4 ms·

DAO just voted to “refund” one of their investors in breach of contract (thread)

11 points by donohoe 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1536734104422522881.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1536734104422522881.html “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.“ DAOs have realized they can vote (at whatever percentage necessary) to kick out people they don't like, and increase the value of their coins. Wheeee.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I really don't think that clichéd metaphor about democracy provides much insight into the merits of that political system. If your society consists of two wolves and a lamb, then the lunch menu is predictable regardless of the system in place. Equally: "Authoritarianism is one wolf ignoring the wishes of two lambs about what it should eat for lunch."
tristanb 4y ago
DAOs seem pretty dumb.
woojoo666 4y ago
Doesn't the US democracy work the same way though? The constitution is a contract that can't be broken...until the citizens vote to change it of course. I'm not a lawyer but I think they could have easily covered their butt if they added a clause to the contract saying the DAO can change the contract if necessary. But looks like they won't be going to court anyways since both parties formally agreed to the final deal. Of course this is going to be a stain on the DAO in question. Investors are going to be more wary of signing on. But I don't think this effects the concept of DAOs in general. Ultimately governance is determined by the people, not by contracts. For example, next year the US could pass a law that redistributes the wealth of all billionaires. Completely pulling the rug out from under this tiny tiny minority of people (just like the aforementioned DAO situation). But this doesn't mean democracy is broken. It will just have massive downstream effects where people become afraid of reaching billionaire status. It wouldn't be a failure of democracies in general, just a failure of one particular democracy.
gorkish 4y ago
So do they just vote "No" again when the order comes to pay the legal judgement?

11 points by donohoe 4y ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1536734104422522881.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1536734104422522881.html “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.“ DAOs have realized they can vote (at whatever percentage necessary) to kick out people they don't like, and increase the value of their coins. Wheeee.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I really don't think that clichéd metaphor about democracy provides much insight into the merits of that political system. If your society consists of two wolves and a lamb, then the lunch menu is predictable regardless of the system in place. Equally: "Authoritarianism is one wolf ignoring the wishes of two lambs about what it should eat for lunch."

tristanb 4y ago

DAOs seem pretty dumb.

woojoo666 4y ago

Doesn't the US democracy work the same way though? The constitution is a contract that can't be broken...until the citizens vote to change it of course. I'm not a lawyer but I think they could have easily covered their butt if they added a clause to the contract saying the DAO can change the contract if necessary. But looks like they won't be going to court anyways since both parties formally agreed to the final deal. Of course this is going to be a stain on the DAO in question. Investors are going to be more wary of signing on. But I don't think this effects the concept of DAOs in general. Ultimately governance is determined by the people, not by contracts. For example, next year the US could pass a law that redistributes the wealth of all billionaires. Completely pulling the rug out from under this tiny tiny minority of people (just like the aforementioned DAO situation). But this doesn't mean democracy is broken. It will just have massive downstream effects where people become afraid of reaching billionaire status. It wouldn't be a failure of democracies in general, just a failure of one particular democracy.

gorkish 4y ago

So do they just vote "No" again when the order comes to pay the legal judgement?