The real issue is Conway’s Law. That’s why I think we’re kind of screwed, lol.
Centralisation, that’s the problem. It breeds corruption and inefficiency. “Drain the swamp” is all well and good, but it won’t address the root of the problem. Borovan is merely going after the minor players.
It is much better for capital to become power than for power to generate capital
Centralization is just because there are no more people or money that are optimistic and leading the development of the DAO. The power is no longer monopolized, so I think if there is a good product, then it will get better.
The way icp is set up is
Capital creates power where that power creates more capital.
Example is voting maturity.
Btw this is why Adam is so concerned with others accumulating voting power. He is losing control of what he thinks is his.
Yes, but this is also part of the product —it’s the outcome of those holding voting power believing that the current design maximizes their benefit.
So your saying [quote=“ysyms, post:46, topic:43558”]
It is much better for capital to become power than for power to generate capital
[/quote]
You recognize that in this situation power is generating capital as well. So your pro has instantly been met with the negative.
This is just one parameter of the DAO — it can be set to a large value, a small one, or even zero. And this isn’t a contradiction; on the contrary, it creates an opportunity for those who can help guide the DAO in a better direction to participate.
After launch, a DAO has many ways to avoid being controlled by outsiders, but they don’t do so. They need to dissolve and sell tokens because the product itself cannot generate positive profits.
I think the problems with SNS are:
-
Potential scams during the launch phase.
-
Dependence on the team during the development process.
-
Lack of transparency in the use of funds.
-
Lack of credible communication between neurons, which is like a group of government officials governing a country without being allowed to communicate with each other.
If we can address the second point, then the first point can also be resolved, because a DAO can launch from an idea.
The advantage of a DAO lies in directly modifying the things it controls without the need to elect representatives, which greatly improves the efficiency of power utilization, and further, the efficiency of capital utilization. I believe capital will make itself better, won’t it?
Could you outline why having the treasury restrictions are a good thing?
For me these restrictions are just a show while someone who amassed 67% vp can still drain the treasury just over a longer timeframe.
Teams should be locking their SNS token allocations to avoid takeover. If they believe in their project they will do so
5 Likes
Do you think the treasury restrictions should stay in place?
If so then we need to create a way for daos to avoid being taken over and centralized.
DAO-s work as they intended, DAO-s change hands and evolve overtime, but mechanism that operates has to remain. If starting to change something, all falls apart.
Example: Democracy was made as illusion, rich people was always meant to hold power. This was made so that rich people can run business with low cost (accumulate wealth), it was built so that no one can steal money, property and life from them. But Americans voted for Trump, who was admiring Putin and Kim, his vision was to become like them. Now when constitution is thrown out of window, pillars of freedom destroyed, he is going after most critical companies and basically becomes co-owner of them, if they dont agree, they are forced to give up entire business. Tariffs from Trump is just for gaining more power as he expects others come and beg him a deal, 100mil to him and no tariffs for that company.
What im saying is that DAO is still illusion, founder is meant to hold most voting power and if he quits, others can take over. If you start messing with limiting voting power or attacking other people for buying out founders, you no better than dictators.
Treasury restrictions are only meant to make the development team think twice; otherwise, they could arbitrarily transfer anything. In many SNS projects, the team holds about 50%.
I think VPs who disagree with the DAO’s direction should be allowed to exit, rather than using a specific percentage as a deterrent.
I think the root cause of all this is that the DAPP controlled by the DAO relies too heavily on a specific team.
The treasury restrictions are a joke.
Any one individual can drain it still just over the span of a few weeks.
If you believe one user should be able to take over what is meant to be decentralized then I’m not sure how you can think Dfinity mingling in the decentralized treasury is acceptable.
Either Dfinity prevents hostile take overs like they did with treasury drains or they step out completely and let the market handle the good and bad that come with this industry.
I agree with handing SNS over to the market. DFNITY funding can be done through other means rather than NF.
1 Like
Oh you’re one of the people doing this crazy complex voting power grab at WaterNeuron, that makes sense now.
You’re the one that is mad that you don’t control an actual dao.