Imagine how much we would have lost out on if Thomas Edison for example was not allowed to keep the profits of his labors and instead had to share them with a co-op that was more interested in getting paid than inventing a better future.
Warren’s ideas are just bad. Innovators deserve profit, because they are the ones likely to innovate again, and it costs a lot of money to build a hyperloop for example.
DAO’s are most likely going to be boring and dumb. There isn’t a problem with that in places. But I doubt they will be able to compete with real businessmen in most markets that are evolving and improving with technologies.
Oh, that’s right those people paid to control other people are going to make more money off it and get even greater contol. You keep missing the point. We want to be free of this and more of what doesn’t work won’t help as its the problem itself.
Free of progress maybe.
But you are no more free whether you work for Edison or you work for the Garbage truck… You are going to have a job that you are told to do and you are going to be controlled in that if you do not do what you are told to do you are going to need to find somebody else to pay you.
Oh thats right because some people are born to take orders? The tyrrant has been projecting again.
I don’t think there is anything that corporates can do that cooperatives can’t but corporates will never be democratic, so the most important thing corporates will never achieve. Means matter, means and ends become one in the end. It may be a fabric of cooperatives but it can get done.
No, If you want to work, you need to contract to do work that somebody is willing to pay to have done.
That isn’t tyranny. That is employment. Even the CEO’s must do what the board tells him unless he wants to be unemployed. In a co-operative, people who do not do what is expected of them also get fired. Your solution solves nothing. At all. It’s a pipe dream.
Thank you @jreighley for making the point I was making even more obvious. As an inventor with a DAO you can now spend your time inventing shit and not worry about someone else (management) that spends all their time figuring out how to separate you from your creations and the value produced by them.
But I doubt they will be able to compete with real businessmen in most
markets that are evolving and improving with technologies.
DAC’s don’t even need to compete with “real businessmen” because DAC’s are controlled by people who had and would be contributing something beyond money. How would a corporation run by people that have never been in that trench, taken that risk or spent endless nights following their passion with no immediate reward, compete with a DAC that does not have to waist money on centralized group of non-creators that spend all their time trying to grow the myth they are actually needed and/or deserve the disproportionate amount of compensation they give themselves?
Love it, hate it, ignore it, it doesn’t matter…but the age of the creators is here.
And just how do you figure this DAO would work?
Distributed Autonomous Companies (DACs) run without any human
involvement under the control of an incorruptible set of business rules.
(That’s why they must be distributed and autonomous.) These rules are
implemented as publicly auditable open source software distributed
across the computers of their stakeholders. You become a stakeholder by
buying “stock” in the company or being paid in that stock to provide
services for the company. This stock may entitle you to a share of its
“profits”, participation in its growth, and/or a say in how it is run.
It is a software entity that, like a traditional company, earns money
for its stakeholders. Unlike a traditional company, it operates
autonomously on a blockchain.
The DAC acronym can stand for Distributed or Decentralized,
Corporation or Company. Indeed many in the Bitshares community seem to
mix and match what DAC stands for. They all seem equally acceptable.
DAOs are good, but money (real money) is stored labor. You can contribute capital (stored labor), or you can contribute labor.
It’s the same as today, unless you stop accepting stolen capital (represented by fiat currency which has no backing in labor).
I understand the concept.
But If I invent a newfangled light bulb for example and put in in a DAO… What next? Does it magically do market analysis and strategy? When ought it ramp up production in anticipation of orders? How does it forsee drops in demand? Does it sue for me when people violate my rights? How does it pick a lawyer? How does it know if he is doing his job correctly. How does it make the call to fire him?
I can see DAO’s doing rather simple routine things, (reordering inventory for example) but I do not see them as a solution to much of anything that requires innovation and strategy.
Its a buzzword that people place a lot of faith in, but It seems mostly Sci-fi to me.
Well I know for me when I’m setting up my DAO©’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).
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
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.
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.
I mentioned this earlier today in another topic (on the supposed need to get rid of the management layer), see here:
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.
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.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization
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.
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”?