Just quickly read through this. Reminds me of our voting problems.
That’s a very interesting point of view.
I liked the thoughts exposed about “voter apathy”.
Voter apathy may become a serious issue in the future.
I just saw this on fb:
Do we some kind of automation too within nu? i believe so
Worth reading, some interesting comments too.
It is already an issue when you look at the percentage of Shareholders voting.
You will need very fit people with a lot of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue. Not those worn out in day-time jobs
Therefore it is likely that we face a future of more and more automated decision making until we become all unemployed. Then the trend might reverse. The future can be weird.
this is the future! What we have the robots for?
I love the working model of the star trek series
Data feeds can help mitigating voting apathy to some degree while centralizing the voting to the data feed providers.
Fortunately there are solutions and not only mitigation of the problem.
One is ternary voting that allows minters to vote
- in favor of a motion or grant
- against a motion or grant
- abstain from voting
Another solution is frequency voting, which I consider superior to ternary voting.
They solve voter apathy with a quorum concept where more expensive proposals have higher quorum. It leads to a 20% attack because that is the minimum quorum.
“Why would anyone buy this DAO crap?” on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471177.0
People are waking up to the idea of businesses that live in the internet.
Here is a post by tech crunch on the dao: http://tcrn.ch/1U5gLlY
My self, i believe that the real killer app of the blockchain tech is autonomous organizations pioneered by peershares.
I wrote a post on that:
Building companies that live on the Internet is the killer app of the blockchain technology."
It seems that the DAO is making the same mistake as Ethereum: a platform that tries to do everything at the same time.
I feel it would be very difficult to scale and maintain.
To me it makes much more sense to create a template that people can use to generate their own independent blockchain.
Therefore to me the template offered by nubits is the only viable one for all things related to daos.
What do u think?
I would be interested in getting @JordanLee s view on the dao compares to nu.
In early 2000, the internet bubble burst, after a long time, the real internet era has come.
IMO, there should be a “blcokchain bubble”, and Etheruem/DAO is just like the expanding bubble, OK, let them burst in 2017-2018. Ethereum and DAO are selling concepts and have ZERO feasibility because they are too far ahead of real world and stupidly plan to eat everything. I believe the design is from scammers with 160 IQ rather than from software architects with 160 IQ.
I think this DAO thing is gonna dump to the “Underworld” in a few hours…
I doubt it, but who knows, maybe you are right…
I understand they will be listed on Poloniex soon, so will be big pump and dump most likely. Like Lisk in the last 48h. Nice for the daytraders, nothing else exciting.
I’m not saying the project is doomed in the long term (maybe it is | maybe it isn’t). I just think >$100M cap is too much for a project that’s only a promise by now.
So pump & dump in early trade stages is inevitable like we saw with Lisk…
What is the purpose? What is the product? It has no real business proposition other than “it will do stuff”. Or maybe I missed something.
The name is very arrogant. It’s like calling a new car model “The Car” or a brand of washing machine “The Washing Machine”.
I might be wrong, but the way I see that project after reading stuff about it is like this:
It’s like launching an Hedge Fund in Wall Street.
Then you ask random people in the streets to raise funds.
So you give equal voting power to everyone who purchased a share in your HF.
By the time it starts investing the funds, everyone is asked to propose, debate and vote. The problem is: investment in 3rd parties is the weak link. It’s out of the “smart contract” DAO decentralized enviroment. Invested funds might just “be gone” in a blink of an eye
I can’t see how this is gonna be profitable in the long run. This “system” relies so much in so many variables…
p.s. However that’s gonna be an interesting experiment to follow and watch from distance…
An FT Alphaville piece “More decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) mysticism” by Izabella Kaminska that cited the blog in OP said about DAO
We won’t go on about how the world has had 100 years (or more) of
feedback with respect to what happens when you remove the professional
executive/management function from corporate identity, or transfer all
day-to-day decision making to amateur committees. Any cursory review of
modern history (or a quick read of Animal Farm)
will flag up the problems: indecision paralysis; wasted time and
resources on voting and bureaucracy; entirely non-diplomatic means of
grabbing power just to get things done; uninformed decision making;
exploitation of the ignorant; tragedies of the commons scenarios and
last but not least: a lack of skin-in-the-game accountability for poor
decision making leading to post-facto due diligence processes with dire
consequences for capital, human resources and environments.
here’s a recap of the key points:
- Investing wisely and actively requires time, professionalism and expertise, none of which amateur investors busy with their own jobs necessarily have — hence why they outsource informed decision making to investment managers. This phenomenon is called division of labour.
- If everyone was a professional investor, there would be no-one left to actually transform the capital into useful and productive stock.
- Investors have a tendency to be risk-averse and err towards free lunch windfalls or pure capital gains where they can, which isn’t necessarily good for the long-term interests of any project.
- Investors often have a difference opinion about the value of projects.Liquidity matters.
- Raising capital in illiquid stock securities isn’t necessarily the same thing as raising cash.
- If a technology needs conscious and informed involvement by participants it’s not really automating anything.
- Having to bow to continuous shareholder pressures can prevent actual projects from ever being implemented, especially if everyone disagrees.
- Outsourcing administration to unconscious agents, who are charged with implementing fixed rulebooks that can only be amended if shareholder consensus is achieved is one thing. Having them replace executive command structures that sit within moderated democratic structures for good reason, is an entirely different thing — especially if you want entrepreneurial vision ever to be implemented…
- What’s good for the company long-term isn’t always what’s good for the shareholders short-term.
- Without regulatory constraints on general stock solicitation, and with no fixed costs attached to new entity proposals and no due diligence minimum (such as a formal registration process which links entities to real people, with real addresses) what’s really stopping anyone from scamming or spamming the network with waste of time proposals?
And particularly relevant to today’s hottest thread:
As a wise and mystic film-maker once posted in black and white script on celluloid: “head and hands need a mediator. The mediator between head and hands must be the heart.”
I guess the wisdom of crowd, eg bee swarm is the organization that each member is simple or the decision making is very simple: searching for honey.