[zachmx]

Thanks. If you're willing to expand on your thoughts about blockchains not being necessary to any of the things I described, I would like to hear it. I'm honestly looking for any reason to be wrong on this, and I have yet to find that reason.

How else could ConstitutionDAO have raised funds as quickly as they have and in a secure manor without an intermediary company/legal entity holding the pooled funds?

[holonomically]

How is ConstitutionDAO not a legal entity? It seems like once people bought into the DAO they could not reclaim their funds so it was essentially acting as a trusted escrow service. Since they were acting as a de facto escrow service this could have been accomplished with existing financial services. Most escrow companies don't care why they're holding the money and the issue would have been convincing them that this is a reasonable thing to do. But convincing an escrow company that what you're doing is sensible in this case is a feature and not a bug because they would have immediately pointed out the obvious issues with this scheme.

In fact, going through an escrow service would have kept the amount hidden and given them an edge in actually being able to win the auction but this wasn't their goal. They wanted to show that they could hype this up and get people to sign up for it. I doubt they were ever serious about actually placing the winning bid which goes back to my original point about the crypto community not being serious about anything other than hype. I understand they're trying to grow the network of people that participate in the crypto community but shenanigans like this prove my point about them not being serious.

[zachmx]

ConstitutionDAO exists as a smart contract on Ethereum, not a legal entity. Funds pooled in that contract are spent at the discretion of users in the DAO, by contributing to the DAO you agree to the multisig stipulation (this could vary depending on the DAO).

Because the constitution and ownership of the constitution is managed in the current legal and financial world (centralized), the DAO has to bridge out of the decentralized network to purchase it. Since no decentralized system exists in the current legal infrastructure they had to incorporate in Wyoming to make the purchase. (I don't think they would have been required to do this if Sothebys had an Ethereum Wallet)

If the DAO had won the bid and kept the constitution and managed it, nobody from the centralized world would be able to purchase the Constitution without the permission of the DAO and it's 17 thousand users (aka a buyer coming into decentralized territory). This is the purpose of the purchase, it is purely symbolic. The metaphorical possession of the DAO sets the precedent that blockchains can set a new standard for building Governance systems. What better way to demonstrate the growth of innovative governance bodies than buying the foundational document of modern day governance itself?

Moreover, it may be wrapped up in humorous memes and shitposts, but the sentiment is the same. That being the blockchain is a contender for overthrowing all current financial systems, and by proxy Governance as well. This is the whole idea behind the metaverse. Emergent and collaborative digital cities that are representative of real world communities working together to solve real problems like climate change, world hunger, poverty, education and every other problem you could think of. It breaks the shackles of the masters inside corporations and the masters inside the government.

Also, after losing the bid, do you think it is a coincidence that one of the men who stands to lose the most from the success of cryptocurrency was the person who won the auction?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/citadels-ken-griff...

-note, this is probably my last comment for this thread. I appreciate the friendly debate. I always like chatting with those who hold opposing views. I will definitely be pondering points you've brought up and do more reading.