"First, a large democratic group is formed. Everyone tries to have a say. This creates conflict, and all discussions go on for a long time as they try to resolve the conflict. Most people leave because the decision-making process is taking too long."
I think this is the part of the political process that social media changes. Social media dramatically lowers the cost of trying to have a say; you no longer have to spend all afternoon at the town hall. Instead, the masses remain (virtually) present in a way that prevents planners from organizing and becoming elites. Result: the most notable characteristic of politics in the social media era is that mass uprisings (OWS, BLM, January 6) come and go without creating any proto-institutions that can take effective action.
I think the big picture is accurate, but DAOs do not have to be democracies, just oligarchies with more check & balances better functioning as the tech is enabling:
- easier participation
- more transparency which means more accountability (not saying code is law, but it takes more effort to obscure decisions - or value transfer)
- standards and best practices across difference geographies, cultures, industries
As a curious note, might want to checkout Yarvin's thesis (Grey Mirror + Clear Pill) against inherently unaccountable oligarchy in favor of accountable monarchies. https://graymirror.substack.com/
1. "will of the people" (representational democracy) and "market of ideas" (liberal democracy) are inherently misnomers of oligarchical pretending to populist democracy proper. Parliaments collapses and manipulates conflicting public wills, and not everyone is well-read enough to enact independent thinking. In the case of DAO make it such that participants can only vote as if they are part of the board of directors in a company, on goals and individual concerns or "what and why things need to be done", NOT to micromanage "what needs to be done and how".
2. Oligarchy as a system is inherently unaccountable as it is hard to "slay the hydra", if you need accountability it is better to have a monarchy with a wide "caporegime" under the leadership of the ring-leader. Washington-as-a-king is a classic conceptual representation of this. In the case of DAO make it such that there is a direct line of accountability of all project for replacing people or whole project teams under the DAO.
TL;DR keep the checks and balances not WITHIN an oligarchy, but BETWEEN monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Mix veto power of the people with a boss to tell its minions to "get bent" and not form cliques. (pardon the childishness)
"First, a large democratic group is formed. Everyone tries to have a say. This creates conflict, and all discussions go on for a long time as they try to resolve the conflict. Most people leave because the decision-making process is taking too long."
I think this is the part of the political process that social media changes. Social media dramatically lowers the cost of trying to have a say; you no longer have to spend all afternoon at the town hall. Instead, the masses remain (virtually) present in a way that prevents planners from organizing and becoming elites. Result: the most notable characteristic of politics in the social media era is that mass uprisings (OWS, BLM, January 6) come and go without creating any proto-institutions that can take effective action.
I think the big picture is accurate, but DAOs do not have to be democracies, just oligarchies with more check & balances better functioning as the tech is enabling:
- easier participation
- more transparency which means more accountability (not saying code is law, but it takes more effort to obscure decisions - or value transfer)
- standards and best practices across difference geographies, cultures, industries
As a curious note, might want to checkout Yarvin's thesis (Grey Mirror + Clear Pill) against inherently unaccountable oligarchy in favor of accountable monarchies. https://graymirror.substack.com/
1. "will of the people" (representational democracy) and "market of ideas" (liberal democracy) are inherently misnomers of oligarchical pretending to populist democracy proper. Parliaments collapses and manipulates conflicting public wills, and not everyone is well-read enough to enact independent thinking. In the case of DAO make it such that participants can only vote as if they are part of the board of directors in a company, on goals and individual concerns or "what and why things need to be done", NOT to micromanage "what needs to be done and how".
2. Oligarchy as a system is inherently unaccountable as it is hard to "slay the hydra", if you need accountability it is better to have a monarchy with a wide "caporegime" under the leadership of the ring-leader. Washington-as-a-king is a classic conceptual representation of this. In the case of DAO make it such that there is a direct line of accountability of all project for replacing people or whole project teams under the DAO.
TL;DR keep the checks and balances not WITHIN an oligarchy, but BETWEEN monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Mix veto power of the people with a boss to tell its minions to "get bent" and not form cliques. (pardon the childishness)