I did, I like Shapley Shubik, and there are other indices too. Since this is a no budget product at this point I had to stop development and see if I can finance it.
Thanks for responding.
I just started taking more of a look at other weighted voting power indices since I was doing some more background research on the Banzhaf Power Index.
I think it would be helpful to also examine them because we have different OrgTech OS providers that apply differnt governance mechanisms for their DAOs, and blockchain really does give us a nice design space to analyze these indices.
Also, what are your thoughts on considering DAOstack’s Holographic Consensus to be a Committe-based voting system?
And another interesting index I found while doing background research was the Coleman-Shapley Index. Have you heard of this one before?
Here is the first version of the Questionnaire for Version 0.5 of the Score Framework.
You may find the Questionnaire by clicking on the link above or using the link below:
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please send me a message.
I did not know it, thanks. We should hope for blockchain DAOs to prosper, it would be a great lab for understanding the value of each of these indices in dGov.
btw I created a twitter account for Deep DAO. If you follow me there I’ll follow back, https://twitter.com/DaoDeep
I think it would be interesting as well. And I concur about hoping that blockchain DAOs (though, I am starting to prefer decentralized digital organization (DDO) to DAO).
I followed back a bit earlier in the day.
Looks like you’re ahead even of google. What are DDOs?
So who are you on twitter? Curious.
I primarily manage Ledgerback’s twitter account (@ledgerback).
In my opinion, DDOs and DAOs, as terms, are nearly the same thing, with the major differences centered on the:
- need for a blockchain, and
- focus on organizational design.
First, DDOs do not need to be wholly or partially operational/formed on a blockchain, while for DAOs this is a necessity.
Second, the term DDO focuses more on organization design rather than technological design. For a DDO, it first needs to be digital (i.e., using some form of information and communications tech (ICT) primarily for governance and operations), and then needs to be decentralized (i.e., practicing decentralized/distributed governance and using decentralized/open source tech).
While I feel that DAOs are only focused on the technological basis of the organization’s governance or operations (wholly or partially), which must be a blockchain and/or use of crypto-primitives, but does not actually require any use of decentralized governance within the organization.
Those are my thoughts on the difference between the two terms.
Also, you can find my current work on the rating instrument for Version 0.5 of the Framework here
And you can find the essential version of the rating instrument for Version 0.5 of the Framework here
Super interesting! Have you happened to ever “run” the score framework on a community? For example the Dgov community
Kudos for the work!
Hi @louisgrx! Thank you for taking an interest in the DGov Score Framework (“Framework”).
I have not had the chance yet to assess an organization under the Framework via our instruments. I am still working on the Assessment Instrument I posted in post 63, which hopefully will have a working copy by June 10th.
Concerning assessing communities, it would depend on whether that particular community meets the threshold for an organization. I am not sure if the Dgov community meets that threshold. I would need to know more about what you consider to be the Dgov community before determining whether the Framework would be helpful.
I am currently working on releasing an update for the Framework (Version 0.6) which will discuss the next version of the Framework, Version 0.6, our work on the instruments (Assessment Instrument and Questionnaire), Collaboration Opportunities, and Future Directions for the Framework.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the Framework, or just want to talk about organization science/design/analysis, you can always send me a message.
Here is the most recent update on the Framework:
Great to see this work continuing. I would encourage you to compare/contrast your Questionnaire with that of the Wharton Cryptogovernance Workshop, which you can find here:
Or, send me a copy of your Questionnaire and I can do the comparison and share it.
I’m also looking forward very much to looking at your Assessment Instrument!
Hi @thomasbcox! Thank you for taking an interest in the DGov Score Framework!
I will do a more in-depth compare/contrast of the Framework’s Questionnaire (FQ) and Wharton’s Questionnaire (WQ) at a later time, but here are my initial thoughts (and hopefully I am not confusing the FQ with the Assessment Instrument):
- The FQ is designed for digital/internet-native organizations while the WQ is designed for blockchain projects
- The FQ is attempting to answer organization design and governance (distributed governance, algorithmic governance) questions of respondents (e.g., is the respondent even an organization?, the organization type, the organization structure) while the WQ focuses on blockchain governance (which I prefer to see as common pool resource (CPR) management)
- The FQ has similar questions to the WQ’s Stakeholder Groups, Project Description (Except 2), Goal and Implementation (Though, 6 and 8 would be different) Governance Procedure and Governance Powers.
- The FQ has way too many questions while the WQ has only 20 questions, which makes it easier for respondents.
- The FQ asks more specific questions of respondents (which is easier to do one for just one organization than a whole blockchain project) than the WQ.
- The FQ is ~3 - 5 questionnaires combined into one while the WQ is solely one questionnaire.
Overall, the FQ and the WQ are not so different, which makes sense since the WQ focuses on blockchain projects (which are more like a commons (self-organized community stewarding a CPR)) and the FQ has a preference for community-like organizations since that is where distributed governance is the most applicable.
You can find the FQ via the link below (Though, I have not had the chance to update it to remain consistent with the most recent updates to the Framework and Assessment Instrument).
I am updating the Assessment Instrument to add scoring for each question and update the definitions table. With this update, you should be able to assess a digital/internet-native organization’s distributed governance (DGov).
Let me know if there are any typos, the phrasing is ambiguous or awkward, the scoring does not make any sense, or any other questions, comments or concerns that you may have.
Here is the early work on the Web3 Technology and Algorithmic Governance assessment instrument(s).
Also, if anyone has knowledge or experience with Corporate Governance or Organizational Psychology, please reply to this thread with your thoughts on what we should be assessing regarding them or where we should focus our research efforts.
I am working on the theoretical background for the Framework on Github. You can find the document here:
The theoretical background is pretty much a summary of the thoughts in this thread and my readings on topics related to the Framework.
If you have some time, please consider taking our Wikisurvey below:
Our Wikisurvey is for answering the following question: Which areas are important for determining the effectiveness of a digital organization and a decentralized digital organization (or DAO)?
And if you wanted to work on the DGSF, please refer to the form below:
I am trying a new version of the assessment based on the Framework that disconnects the organizing principles of DAOs from:
- Other digital organizations,
- Participant experience, and
This assessment specifically focuses on the organizing principles of DAOs (hereafter DAO Index).
Additionally, the assessment test this time will use a standard format for all questions, which should make self- and outsider-assessment easier. I think the use of a non-standard format and compressing multiple metrics (performance, participant experience) into one assessment made the DGov Assessment too impractical and wore me out . Additionally, the assessment attempted to be too quantitative, especially considering that many of the features that we want to understand about DAOs are qualitative (and are too subjective, with one reason being the evolving evolution of the term).
I expect to assess DAOs based on a set of indicators and questions based on these 11 organizing principles:
Broad stakeholder participation
Introducing value in relations which have been historically denied, such as labor and environment, rather than creating new financialized relations.
practicing DAO cooperativism
Developing cultural patterns (e.g., neologisms)
Information & Data Transparency
Embracing social tech
Human-centered Algorithmic Governance
Community-owned Peer Production (Use-value of production held by community)
Supporting public goods
The questions are yes/no and allow for partial points. The points range is 0 - 100 (can normalize to 0 - 1), with:
- Yes: 100,
- Partial: 50,
- No: 0,
- N/A: 0
Hopefully, you guys find the assessment more useful this time.
Currently, I am working on developing the indicators and questions. You can find the sheet here.
It is still in the early stages but I would like to get your feedback on anything and everything about the DAO Index.
The first organization I will be evaluating is dOrg.
For your personal use, I recommend using the DAO’s official website and docs, DeepDAO and Govbase as data sources.
And some helpful readings to contextualize the DAO Index’s organizing principles: