anything. I would describe myself as a realist. And in the real world it is extremely ineffective for everyone to have an equal voice in all matters. Have you ever seen a road? Do you think everyone got an equal say and vote if and how that road was built? Cities that operate well and are not total disasters to live in, have governments that can improve infrastructure without having to include everyone's opinions equally. Obviously I think that is unfair, especially if I am the person who doesn't want brighter street lights on my street, but I don't want my city to end up like San Francisco where apartments cost 2 Million dollars and are surrounded by tent cities and taxes are super high.
aaroninsf 4y ago
* in the form of code. As if procedural hacks were not enough (leveraged seizure of stake sufficient to exploit anyone...?), who could possibly both be smart enough to write a contract, yet dumb enough to entrust it with their own money? Trick question. That's the crypto koan of rue. The answer is no one. The rest is an exercise a lot of students are learning the hard way.
duskwuff 4y ago
> Same thing with DAOs democratizing governance. Is "plutocratizing" a word? Because that's what most of them are actually doing -- granting power to whoever has purchased (or rented!) the largest number of tokens.
t_mann 4y ago
Typical DAOs are neither decentralized nor autonomous, but the idea of voting is not as bad as you suggest. In fact, it's the same decision making procedure that corporations use.

Same thing with DAOs democratizing governance. Have you been to a city council meeting? You want ANYONE to be able to create a proposal that everyone else has to vote on?

alasdair_ 4y ago

Yes. With some kind of minimum number of initial votes pledged towards it and some other anti-spam measures.

pphysch 4y ago

Too many people are married to the idea of how "democracy" and "decentralization" works in ideal conditions and turn a blind eye to their practical faults. Makes em easy to dupe...

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

Yes I do. We could accomplish so much more with a direct democracy. This Roe v Wade thing? We could have a referendum and be done with it. Instead it will be fought over by ineffectual politicians for the next decade and accomplish little. Yes I realize that sometimes referendums give sub-optimal results (i.e. brexit), but I'd much rather live in a truly representative democracy that occasionally gets it wrong than a republic that doesn't represent the people's wishes at all.

gitfan86 4y ago
I would like to hold a referendum to decide the organization's official stance on what is more attractive on a man between these two options: A. Hitler Mustache B. KKK Hood Do you think everyone should have to vote on that?
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  I don't think you understand how referendums work. They require a certain number of signatures to even be considered. There would obviously be a filtering mechanism for trolls.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Until you recruit enough trolls.
- jefb 4y ago
  The perquisite to successful DAO's is actually a strong centralized universal identity system (which is ironically counter to cryto-bro anarcho-capitalists philosophies). From there it's pretty easy to associate real political capital with digital decisions. E.g. Automatic n+1 "ban proposing user" option added to all proposals. If after n votes (where n is large) the sum(ban proposing user) > 0.25*sum(all other options), proposal is removed and user is banned until a proposal to unban is passed.
pohl 4y ago
Or, just like everything else, the same forces that brought us to this point would weaponize direct democracy as a denial of service attack against itself and we'd still be able to accomplish nothing.
mook 4y ago
There's enough support on either side to have a referendum on the same topic every week. I don't see how that's going to be helpful in any way…
- handmodel 4y ago
  Agree. Especially if you change the wording a bit. I do think something like Brexit is fine for a referendum. It's a singular issue and clearly very important. In California we have referendums for weird tax issues that become impossible to be informed on and it leads to bad outcomes.
  - kd913 4y ago
    Brexit was fine for a referendum? Are you kidding me? This Country hasn't held a fair, informed referendum. Whether that be the AV , Scottish independence or brexit. The game has changed, you have social media companies, Russia, Palantir and Cambridge Analytica types weaponizing misinformation. The electorate got pushed to voting against their interests for both Brexit and AV by absolute bullshit lies. (E.g. 350 million to the NHS, AV referendum killing babies...) At this point in time, we have seen the same thing happen in India, Brazil, the US, UK...
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      With direct democracy we have people voting on issues they don't understand. With representative democracy we have people voting on politicians, whose positions the voters don't understand, to deal with issues the voters don't understand. Why is the latter better? Also, I would very much like to see a 5 hour free form interview with major political candidates. I feel like politicians mostly just repeat prepared remarks and don't really have a thorough understanding of issues and/or are not that smart.
      - kd913 4y ago
        Neither are better, but at least corruption and lobbying are somewhat more obvious with politicians. That and at least in theory representative politicians should be more conscious about the consequences of their decisions by hopefully being held accountable to their constituents. At the moment, the issues surrounding external influences, Cambridge Analytica/PLTR style voter manipulation occur outside the scope of electoral regulators. In reality, both systems are failing spectacularly given they are being abused by lobbyists, monetary interests, gerrymandering, FPTP, and sheer electoral fraud. E.g. The Tories openly lying (Brexit empty promises, Scaremongering, AV killing babies). The Tories splitting by campaigning for the left vote to abuse FPTP. The Tories openly ignoring electoral spending restrictions because the fines are ineffective. The electoral college system/voter boundary abuse resulting in people in London/California having far less voting power than those in rural regions. Neither system will be fair until the above aspects are rectified. In the future, we are going to need to take unpleasant actions for which the current government models fail absolutely. Take climate change, or even the most recent pandemic. The current government models in the West failed spectacularly compared to places like China or Singapore.
ZoomerCretin 4y ago
There is currently no need to get 50%+1 voters on board with any arbitrary policy that politicians/corporations/others want passed. Hence the current mismatch between the policies that are passing and their current popularity. If 50%+1 of voters becomes the metric to hit, it will almost certainly be achieved. Looking at California's ballot referendums, it's clear that it's no impossible task to get voters to approve something against their best interest or ostensibly against their stated political values and beliefs. See: The ballot initiative exempting commercial property from Prop 13 that failed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...), and the initiative to overturn California's law requiring ride share drivers to be classified as employees that passed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...).
cycrutchfield 4y ago
Ah yes, the wonderful California ballot proposition system is really something that we should extend to all of government.
ralusek 4y ago
Roe v. Wade being overturned is making it so states can vote on their own abortion policies. That's closer to a direct democracy and closer to local democracy. You've also referred to Brexit as a suboptimal result, when Brexit was a move about breaking away from a large bureaucratic body of mostly unelected decision makers. The EU is the least democratic body in the West, so I'm having a very hard time understanding exactly what it is you want. Also, just wanted to point out that you said you'd rather live in a "representative democracy" when talking about direct democracy. Representative democracy is another term for a republic.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  >Representative democracy is another term for a republic. Not really. Since we're talking about Brexit, it's worth noting that the UK is a representative democracy but is definitely not a republic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
handmodel 4y ago
California essentially has a referendum system. But it's very confusing. Every ballot has like ~20 of them so as an informed person I have views on many of them. But then there are ones like "Should we fund this stem cell research project for 4B that looks into this" and people have no idea how to vote. Things sound good and then you realize it was funded by very specific group of people and the money would go to their own project. Even though we shit on legislators having super well-informed people with staffs actually does lead them to work out kinks and negotiate good policy that pleases a larger swath of people.
- zeven7 4y ago
  Exactly, I don't want to have to be an expert on every issue that needs to be decided. And I don't want to trust regular people with other jobs and areas of focus to be those experts either. Job specialization was an important invention. Let's give people the job of figuring out policy, and let's hold them accountable by regularly voting on whether they stay in office.
WalterBright 4y ago
> This Roe v Wade thing? We could have a referendum and be done with it. I don't think "be done with it" on abortion is remotely possible. The two sides are completely intractable. In my long life I've never heard anyone be persuaded by the other side. Besides, overturning RvW will not federally prohibit abortion. It will leave it up to the states, which will decide democratically. This satisfies nobody. For example, here in Washington State, there is no chance that abortion will be outlawed by the State. But that hasn't stopped major demonstrations protesting the Supreme Court.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 4y ago
  The "two-sides" were created by Roe v Wade. There were always other sides, a 50 year false dilemma where you couldn't even bring it up because "yeah but which side are you on?" Glad that's over! Kind of sad about the inconvenience for people in areas where they expected something different, and I'm moderately annoyed at the next decade where people try to recreate the two sides at the state and congressional level. But it does force room for inspiration!
- logifail 4y ago
  > It will leave it up to the states, which will decide democratically. This satisfies nobody. Not wishing to be unnecessarily provocative, but if each state were to have to set the policy isn't it likely it would be that which is most popular in that state? Wouldn't more people be satisfied overall? Even if some states end up hating each other a bit more ... than they already do
- rglullis 4y ago
  I was pro-choice until my early-20s and I changed my view. I've met others who were in favor of complete freedom for abortions and now oppose them because they see as veiled eugenics. Not to mention the countless stories of women who attempted or had abortions and regretted it for the rest of their lives and became vocal opponents of it.
boc 4y ago
Direct democracy is great unless you're a minority (or hold an unpopular policy stance) and the majority keeps voting to make your life worse.
tlear 4y ago
You think voting on Roe vs Wade would solve it? Not a snowball chance in hell. Republic is there to make it so that wishes of different parts of the state that do not align at all do not rip the state to pieces and lead to a civil war. Governing by simple majority in long term never worked and never will. Everyone likes to talk about will of the people. Well here is news. Different people have different desires, in different regions of the country majority wants to do different things. Only way to keep lid on this without the whole thing blowing up is to have representation of the this and slow the process down as much as possible, quick changes are the most disruptive/dangerous.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  >Different people have different desires, in different regions of the country majority wants to do different things Sure. But there is a big problem when the minority of people in an area end up getting what they want because the system that is in place isn't able to properly enfranchise the majority.
chasd00 4y ago
isn't direct democracy basically a "3 wolves and a lamb voting on lunch" scenario?
fredgrott 4y ago
funny thing about stable governments, we need irrational actors to slow down popular impulses to make immediate drastic changes.
arcticbull 4y ago
> Yes I do. We could accomplish so much more with a direct democracy. Absolutely not, lol. The world is way, way too complicated for every individual to have a meaningful and informed opinion about every particular topic. That's why we delegate to experts in the field. There's no way I want some corn farmer in Iowa voting on monetary policy. Most people here haven't the faintest idea how monetary policy works. The comments here are horrifying, and this is a pretty elite group to begin with. Similarly there's no way I want some city-slicker who's never held a hoe to vote on farm policy. That's before we even start in on civil rights. It's a flawed, backwards idea best left in the dustbin of history. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Specialization is good. Delegation is productive.
- andreilys 4y ago
  Most economists have no idea how monetary policy or macroeconomics works.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    That's a great opinion, but even if so - you know who has less idea? You and me. And you know who has even less idea? Some random corn farmer. So why on earth would you advocate for the people who know the least about a topic to make the decisions? It's bananas. There's no janitorial staff on Apple's board. There's no cooks on the Facebook board. There's no software engineers on the Twitter board. At least in industry we've - more or less - accepted that the folks with the relevant experience should be making the relevant decisions. This should be no less true in governance.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >There's no software engineers on the Twitter board Yes there is. 3 out of the 11 members the board are clearly software engineers.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Formerly, not actively. Now they do things like sit on boards.
fredley 4y ago
UK citizen here. We implemented direct democracy by having a largely ill informed and sometimes deliberately misled population vote on the highly technical and complicated matter of EU membership. Ask us how it's going.
treeman79 4y ago
That’s what the court ruling is. The law makers need to decide the issue. Not the court.

krageon 4y ago

The alternatives are a corporatocracy, a dictatorship, etc. All of those things will be bad for you to live in, except if you are at the top. If you are at the top now, you should not weigh in here. As such, I have to assume you are not at the top - which makes me wonder why you hate yourself so much you believe you should have no voice. Doesn't sound healthy to me.

jkubicek 4y ago
I have a voice, I vote with my feet. I don't get to choose what products Apple makes or what games Nintendo releases, but I do get to choose wether I engage in their ecosystems. In any system I'm not obligated to participate in, I prefer benevolent dictatorships. If I disagree with the dictator, I can take my business elsewhere.
gitfan86 4y ago
No I'm not a president or dictator, so no I'm not at the top of anything. I would describe myself as a realist. And in the real world it is extremely ineffective for everyone to have an equal voice in all matters. Have you ever seen a road? Do you think everyone got an equal say and vote if and how that road was built? Cities that operate well and are not total disasters to live in, have governments that can improve infrastructure without having to include everyone's opinions equally. Obviously I think that is unfair, especially if I am the person who doesn't want brighter street lights on my street, but I don't want my city to end up like San Francisco where apartments cost 2 Million dollars and are surrounded by tent cities and taxes are super high.

aaroninsf 4y ago

* in the form of code. As if procedural hacks were not enough (leveraged seizure of stake sufficient to exploit anyone...?), who could possibly both be smart enough to write a contract, yet dumb enough to entrust it with their own money? Trick question. That's the crypto koan of rue. The answer is no one. The rest is an exercise a lot of students are learning the hard way.

duskwuff 4y ago

> Same thing with DAOs democratizing governance. Is "plutocratizing" a word? Because that's what most of them are actually doing -- granting power to whoever has purchased (or rented!) the largest number of tokens.

t_mann 4y ago

Typical DAOs are neither decentralized nor autonomous, but the idea of voting is not as bad as you suggest. In fact, it's the same decision making procedure that corporations use.