Disclaimer: just the quick transcript from the talk. Sorry for errors. Probably not all is clear – treat that as the raw material for finding insights or continuing the conversation.
One of the things everybody agrees – we can’t shortcut talking to each other and negotiate. Was working with communities for a log time. Interested how technology can create safe spaces for communications. For open outcome. Still exploring DAOs, make my way into this world. How to create experimental and safe places, to engage more thin with yes or no. Building consensus.
What are the unmet needs in the coops technology can solve?
Have the specific questions. Current coops (banks) have very vertical relations with their members. How me make them horizontal again.
The big question – what to do with the low turnout. Who should take part with which decisions. Who should vote and when and when not.
Any group feels that their are in the zeitgeist, like revolution. This creates the hostility between the old and the new god. We can talk about decentralization on politics and technology, but there’s not much attitude. There’s the coop education, when you don’t – you have chaos. It’s important to address those challenges, before the technology.
I consider myself as the old god. But it needs to be easier to build shit. I don’t want to follow into the language trap. When I say “A”, and you hear “-B”. I think the super cool thing to do. Create a place for sense making to make a place at least to be heard. DAOs allows you to say things are mediocre.
How does it work? Why?
There’s a social contract. People signal.
But in DAOs with limited resources – there’s the same. You can call smth mediocre, but don’t be mediocre with you communication about it.
Don’t pick many fights, cause don’t have the capacity. The difference between the DAO and CoBudget – is automatic execution.
So it’s about the immediate execution… One of the biggest topics in the Occupy Movement – what are the goals of out movement. With DAOs we could prototype something. We need less Vitaliks.
But DAOs we have now are less for sense-making.
Maybe decision making and sense-making is not so different. Sense-making shouldn’t be totally abstract.
We can validate, e.g. what we are. And vote on that to check. Consensus can be a silly word. There’re always polarities.
Loomio is consent based. In consent you don’t need to be for, you need to be not against.
The whole conversation about the decision creates the culture.
Isn’t it governance overall? (yea) Technological design can amplify that.
Some technologies seed different behavior. Or here we can have the most affect from most loud people. And in Loomio you just see text. And having too much text doesn’t help. That’s why holographic consensus might be interesting.
In other channels you can limit the amount of messages per day. What bothered me in Loomio – is the amount of messages i need to read. And then it can be not a paid job.
In loomio conversations we also have a host, like here. Instead of the emails you can see the conversation and decision. Not sure how much we can automate. Host also makes a summary of the conversation. E.g. we had a discussion for 2 months. Host describes the context, position etc and it goes to wiki.
The good thing is you have a facilitator. You call them Reporters? (no, just hosts)
Scaling is replicating the colonialism. You erase things that are in your path.
What do you do if there’re 200 people already?
Bigger decisions are always more fuzzy. If it’s regarding my circle – it’s more clear. Liquid democracy should have some boundaries, e.g. with the close circle of people if know.
With canonizer we can find people want.
Why are we so obsesses to make decisions on scale when we see the best decisions are made in small group?
Am not so focused on when everybody want, but rather what everybody needs. How can we asses those needs, like Universal Basic Income. The economical biases in DAOs – the markets mechanisms from economy are replicated. Maybe go past the Smith and allow a new type of economy to be created. Without that it can be impossible.
Would like to answer the question about why we want tech to engage more strangers. There’re problems like climate change.
But does the decision really need everybody. If we agree does it lead to anything?
I agree it’s controversial. But there’re still some decision that affect everyone. If we make a decision regarding the climate change there should be a way to enforce them.
Don’t believe in scaling. Believe in interconnectivity of small groups. This is kinda what people envision when they think about scaling. But not how 1 org can scale infinitely. Maybe some fractalization of DAOs.
Scaling can mean many things. Can produce mono culture, but reality isn’t homogenous. There should be the incentives to coordinate small communities around the world. We need to find the way to scale the value, select the tenets you can relax (can’t have 3 at the same time).
How do we enforce? Nobody needs to enforce somebody to mine bitcoin. They do it for own profit. We are going to create positive feedback situations. There should be no need for enforcement, rather shared consciousness and feedback.
Feedback loops would be faster in the smaller groups. Like here’s the water you drink from the river. Large scale problems don’t require large scale solutions, rather set of small scale commons.
The people that are mostly affected are motivated to work on it.
Things that become apparent – we don’t have the same idea behind DAO. It’s a vehicle, too fuzzy to fix it. DAOs really help with collaboration and really good support the collaboration between people who didn’t need to collaborate. Empowered agents is the side effect of that. Groups learn their positions before they walk and build together. The less ideology we have, the less camps we need to have. Every brand in the facebook group will have a DAO. Will put money for product development. That’s the direction I take from DAOs.
We keep talking about fixin world. But it’s a simplified point of view.
Did a series of interviews with DAOs and everybody had a different governance models and agenda. We all know we’re right…
It’s very good to have exploration and allow collaboration. When we speak about governance, why don’t we use methods and share libraries. There’s a lot of things like liberating structures. Excited about collaborating more there.