5 ms·

The Story of Spice DAO

25 points by haasted 4y ago

SilverBirch 4y ago
What is interesting about this is that the whole thing continued to rumble along after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP. At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on, so it's difficult to see anyone involved at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter.
- profmonocle 4y ago
  > At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on Sunk cost fallacy?
- blitzar 4y ago
  > after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP Surely nobody actually believed that by buying a book you owned the IP to the work contained within. > at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter It was a grift from day 0. The next chapter in this story will be the selling of the book purchased for $3mil for maybe $100k.
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    Yeah the more I think about it the more ridiculous it is. Even if these guys had 3 million to buy the thing, who bid against them to drive it up in the first place? It has to be self-dealing right. It does a lot to draw attention to how corrupt Christies must be.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      I dont see how some crypto idiot bidding up something with a list price of 50-100k to 3mil is a sign of Christies being corrupt. If you state publicly you are going to pay whatever it takes then there will be plenty serious people in the room who will make sure you blow all your money on that one thing and make a fool of yourself.
profmonocle 4y ago
> the original project leaders will be excised entirely and replaced with his friends, and they'll be selling the bible next year This is a great example of a major flaw in DAOs - crypto has no power over meatspace. You can write all the smart contracts in the world, and they can even be bug-free, but none of that matters when the point of the DAO involves a physical object that's in someone's physical possession. That's when you actually need people you can trust, and a legal system if they let you down.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Attorneys handle this in most jurisdictions. Are there no DAO attorneys springing up yet?
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    There's a chicken-and-egg problem there that most "code libertarians" think that code is a better "more objective" adjudicator than a human-scale justice system with things like human attorneys involved and consequently there's a lack of standardized software controls in "smart contracts" that would allow for human-scale intervention by authorities or even acknowledge the existence of outside authorities beyond the code of the smart contract itself, so there's no clear and natural "jurisdiction" there at all. Attorneys will get involved in just about anything if they think they can make money (fees) from it, but so far there are intentionally no direct "jurisdictions" to enter (what country is a globally distributed software program answerable to? the data center that last ran a bit of it? the author's? the victim's? There aren't enough laws on the books today to answer these questions), and most "smart contract" developers see this lack of "jurisdiction" a feature, not a bug.

25 points by haasted 4y ago

What is interesting about this is that the whole thing continued to rumble along after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP. At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on, so it's difficult to see anyone involved at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter.

profmonocle 4y ago
> At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on Sunk cost fallacy?
blitzar 4y ago
> after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP Surely nobody actually believed that by buying a book you owned the IP to the work contained within. > at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter It was a grift from day 0. The next chapter in this story will be the selling of the book purchased for $3mil for maybe $100k.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Yeah the more I think about it the more ridiculous it is. Even if these guys had 3 million to buy the thing, who bid against them to drive it up in the first place? It has to be self-dealing right. It does a lot to draw attention to how corrupt Christies must be.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    I dont see how some crypto idiot bidding up something with a list price of 50-100k to 3mil is a sign of Christies being corrupt. If you state publicly you are going to pay whatever it takes then there will be plenty serious people in the room who will make sure you blow all your money on that one thing and make a fool of yourself.

profmonocle 4y ago

> the original project leaders will be excised entirely and replaced with his friends, and they'll be selling the bible next year This is a great example of a major flaw in DAOs - crypto has no power over meatspace. You can write all the smart contracts in the world, and they can even be bug-free, but none of that matters when the point of the DAO involves a physical object that's in someone's physical possession. That's when you actually need people you can trust, and a legal system if they let you down.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
Attorneys handle this in most jurisdictions. Are there no DAO attorneys springing up yet?
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  There's a chicken-and-egg problem there that most "code libertarians" think that code is a better "more objective" adjudicator than a human-scale justice system with things like human attorneys involved and consequently there's a lack of standardized software controls in "smart contracts" that would allow for human-scale intervention by authorities or even acknowledge the existence of outside authorities beyond the code of the smart contract itself, so there's no clear and natural "jurisdiction" there at all. Attorneys will get involved in just about anything if they think they can make money (fees) from it, but so far there are intentionally no direct "jurisdictions" to enter (what country is a globally distributed software program answerable to? the data center that last ran a bit of it? the author's? the victim's? There aren't enough laws on the books today to answer these questions), and most "smart contract" developers see this lack of "jurisdiction" a feature, not a bug.