Feedback on research into scaling DAOs

Hey everyone, I recently published some insights on what the Swedish Pirate Party can teach us about sclaing DAOs and would love to get your feedback.

I eventually plan on incorporating more research around voting, game theory, and organizational management to provide a more comprehensive framework for sclaing different types of DAOs so it would be helpful to hear thoughts from others working on DAOs and what pain points you’ve encountered in your work.

2 Likes

Interesting article. The research into scaling DAOs would be an interesting area. Have you had a chance yet to look at DAOstack’s Holographic Consensus model?

I definitely appreciated the discussion on leadership, and definitely do see a need for encouraging distributed leadership in DGov.

Here are my comments on the article:

One of my concerns with the article is that you are focusing on a guide for building movements (would you consider Web3 or DGov overall as the movement powering this space?), which is unlikely to be applicable to most organizations and DAOs (which are more similar to communities).

And concerning governance DAOs and funding DAOs, the distinction does not make much sense. If it truly is an organization, then the organization will always be participating in both functions.

I am not sure how you are classifying MolochDAO as a funding DAO when it also engages in governance activities.

And your dichotomy between movements and businesses is not very helpful because it implicitly disregards the existence of benefit corporations and cooperative organizations.

Your framework is also not very good for classifying blockchain networks (With a focus on layer 1) because these networks do not represent anyone. And you are superposing a mission on these networks and the stakeholders in these networks that does not actually exist. The stakeholders in these networks do not have a shared mission, rather, they are incentivized by the protocol to make individual decisions that are oriented to the collective good (which is maintaining the integrity and validity of the ledger).

"Businesses, on the other hand, rely on employees and contractors who expect the business to support their livelihood. "

This also does not make much sense. This line of reasoning applies to every single organization (and movements) in existence.

More on that point based on this passage:

“A movement may form businesses or non-profit organizations to support itself but what those organizations are able to accomplish depends on their funding and revenue — even nonprofits need customers in the form of donors to keep their activity going.”

Does this not imply that movements are just a collection of organizations?

I am not sure where you are getting this statement from: “DAOs are often envisioned as supporting holacracy or ‘flat organizations’ but the challenges demonstrated by the Ethereum community’s experiments in holacracy (ConsenSys, various DAOs) show us how structure, or the lack thereof, can affect an organization’s ability to perform.”

Which experiments are these?

“Businesses, on the other hand, need more structure to hold people accountable to their work and ensure that money keeps flowing.”

And the above statement as well is universal to all organizations, not just businesses.

1 Like

As I read your article my mind kept thinking of this kind of organization in a disaster response context. This seems like a great way to shorten the information gathering, processing and action timelines in a dynamic and high-stakes environment. Thank you for writing the article and providing insights to think about!