Why Voting Tokens Are F**king Horrible, And 4 Ways to Fix Them

When I first read this tweet thread about the Aragon governance proposals voting on a rainy afternoon walk a month ago, my first reaction was blurting out "I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck?" Were I not in public, I would've bursted out laughing. Aragon is one of the most promising governance projects in the space, with more than 20k token holders, 70k Twitter followers, and a $14M token market cap. Guess how many people voted in their first round of proposals. 45. Forty-fucking-five. Let that sink in. I respect the good work the Aragon teams are doing, but honestly this is just pathetic. The token holder participation rate is only about 0.23%, and it's likely even less than that if a holder used more than one address to vote. The space is still young, blablabla, yes I know that, but this evidence does not bode well for the underlying assumption of Aragon and many more systems, that the interests of voting-token holders are aligned with that of the to

I don't want toast

Recently, I have realized that all the mistakes I've made in the past, and is still making, have been caused by a single type of error: mistaking expedience for desire, for a call to action. When I am looking to make a purchase, say a toaster, I look for a "good deal". The toaster can't have a significant number of bad reviews. The price can't be too low, such that the toaster is bound to break down in a month; but it also can't be too expensive, such that the purchase becomes exorbitant. It should have many features: a timer, different modes, bagel compatibility; but it's okay if it's missing a few as long as the price is lower. Might seem reasonable to try and find a "good deal" like this, but if one thought it through, one would find that it's a recipe for mediocrity. You see, even if you found a "good" toaster, it's only "good" in the present situation, in the narrow context of finding a reasonable tool for mak

What can a DAO do for John Doe?

The privileged don't need DAOs As someone who's spent months thinking about DAOs and governance, I knew there was a problem when I asked myself "Do I, personally, have need for a DAO today?" and answered "No". To me, DAOs, or Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, are tools for collaboratively producing work. For instance, a software development startup could set up a DAO to handle its finances and decision making, in place of a corporation or a Limited Liability Company. For entrepreneurs, the main advantages of setting up a DAO rather than a regular legal entity are as follows: Cheap : DAOs are basically free to create and maintain. Companies usually cost at least thousands of USD to create and thousands more for yearly maintenance fees. Global : Companies and other legal entities are harder to create in countries without a mature financial system (e.g. many places in Africa) and countries with political/economic instability (e.g. Venezue

DAOmesh: Large-scale collaboration through a network of small DAOs connected by bounties

Or: World Wide Web for a collaborative economy 1. Intro Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are organizations where members collaborate through a smart contract enabled blockchain. Compared to traditional organizations, DAOs are much cheaper to create, their immutability and transparency makes them more trustworthy, and their programmability enables a wide variety of features. It is possible that DAOs are the next evolutionary step for corporations, which makes up most of today's world economy. Some DAO researchers/developers ( DAOStack , Colony) believe there may one day exist DAOs with thousands or even millions of members, and are working towards that vision. Others (Aragon, MolochDAO) neither support or rebuke this belief, but they implicitly (and perhaps unconsciously) support it by placing their focus on the internal mechanisms of DAOs, rather than the interactions between DAOs. It's likely the case that this belief is the mainstream. I believe ther