Hey @dfxjesse, great questions!
First, “off-chain DAO” is a bit of a misnomer, since all these aspects are still on chain:
- Treasury Management
- Governance Decisions
- Governance Mechanisms (VP Proxy Canister)
- Tools and resources (Airdrop canisters, etc)
- Governance Operations & Definitions (Constitution)
- Legal Agreements (hired council members, vendor agreements, etc)
- Corporate Personhood (legal registration documents)
In the case of the ICPCC, the exact same thing could be done with the ICPCC Constitution. It’s a binding document empowered by the Corporate Personhood given to the DAO by the Marshall Islands DAO LLC. This type of legal entity REQUIRES the existence of an on-chain DAO, and it recognizes the on chain aspects of that DAO as legally binding. You can find out more here and here.
Exactly! The ICPCC DAO doesn’t delegate any power to the ICPCC Council to make decisions for it, they are just vendors hired to shape proposals for the DAO to vote on. All authority and decision-making power stays with the DAO members, and again those on-chain decisions are legally binding.
For example, the DAO is the only owner of the ICPCC brand and Intellectual Property, and if someone uses these without an explicit proposal from the DAO granting them that right, the DAO can hire a lawyer to sue them. The ICPCC DAO is a fully decentralized independent actor with no agents making decisions on its behalf.
There is no traditional “core team” with ICPCC, again the ICPCC Council is a completely different structure. The entire council is replaceable and everything can run without them. You can see my recent tweet about the council here, and read about it here.
They own:
- Utility for the physical in person events, as defined in the constitution.
- Influence over all the decisions the DAO makes, since all those decisions must be made through SNS proposals for them to be legally binding.
- Influence over how the DAO treasury can be used, since that can only be accessed on chain.
- Influence over how the ICPCC brand and intellectual property are used, since those are also assets owned by the DAO and therefore exclusively controllable via on-chain proposals.
They can hire and fire members of the ICPCC Council. I’d also argue that they would have just as much, if not more, power than the board of any major company (which is basically all the power).
In additions, there’s even a framework for adding power to motion proposals. For example, ignoring them would be grounds for a council member to be fired. This is called “Request Motions,” and it’s outlined in the constitution here.
No, for the reasons explained in the litepaper here.
Not only would that mean the community would lack true ownership and control, it would mean a single centralized party would:
- Exclusively receive all of the gains from successful and profitable events, even though it’s the community who would be making that success possible.
- Censor ecosystem brands they don’t like from sponsoring the event, without anyone else knowing they did it.
- Gatekeep what gets highlighted most.
- Be accountable to no one, and lack transparency and accountability to the community they are meant to support.
Why “Off-Chain” Matters
Ultimately, most “real world” value is exactly that: It happens in the real world.
Web3 is wonderful, but only so far as it makes an impact to the physical users it creates value for. In that sense, all DAOs need to be “off-chain” to an extent, since a dapp that results in no ultimate real world impact is useless.
Some types of value can be more exclusively created on chain, like economic value. However, there are other types, like “ownership” or “legal authority” rely on real world legal structures like the Marshall Islands DAO LLC to be created.
However, this type of value can still only be controlled on chain, which makes it no different than economic value. What is “economic value” if not a representation of trust that someone else will be willing to trade this asset for another? Unless “value” is something physical like food, clothing, or shelter, it’s just an idea.
If Web3 doesn’t master off-chain DAOs, it’s going to have an extremely limited impact on the future. The innovation around “off-chain DAOs” is an area that can have real power, real decentralization, and real impact. To dismiss it because it doesn’t look like the defi dapps we’re used to would be shortsighted.