Nope, even hunter-gatherers had a hierarchy in that they were and are typically patriarchal: The older men make the important decisions and that’s that. Trouble-makers are expelled from the tribe, which, in that context, means death. No situational about it.
@chadrickm Occupy had some surreptitious “community organizers” who led groups in delphi-technique group-think (the strange hand-gestures during meetings). It had the hallmarks of an elite project, like the color revolutions.
Actually, watching a comments in a ticket. Commit goes through a CI system and results in a comment too, so there should be either a log of work comments or commits. If there’s none - that’s an invitation to drop in.
I’m not talking about hierarchy, I am talking about leadership.
Oh, yeah… Tell me about this, because I don’t know that I was manipulated all the way in 2004, nor in 2013-2014, nor right now in the war with Russia. Actual decisions and projects were done in the way very similar to @chadrickm described in the OP.
Yep, the masses are often times playing someone else’s game without knowing it.
The difference is only one of scale, usually of geographic scale.
Let’s agree to disagree.
Off-topic:
Do you have any evidence for this? I think that some groups had this (more often in “complex” than in “simple” hunter-gatherer societies.), but many did not.
This is what they say on Wikipedia, for example:
Here are two more interesting articles on the subject:
I don’t have any evidence of how the hunter gatherers of Eurasia organized themselves but, nether do you.
We do have (linguistic) evidence that the proto-indo-european speakers were at least strongly patrilineal, if not patriarchal. Bit then again, they were bronze age herders and raiders, not hunter-gatherers.
I don’t find the hunter-gatherers extant today to be very useful to generalize from.
As @akhavr said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
The closest to polycentric law we have witness is the xeer. It is hierarchy. There is nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchy. If one were against hierarchy, one would be against itself, and the nature. Your body is hierarchical. The nature is hierarchical. The computer is hierarchical.
Can you explain how exactly the body is hierarchical? Or nature, except from animal population structures.
Indeed, and that’s surely the difference between hierarchy and leadership. The word ‘hierarchy’ implies dominion/force and judgement in a way that ‘leadership’ does not because hierarchy is about ranking one thing above another in a system of control, leadership is not a system of control, it’s an expressed characteristic/skill.
That sounds great Chadrick…
So in the same spirit of transparency, could you let the community know who the “we” are? One thing I would add though, is that “Trust” is very much like “respect” – it has to be earned over time by demonstrating one’s words and actions are in sync. Beware of those that ask to be trusted – the whole point of a DAO and smart contracts is that we no longer have to do this.
I see, so you have definitely decided this then and who to pay etc? All sounds a bit centralised tbh and not really in the spirit of a dao, which is to de-centralise power structures isn’t it? I get that you are saying its only until up and running, but you are asking for help from the larger community to help a project that we don’t even know who’s behind or what their reputation is.
Anyway, I broadly liked the idea when we were all openly discussing it together on the forum, amongst all the community – I was enthused; I had a similar reaction, whilst sharing each other’s thoughts and ideas among the larger community in regard to Seneca’s Decorum Project too. Both of you seemed enthused with the spirit of community and sharing.
One critique that I would make,(to both projects), is that it would have been better to have continued the conversation with the 99% of the community openly, rather than the 1% behind closed doors - surely 4000 heads are better than a handful, if nothing else? This would also have been more inclusive and involving of the larger community as a whole to direct its own/the project’s future, from its inception – the very essence and raison d’etre for a DAO in the first place – the very thing you are proposing to create.
I’m left feeling that having discussed ideas with the larger community, talks happen behind closed doors, then you come back to the larger community for more ideas/help to further the interests of an anonymous, non-transparent group.
As you said, this idea is just one way to run a DAO, there are many others. Sorry, I can’t help, but I like to know who I’m doing business with…anonymous persons not willing to be transparent…nah, not for me.
Just while I think about the issue of smart contracts on Safe (and please anybody jump in to correct my lack of technical knowledge). The issue to me is not smart contracts per se (DIrvine has said its part of the roadmap)- but how do you know that a particular smart contract has not been changed/doctored etc? Etherium solve this by having the smart contracts (which act as apps) on the Blockchain. How would Safe achieve a similar thing?
I disagree with you here at the point at which I was at. I needed to work out some things privately first. Lots of disparate thoughts and chaos around some issues. Then I wanted to share it with a couple people I trusted to see if they could make heads or tails of my less than perfect attempt. I think this is pretty normal.
Great point, and exactly why I asked a couple folks that have gained my trust! The following discussions helped a ton towards collecting those thoughts and finding a way to organize and present them, and I’m glad I did. Had I not, my attempt would have been quite chaotic and I’m guessing lots of unnecessary confusion would have been the result. What is that saying?
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
So yeah, that is what I did and why I did it, and I think it was a pretty awesome experience.
Totally agree with you here. There is this thing between the past and the future
“We” are in the process of setting up some front facing sites to help the community see what we are doing and we will eventually have an easy way for anyone who wants to contribute, be able to do so. Until then, post here or feel free to PM me if you have any thoughts on stuff. More to come in the next few days and weekish…
Thanks for the reply. My main concern was finding out who the “we” are though for transparency reasons. Is this something that we will be told prior to any crowdfunding?
I think I would prefer a DAO more similar in ethos to the Etherium manifesto, but recognise that others such as yourself have legitimate preferences for another model. I wouldn’t argue about which is preferred, but foresee a kind of “split” in DAO concepts between those who believe in Democratic principles and those who don’t.
When you think about it, this forum has also become a crowd found hub for pitching apps to the larger community. My issue with it though is that it is privately owned/run, rather than organised by the larger community democratically. This seems to me to contain many conflicts of interest and is open to abuse - just by its very nature/structure.
I totally agree that we need a better way to crowd fund projects.though because of these inherent dangers. For example, I was watching an Ethereum vid (maybe devcon or something - can’t find) where Vitalik explained some short comings of the way crowd funding is commonly done (like here). One interesting point was the fact that these projects where coins are used to vote, can be 51% attacked, straight off the bat by the lead dev themselves. All they’d have to do is buy 1.01 tokens for every token sold, then have total control of all voting. This is part of the reason that I have not invested in any Safe projects up to now. One thing that did catch my eye was the N99 crowdsale…how many coins were sold on the last day?..lol. It just leaves people wide open to accusations, whether they deserve it or not. That’s why I can’t take all the “How dare you not trust us” shrieks…its totally misplaced and worrisome…to me anyway. 
You’re welcome.
Everything we do, who we are and the future plans will be transparent way before any crowd sale. I think you’re really going to dig the process! I’m quite biased though in my excitement 
This depends on how project governance is set up. Interesting example is TheDAO that suggests project forking as the answer to 51% attack.
We’re going to need an awesome wallet to manage all those tokens and coins.
Excellent thought…and I think that will be already fairly solid by the time CFH becomes usable. There are already great example of this with Ethereum’s Mist Wallet, omniwallet, Exodus wallet just coming out.
Just want to let you know that me and my team are working on the prototype of the same idea. Hopefully to be available for early testers soon.