[wtvanhest]

I funded a small amount of it.

DAOs (distributed Autonomous Organizations) could be better thought of in a corporate governance framework.

A) Least distributed corporate governance: Sole proprietorship who owns 100% of their business

Every other organization sits between least and most distributed

B) Most distributed corporate governance: Full democracy state controlled

DAOs are special because the voting mechanism lets people vote across boarders/jurisdictions etc from their computer... but it also relies on the creators giving the right level of control to the DAO voting. If they gave voters 100% control, someone could do a 51% attack and have it destroyed, or something else. But, if they don't give enough control it is effectively a rug pull.

ConstitutionDAO is an amazing initiative because it puts so many assumptions up for a test, and crosses crypto world to mainstream. Its revolutionary.

The 'power' struggle is real... and fully on display

[meheleventyone]

If there is an undemocratic layer exercising overall control then the net result is authoritarian. It would be neither distributed nor autonomous. It’s precisely why democratic governance generally tries to balance power between elements that can exercise checks on one another and why eroding those checks is so worrying.

Like if you’re trying to buy the constitution in a democratic fashion you’d think you’d at least try to understand what it means.

[arcticbull]

> DAOs are special because the voting mechanism lets people vote across boarders/jurisdictions etc from their computer... but it also relies on the creators giving the right level of control to the DAO voting.

Aren't these votes broadly speaking non-binding?

Is this really any different than an LLC that runs a periodic twitter poll?

[awestrom]

Yes, one major difference between DAOs and LLCs is that DAOs exist in a nebulous legal space and might technically be general partnerships. Members of a DAO have potentially unlimited liability if it gets sued.

[tata71]

if they can be found.

[nrmitchi]

Interesting that "buying majority control" of an organization in crypto-land is now called "doing a 51% attack".

[javert]

It's not amazing. Like any company (a DAO is just a company), it could be run well, by good people, or run badly, by bad people. Whichever ways it turns out will not prove anything about DAOs.

[wtvanhest]

A DAO is more like a specific corporate governance mechanism than a company. For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc. I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO.

If it is executed flawlessly it will prove DAOs as a viable corporate governance mechanism. If it fails or struggles, there will be learnings.

[arcticbull]

> For example, ConstitutionDAO will be a non-profit, with a non-profit board etc.

Ok but you can just form a 501(c)(3) whenever you want right, which actually has some force of law over its activities.

> I presume they will put things up for vote using the DAO.

But... they don't have to.

It's all fun and games until there's a disagreement over what to do. The way in which a meaningful disagreement is resolved is what will prove the viability of this model. When everyone's aligned already, it doesn't really prove much.

[rank0]

Except owners of the governance tokens have zero legal authority.

Traditional shareholders have actual legal voting power. Nothing is stopping this group from ignoring governance token votes.

[javert]

Corporate governance by voting has already been proven to be viable. That's how publicly traded companies work.

A DAO is not special. It's just an unregulated international corporation.

[lifeformed]

How is any of it enforced? Are the daily operations of the organization encoded in contacts or something?