Cooperative internet movement (eg decentralising Uber, Airbnb type services)

Well I know for me when I’m setting up my DAO(C)'s I will have a limit in the amount of share/control an individual and total amount the non-creators will have the option to invest. The DAC/O will enforce those social/smart contracts.

Here is a little on profit sharing

BitShares introduces a new, simplified, approach to implementing
profit payments on a blockchain. Destroying the currency and paying in
shares have the same effect on your bottom line. In one case you end up
with more units of a fixed supply, in the other case the units you have
become more valuable. Despite the economic equivalence of these two
actions there is a critical psychological difference. People are often
unable to separate real return on capital from capital appreciation.]1

In other words, the DAO will be controlled by you, just like today’s companies are controlled by their CEO.
(If you reply saying it will be not you, but all founders or shareholders, I don’t see how that will help your case).

1 Like

Dan Larimer’s discussion on DAC employees
Discuss on the Forum
When designing the economics behind a DAC one of the hardest
things to solve is how to hire someone to perform tasks that require
human judgement. Memory Coin 2.0 was the first attempt at such a concept
where there were several positions for which the users could vote to
hire specific roles. As everyone quickly learned, this voting process
was subject to manipulation.
Since discovering the solution to hiring Insurance Adjusters for
the Insurance DAC, I have been thinking about how we can apply that
process in a more general manner and thus open up the door to many more
DACs. For those of you who have not read about the Insurance DAC, let me
review the problem:

We need an Insurance Adjuster to evaluate claims and decide upon a payout.
Claims may be private and most people do not have access to the
information necessary to make a solid judgment. This rules out using a
prediction market to establish the result.
If we were to select someone to have authority to payout claims,
then how do we prevent complete fraud? We want someone who will deny
fraudulent claims, pay out fairly for legitimate claims, and not pay any
more than necessary.

To solve this problem I came up with the idea of using a prediction
market (BitAsset) to set the upper limit on total outstanding payouts
that may be authorized by the Insurance Adjustor at any one time, and I
used a 30 day delay to give the market time to identify gross fraud and
repeal the license and thus cancel any pending awards.
This general idea can be used on a broader scale to have the DAC
hire anyone to do anything. So if a DAC needs to hire a software
developer to maintain the software and fix bugs, then many different
developers would have to ‘interview’ with the market and get enough
support (market depth) for a BitAsset to be created that priced their
salary. The salary would be paid out of revenues (or via raising capital
by the issuance of new shares). The salary would be paid daily and with
30 day waiting period. The salary rate would equals the lowest salary
in the 30 days after the work was performed as represented by the
BitAsset for that developer. If the developer slacks off or acts in a
way the market does not approve then his salary will go to 0.
Here is the cool thing, anyone could apply for any job without
having to define ‘roles’. Some jobs may become entire departments where
the DAC hires the department heads and gives them a budget they are
trusted with.
With this design pattern we now have the means for a DAC to do
literally anything because it has a way to interview, try, and they hire
anyone for any job and even the ability to define new jobs as necessary
without any centralized control.

Continuing the discussion from Cooperative internet movement (eg decentralising Uber, Airbnb type services):

All real companies that change the world are started by just a couple of people or person, but they never call themselves a CEO. As soon as they do call themselves a chief over executives (don’t work) they have lost control to the company they started.

I want to be a part of a company that is owned by no one and also owned by everyone…you know kind of how the SAFE network is.

Here is a great concept on human need for conflict/challenge resolution.

Delegated Proof-of-Stake Consensus

A robust and flexible consensus protocol

Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) is the fastest, most efficient, most
decentralized, and most flexible consensus model available. DPOS
leverages the power of stakeholder approval voting to resolve consensus
issues in a fair and democratic way. All network parameters, from fee
schedules to block intervals and transaction sizes, can be tuned via
elected delegates. Deterministic selection of block producers allows
transactions to be confirmed in an average of just 1 second. Perhaps
most importantly, the consensus protocol is designed to protect all
participants against unwanted regulatory interference.

1 Like

You can build a rube Goldberg device to do almost anything.

Doesn’t mean it will be the most efficient solution for much of anything.

I don’t see a DAO deciding “Lets dump the C++ code we have created over the last year and start over in Rust” for example. Everything has a mission bias. They do what they are programmed to do weather doing so is good idea or not. Bold and successful leaders decide to do things they where not doing and stop doing things that they where doing. They make the decisions at the right time and for the right reasons.

I would argue that Bias of mission is the biggest culprit in government and corporate governance etc. Prosecutors prosecute, lawmakers legislate, police police, lawyers litigate – not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is their job to do what their job is. DAO’s will make that worse, not better.

Yes.
I mentioned this earlier today in another topic (on the supposed need to get rid of the management layer), see here:

https://forum.autonomi.community/t/capitalism-is-parasitism/5351/2?u=janitor

Not needed, not needed, not needed when they are not serving the pubic, and not needed. I know we will probably never see eye to eye and I will always lose as an inventor to the judges and money worshipers, but I enjoy the mental exercise…I appreciate you. The hierarchical system must have been a great system (except everyone not on top) for it stayed in complete power for thousands of years (At least that is what the books written by that system says).

You wouldn’t even consider an idea that yes your 1 in a million lottery ticket job would not exist, but you could spend a life time pursuing your passion and what drives you to create? It is quite fascinating how quickly you start seeing all the strings hidden behind these “pillars” in the traditional hierarchical community. I’m happy and sad I don’t see the myth anymore.

1 Like

DAOs will become a huge movement. That I can tell you.

“A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), fully automated business entity (FAB), or distributed autonomous corporation/company (DAC) is a decentralized network of narrow-AI autonomous agents which perform an output-maximizing production function and which divides its labor into computationally intractable tasks (which it incentivizes humans to do) and tasks which it performs itself.” – Decentralized autonomous organization - Wikipedia

I’m still skeptical about Ethereum, but Vitalik Buterin described in a presentation that companies like Uber are still centralized. And that DAOs could provide the same service with full decentralization, connecting cars and customers directly peer-to-peer. That was a great illustration of the future direction of organizations and companies.

DAOs will probably have an exponential progress since information technology is the foundation, and as Ray Kurzweil has shown, that means accelerating development and also exponential price/performance improvement. So let’s not be fooled by a very slow start for DAOs. That’s how exponential curves work. First the progress is very slow for a long time and then it starts to pick up speed and then it skyrockets.

1 Like

I’d like to ask the question “what have the organisers of this ‘coming out party’ accomplished in the project to create a new Internet”?

“Cooperative workshop” sounds so much as “hierarchically organized business”, but in the end its not contradictive. Hierarchies exist in every social system, the will overdue in the future in one way or another. I remember a discussion on AirBNB that went more or less the same. Fact is, no, AirBNB and Uber are not good for everyone. AirBNB and Uber are both businesses created based on the idea of creating surplus and the lower edge of society to compete with businesses that are running only slightly higher.

Most taxi drivers are working under minimum wage. The same way AirBNB doesn´t put pressure on luxury hotels, but mostly on hostels, low to mid cost hotels and the housing market (that is: people who do have the financial ressources to buy a house, certainly not those at the top).

Different issue: Those businesses do not run on technology, but on a social net - and they heavily invested to turn it into this network that people now use. AirBNB wasn´t a much needed service, there were other services as well. They had a hard time to get started over years(!), financing their work out of the pockets of their families. They paid professional photographers to take better shots of homes offered on their platform. They nearly went bankrupt shortly before they received Venture Capitalist money and they raised more 1,500,000,000 $ only in one of their private-funding rounds.

Today, large cost of AirBNB are spent for service and support & lawyers. Certainly a self-enforcing platform could cut legal cost necessary to ensure profits, but you cannot easily cut the cost for the support and control of quality when money is involved. Hospitality-club.org, the predecessor of Couchsurfing, ran on volunteers and one reason why that worked out is because no money was involved. As soon as people pay for services things get complicated. I recently used AirBNB and found the place in a miserable state. The kitchen was dirty, the bed was damaged and the whole place smelled like cigarette smoke. The host didn´t agree on our criticism. Following the (self-enforced) conditions we would have received 1/3 of our deposited money for staying there only several hours. Fortunately AirBNB had their employees looking at our case, communicating with the host and me several time via phone, organizing us an alternative place to stay and in the end we received all our funds back. That´s one of the reasons why people use the service (even though there are cases that do not work out perfect as it did with us). A program couldn´t have judged easily who´s right and who´s wrong in this situation. Most likely it would have left me with losing my money and giving me the opportunity to give the host a shitty rating. Yes, in this case most people prefer to pay a bit more and lower the risk of getting ripped.

That´s not saying it´s not possible to create a decentralized sharing platform, that´s absolutely possible. But it won´t come from “imagine”, it will come when people are willing to make massive risk investments for this kind of services. Sometimes comments here sound as if this services will come by itself. I hardly see anyone who is willing to write a substantial concept for that. I hardly see anyone saying: I´m willing to invest 1000$ for this idea. If SAFE is delivered in ~3month then now is the perfect time to start working.

btw. I´d be interested in creating a carsharing (not Uber style) app and can assist with concept and graphic design.

I’m not entirely on the side of believing that automation can handle everything (in the foreseeable future), but big data backed up by strong algorithms has me thinking that you could see management reduced to a programmer or two that you may or may not be able to outsource on the relative cheap, plus the founder/CEO. The strides in AI thanks to big data are pretty sci-fi to me. I mean, real time voice translators, talking to AI programs, and more are real things now.

2 Likes

I think this is largely exaggerated. The economy sucks, but aside from the third world, most of us are doing pretty damn fine, compared to our ancestors.

Moreover you failed to address my arguement…

The system could be better, but DAO’s have significant shortcomings that will cause them the be blinded by “bias of mission” Missions are meant to be picked up and put down. That is what successful companies do. DAO’s are not going to be smart enough to stop doing what they are doing and start doing something entirely different. They will do what they are programmed to do.

In some cases this will be fine. There are tons of boring repetitive jobs that can be handled that way … (Vending machines perhaps) But anything that requires strategy, marketing, litigation etc. isn’t going to be well managed by a DAO. Anything that is a market the grows and evolves isn’t going to be well managed by a DAO.

Bitcoin is in large part failing because it cannot find a strategy forward to deal with problems that need to be dealt with. Strong leaders are needed, but leadership is against the ethic of the community and is thus rejected. Every DAO is going to run into simular situations in the long run. What works now may not work when the market is 10 times its current size - and the different stakeholders may have different opinions on how to move forward, thus preventing consensus…

I think the leadership is just fine, and Bitcoin isn’t failing. But it depends on your definition of “failing”.
There are problems, but it’s open source and it can fork if necessary.

Right, but the whole purpose of a DAO as advocates proclaim is to remove centralized leadership –

A fork is replacing one DAO with another. and it is only done via strong centralized leadership that is corruptible, susceptible to lobbying and cow-towing to special interests of one flavor or another.

The idea that DAO’s eliminate the need for leadership is wrong. Bitcoin is the most prominent DAO in the world right now and is really the only case study we have to look at… Organizations need to change and adapt, and DAO’s tend to only do what they are programmed to do…

Well there’s no centralized leadership, that’s been accomplished. Now there is no quick decision making. Not entirely unexpected… But may not be bad. I’d rather go through several failures than try my luck to end up with a dictator.
Sure, in terms of cryptocurrencies my cost of switching is much lower than with my local government, but still.

Ironically in case of Bitcoin (the project), they didn’t have time to completely program the statute/governance, it was too late (to change and not be accused that you’re changing governance to suit your agenda).
But that is probably never possible, unless you have AI (and then results are unpredictable, just like with humans.

I think many people are jumping on the DAO bandwagon without thinking things all the way through…

In most businesses you need bold and decisive leadership to steer your business in the direction that the market requires. Doing what you have always done rarely is sustainable in the long term…

If bitcoin doesn’t scale and in order to make changes they resort to things like transaction spamming and censorship deviding their support base, some alternative is going to come along that will scale and will leave it in the dust. The same goes for any and every business run for a DAO. It is nearly impossible to think of all of the contingencies that a business will run into over the course of any given week, let alone a business lifetime. If you have to come to decentralized consensus on every issue, you are not going to be competitive against alternative IBM version which can fix the problem here and now.

I fear that SAFE is going to run into the same issues when they tie creator compensation into the protocols. That is hard to undo once you have done it. You will need consensus of those gaming the system in order to prevent the system from being gamed… I think the DAO ought to be kept as simple as possible (Storage and retrieval) and additional layers could be built atop that that would provide compensation if it paid to provide compensation.

It reminds me of how the first cars looked like horse wagons, without the horse. The first DAOs will look similar to ordinary organizations, without the leadership. Successful DAOs need new and different structures. And hierarchical control is often useful for some things, even in distributed systems. The role of leadership in ordinary organizations will be needed in many DAOs but the humans will be replaced by artificial intelligence and automatic algorithms.

Some people may be frightened by automation replacing humans, even for white-collar tasks. But people no doubt thought like that during the industrial revolution too. During the industrial revolution many of those working in agriculture could gradually move into industry jobs. The difference this time is that enough new jobs for humans will unlikely be created. This time things like a basic income will likely be needed during the transition into the money-less society (there will be only such things as a free lunch).

2 Likes

How does a DAO decide to do something other than what it was setup to do? How does it know when to dump C++ and switch to Rust? How does it build consensus for such a thing? How would it even know such a thing was on the radar to be considered?

Everybody seems to want to disagree because they want to keep faith, but fail to address the core point.

Anything you build as a DAO will have to compete with a guy who can say “We aren’t doing it this way anymore, we are doing it that way” and any DAO that comes to a conclusion like that must do it through some Rube Goldberg design process that will never be as efficient or as innovative as a bold leader…

How could a landline phone in the 50s upload photos to the cloud? It couldn’t. Similarly, the first DAOs will be very primitive compared to later iterations. The DAO management will become smarter than human management. And I doubt AGI will use C++ or Rust when developing software (at one zillion lines per second).

I am talking about the here and now. If you put your company in a DAO, you are choosing primitive management. There are a few reasons why that is wise. (If you don’t want the leader to mysteriously disappear at the whim of the NSA or the DEA for example) But in most cases and for most things it isn’t a mature technology and it is going to be a foolhardy business decision.

Over time, it is possible that AI will come along that is worthy of running DAO’s but that isn’t now. And even when they come along, they still are going to make decisions for reasons and those reasons are going to have to hurt some and help others… They are still going to to have to weigh options and prefer certain inputs over others… I can make a DAO that favors shareholders over customers or employees or vice versa – There is always going to be a formula be it from a man or a machine.