Secondly, I believe in DAOs (Bitcoin is obviously one), but not to the extent of it replacing companies or countries. A company would always need a figure head, a visionary (like the way Apple needed Steve Jobs in the early innings). Imagine if Apple from the start has been ran by a DAO, hard to believe that Apple would be this successful.
My two critiques of DAOs are:
1. Low time preference. Think most DAOs out there are just out to maximize gains for the token holders rather than build sustainable projects in the long run. Sometimes a company, could decide to take a hit in the short term, for longer term growth. Don't think any DAO currently, is ready to put forth policies that could hurt in the short term, but beneficial in the long run. Any DAO that chooses austerity, would see an outflow of members to DAOs promising prosperity.
On the flip side, some policy enacted by DAOs could be detrimental in the long run, while appearing perfect in the short term.
2. Lack of expertise. Don't think everything need to be ran by a DAO and everything needs to be voted upon. For example, if Apple wanted to roll out a new product line, I shouldn't be voting on that, because I'm not a marketing strategiest, in short, I have no skill in selling. Decisions like this is best left to people in the know.
Chelsea's coach would be in the best position to sign players this season (because of expertise), rather than token holders voting on who Chelsea should or shouldn't sign.
Perhaps we could have permissioned DAOs - in the form of sub-DAOs, where only freaks with expertise could belong. For instance, a Chelsea sub-DAO charged with signing of players could consists of "only" past coaches and footballers, rather than crypto folks wanting a signing of Messi so the native token could rally.
As a Bitcoiner (not a maxi though), lately, have found it hard to describe alternative currencies as shitcoins. For instance, Tron could be a shitty protocol, but when it comes to stablecoins - it's super useful (more than Bitcoin is).
It's hard to square the circle, looking at how this protocols are shitty, at the same time, seeing how stablecoins is a life saver in countries like Palestine, or Argentina, that need dollars, more than ever (but they just can't get their hands on it). And stablecoins is obviously the viable option (over Bitcoin).
Secondly, I believe in DAOs (Bitcoin is obviously one), but not to the extent of it replacing companies or countries. A company would always need a figure head, a visionary (like the way Apple needed Steve Jobs in the early innings). Imagine if Apple from the start has been ran by a DAO, hard to believe that Apple would be this successful.
My two critiques of DAOs are:
1. Low time preference. Think most DAOs out there are just out to maximize gains for the token holders rather than build sustainable projects in the long run. Sometimes a company, could decide to take a hit in the short term, for longer term growth. Don't think any DAO currently, is ready to put forth policies that could hurt in the short term, but beneficial in the long run. Any DAO that chooses austerity, would see an outflow of members to DAOs promising prosperity.
On the flip side, some policy enacted by DAOs could be detrimental in the long run, while appearing perfect in the short term.
2. Lack of expertise. Don't think everything need to be ran by a DAO and everything needs to be voted upon. For example, if Apple wanted to roll out a new product line, I shouldn't be voting on that, because I'm not a marketing strategiest, in short, I have no skill in selling. Decisions like this is best left to people in the know.
Chelsea's coach would be in the best position to sign players this season (because of expertise), rather than token holders voting on who Chelsea should or shouldn't sign.
Perhaps we could have permissioned DAOs - in the form of sub-DAOs, where only freaks with expertise could belong. For instance, a Chelsea sub-DAO charged with signing of players could consists of "only" past coaches and footballers, rather than crypto folks wanting a signing of Messi so the native token could rally.
Great writings as always Lane!
As a Bitcoiner (not a maxi though), lately, have found it hard to describe alternative currencies as shitcoins. For instance, Tron could be a shitty protocol, but when it comes to stablecoins - it's super useful (more than Bitcoin is).
It's hard to square the circle, looking at how this protocols are shitty, at the same time, seeing how stablecoins is a life saver in countries like Palestine, or Argentina, that need dollars, more than ever (but they just can't get their hands on it). And stablecoins is obviously the viable option (over Bitcoin).