Is funds distribution the main DAO use case?

Initiated from dgov meetup in Amsterdam. Structured as a free flow of mind, paragraphs try to divide points rather than speakers.

In Genesis most of people want to get funds, doubt on intentions. DAO are born from developers, they develop stuff, but they look from the developers perspective. There’s a lot of work to be done on finding different thing then just funding. When you deliver a piece of code – it’s solid do deliver to DAO, but other cases can be different.

Is it the main case – no, the DAO should work like Holacracy, tasks created and assigned, and strangers can come together.

in DAO stack you can’t really get funds if you’re not part of the community, which is just like an open organization.

I’m sceptic, that money plays such a large role for the reason to be in the community. Obviously then people want to be part of the community. Same with EOS. It’s important to have money. But it’s not the reason to start a DAO or join one. It’s a specific sort of DAO. You associate cause you want to find work. Better to have common interests or values. So is it just depending on the intention of somebody? You can have a sort of NGO with some goals.

You want the code to be the owner of it, there’s no layer management above. Last week with the students we’ve looked at the scheme of some/several rulers (lick monarchy) and code is the next one. With DAOs what will happen, you can put existence schemes you can get same monarchy DAOs, aristocracy DAO.

In some time code can rule us and we’re in the early beginning. We need to see the flow of power, not money. From power, goes energy, then money.

In colony you can assign tasks and set funding and if no objection – it gets done. Coming from academic policies – formal procedures are popular but least effective.

People who do the work will get the rep but not much voting. Not voting at all at the Colony MVP launch in May. In the white paper, it would be so modular – you can have reputation mediated and still have a boss.

Would you see a DAO using a task and proposal based system? It’s possible. Our problem with procedures – lot’s of problem comes from building proposals. It’s easy to vote, but hard to evaluate the proposals. If we really need the wisdom of the crowd – we need to understand the feelings of the whole community.

There’s some process of creating. In Aragon there’s also a lot of procedures, but the products are missing. Looking for people to come and find the use for it.

The initial DAO – they envisioned the funds take out as the edge case. They used ‘the DAO’ because they hadn’t the name and wanted to vote on it after creation. Before the launch, the version had a measure with 7/10 counsellors could stop it. Which was criticized by the community and removed. Now all project use it.

This fund distribution narrative stuck too much. It’s more about collective decision making. Sometimes you start not waiting for everybody else. Sometimes you need a merit and reward to start the dynamics.

There is a good point – you have signaling, what’s needed to be done, but the whole focus and idea of DAO managed funds is anti-fragile measures. It cannot be overturned by the government. You can’t see the court action against DAO, unlike in usual orgs. That came out of bitcoin ethos.

There’s always some value – how do you define the fund… It is allocating something, maybe generating, maybe non-transferable assets.

In blockdam, we have the same task – tokens needed for people to understand. Tokenize energy, but if you take out – they needed to measure the value added. If 1 person in the group wants to leave we needed to take out some funds. That’s why we needed to make it about funds.

Reputation can be motivation. If you put the price on everything… markets are not neutral and distort things. In the economy, you need the money aspect. But for everything else – it’s oversimplifications. The case of starting Hyperloop: Elon wanted to compete with huge companies, and universities to develop the components of the systems. They launched a new team and went further than expected. It couldn’t go further only when substantial resources came in the game. All you need is to track.

You need some form of value, whether money or some other representation of work. – Start with that.

Reminds of giveth team 5 on the graph where people could start working without funds first. This seems like a transparent way to codify the sources of contribution. E.g. we’ve spent different sums to come to the hackathon, but didn’t track that. Having info about the contribution could help the conversation. There’s more to DAO then money. DAO has good accounting, difficult to cheat. I’m biased of course, but that was a basic narrative. People who are putting most effort has more say in decisions. You will get rewarded with more interest.

How to give tokens some personal status. Not sure if Suber DAO is a good idea, but smth can come out from it. Voting is not all decision making. You have plenty of talking with the team and in the end, you can make a decision – that’s how you work as a team. If you think if we will interact only through smart contracts without anything else – that would be very hard. Not all is for the chain. We don’t know what types of orgs will thrive with on-chain governance.

At a certain point, you reach an agreement – everything moves. The ultimate insult in the space is ‘fork off’. If you disagree – there’s no higher boss / larger group of people. There are methods, but we try to minimize it. We can play games. If it’s 45/55 distribution – it’s only 10% stake at risk, but if it’s up to 90% – i really start to communicate. Those things can be on-chain.

Metapolitics exists, not pretend that there’re smart contracts only. The status of colony – 2 week away from launch (for some time already). Launching a minimal framework.

Playing with collective one – without blockchain. You create initiative and canvas and tokens. And you can see how much tokens are shared from the contributors.

The other thing is thatrewarding works in a small group. Netflix got of rating entirely, youtube removed 5 stars. Just binary up/down else is noise. How to get the cleanest reading. The funds flow down – that’s where the reputation is get earned.

What stops the project from coming to reality. Interesting to know what are the hurdles? can we implement that on Ethereum?

Coding a draft of the SC is easy, putting to production can take a year. Lots of work before it’s easy to interact with. Even wallets are hard. Mulitsig is a clear conception but using one is hard. Also, try to do that without the servers.


They are the main DAO use case, but it’s simply because they were easiest to make.
Definitely agree the future of DAOs lies in organizations that may also distribute tasks and reputation along with funds…

Currently running an experiment using it (Colony) to distribute reputation, as in IOUs from the DAO to the builders. We use informal processes (a spreadsheet and weekly calls) to account to how much work each member contributes.
One hour of work averages 10 seeds, with the multiplier changing depending on task difficulty/expertise needed.
We plan on using those seeds as voting rights in the next phase when the funds start flowing in…

There’s another project doing something similar on Holochain - they’re a communal coworking/coliving space and the whole thing runs on it.

1 Like