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.
We can discuss the org design as a philosophical subject. But we want to look at the specific use cases like fridays4future, or deliveroo. Now they want to build a coop, as they were loosely. How can we help them organize.
Asked local authorities is they are interested, but they didn’t come back. If i’m thinking how we can help – when they have an idea how to build a dao. There’s a bunch of tooling – Aragon, DAO Stack etc – you need to understand if you need a token etc. Linking to BB LLC – it’s cool, but you need to find a jurisdiction that will meet you need. And cooperatives makes such fit. New organization & regulators can help, with the legal framework.
On my side it can get better over time, but when it comes to regulation, building a company. Current frameworks are cumbersome. For lighter initiatives, like a community or a movement – you can use a DAO and legal risk is smaller than in traditional business. One of biggest differences in DAO is the cost of establishing and maintenance. Those digital frameworks can cost as low as $5. And then you can sell subscription etc. And if it doesn’t work you can just quit and start a new one. That would be a huge help for communities without huge means.
The project i’m trying to strat now has a lot to do with education and meat space. Making this fun and community. DAO fest.world. For people who want to have offline experience of DAOs – workshops, card deck, connection to funding of local events. We can map the network and have discussions. We need to help find right tools for the use cases.
When you advocate bringing the meat space – it’s interesting. How we treat the repsonsibility.
There’re many-many things – is competitive nature. We build systems that already encourage the competitive mechanics. E.g. you’re coming first and then what comes better afterwards looses. By definition you don’t see all perspective as an individual. And we create the systems, even in the Aragon and DAO stack we have this competition.
First thing we need to unlearn – is the idea about being important. Nobody gives a fuck. The more you grab to the innovation – you’re becoming a stopper. You need to let your importance go away.
The consciousness about being important… It’s a huge challenge for the crypto space to have this kinda lense. Few people here now about org development, design and phycology. But we’re a tech first space. That’s why we put those incentives, we think humans are rational. Am scared about the bias we bring to the products today. What I hope is that operating from a new paradigm – it’s more efficient, it’s the only way basically. People feel more significant, rewarded etc.
In a way it also celebrates motivation – you won’t work if you don’t have it. All systems and the companies, when you manage people, the worst thing to do – is to work with unmotivated person. You can work better with people with aligned goals. There’s a lot of courses, showing how to make people motivated. I was mentioning Linux as a good example how peers got to work together. Now we have more tools – tokens etc. They help.
Another thing is freeriders. We have enough money even to cover freeriders, i don’t care.
What collective wisdom can do for coordination. It was really interesting when I made the Genesis DAO onboarding. Many people send me stuff about how – you need to know some things about this DAO. That was my big learning about social dynamics – we need to allow more things to happen.
Yeah – voting is basically it’s political. It is highly political and we need to understand what we value. You want to be so skillfull with your proposal idea you can generate an idea, of abundance, not scarcity.
When lack of consensus shows up and people are polarizing. When government call for input people stick with parties and you can’t get to the decision without pissing someone. People are not agreeing in the process. Maybe we just disagree how we make it, rather then proposal itself.
Things that hold me back in blockchain governance – i see emotions, but in the end of the day the government were made so serve the people. In order to make the case for distributed governance – we need to show how is it more efficient. There’re many types of governments. Autocrats can do more stuff faster. Democracies are better for the social fields. Projects won’t survive without users and money. Would like to see more sustainable business and see how it will work.
It’s a goo reminders what are we trying to achieve. We’ll have more insights about that. Maybe direct the point towards consensus/consent. There’s a lot of social dynamics that go beyond binary stuff. Wondering in what ways DAO can help to capture specific sentiments about topics, which are uneasy to tackle. Do you have personal stories with deeper stuff the just voting.
One of the main exploration in Genesis DAO is connection between on-chain/soft governance. It’s the most alive system nowadays. No article will prepare you to that interaction. There was a ATF group, keeping people accountable on proposals. They reached out and checked how it goes. When they asked to extend the budget – dao stack was against centralization, but the community was in favor. The vote flipped many times and barely went through. The only thing a dislike about the aragon is punk rock vibe communication vibe. We need to go to the ‘yes-and-…’ mode of thinking.
It’s always easier to think what we can replace from the past. new things will come and replace… facebook and others. That’s what you think about DAOs. But there’re high chances it’s just the way it should happen. Let’s look where we didn’t expect where DAOs can succeed. The best example is the Aragon today. We struggle as we build it in the same time. But web3 tools are early and not at full capacity. I really thing use cases are already there. When we have those tools – we’ll have a paradigm shift even in physical assets.
Would like to touchdown on the lawyer perspective – cause what we discuss is connected a lot with law.
Really liked the comment, understanding from where you coming from. But in the last few years i’ve learned to unlearn. The whole ideas of ICO and how many projects got funding was interesting, They have funding now to build and work on solutions that would be ready in years. Those are a mix between company, academia, community etc. They help shaping our reality and mindset right now. Is there a better solution.
This really well funded projects like Aragon are spending lots of funds, in an inefficient way they can say, in compare to typical startups. Those practices are well explored now. But there’s no other way to change significantly.
When you see the world as a lawyer – lots of words shouldn’t be on those whitepaper. It’s always in the projects – how much risks you want to take. We as lawyers need to be very open and not shutdown ideas from the start. In COALAs there’re many open minded laywers, thinking how we can assist projects to do their vision.
Governance is kinda a incentive model, we can count that, but we discuss a lot definitions etc. Can be formalize the problem for the space. Than we can apply mathematics.
There’re some problems with no right answer. It’s polarity management, not allowing black or white win. If you take 2 weeks to calculate something the problem can change.
If you can learn what people want – then take those goals as everyones. That would be the consensus by definition.
Let’s do a quick case study. The reason why US system is made of checks and balances… It’s different from what we can see in the blockchain. You can go to the court – there’re people of different nationality etc. Is that right to disagree with camps if we’re not aligned philosophically. There’s no way for transparent, homogenous process. It’s formal, you can apply that and create the same governance we have now. We need something like checks and balances in the blockchain as well.
Was a super interesting deep dive in the DAO land and go