[force_reboot]

The no vote bias looks like a serious flaw in the DAO. As the authors say, it is safe for an informed investor to split than to vote "no" on a proposal (for reference, users who split are still entitled to the proceeds of any proposal they funded so far). So passive investors would either be in danger of an attack from a bad proposal, or would find a way to automatically split if the investor wasn't available, defeating the purpose of the DAO.

Put another way, the stock market rewards passive investors with exactly the same rewards as active investors (which has its own problems - shareholder control over management is notoriously lax), but the DAO goes to the opposite extreme.

I personally think that calling for a moratorium is presumptuous - I'm certainly glad there was no moratorium of the stock market when it was introduced because some economists identified some real flaws. But it is a well researched critique.

[CyberDildonics]

But wouldn't that end up being all or nothing? If there were many investments going on and someone splits, do they retain all the previous investments? I suppose the answer is yes, but then are the same curators working for them?