I know that employment is an important financial use case for many people, and we know that web3/internet of money reinvents many financial use cases. So from that we can deduce that employment will change because of the internet of money.
hey @owocki thanks for this opportunity, I got here researching about DAOs and the mission of Gitcoin, as an open-source consumer for many years, resonate deeply with me. I hope I can contribute somehow.
I’ve read all the Discourse forum messages since 2021 but still would love to know your experience in a few subjects:
Given the freedom of working on DAOs, have you lost key members because they were found another opportunity that required most of their time?
If so, at this point is there anything implemented in GitCoinDAO for avoiding this?
Have you ever found a big group of holders (or single whale), voting/proposing against the interest/mission of the DAO?
Does the DAO looks like you imagine it would be when you started it?
Not that I’m aware of. I’m sure that many people have come & gone in general, but I am not aware of key contributors to workstreams moving on from GitcoinDAO without offboarding in an orderly way.
I have not, but that doesnt mean that it’s definitively not happening. I’d welcome anyone else on the thread calling this out / investigating it if they see it.
The primary thing we were trying to solve with the QuadraticLands.com retro drop experience was enabling a group of Stewards who could be legitimate in governing Gitcoin Grants. Most governance tokens have such low voter turnout, and by enabling delegation at the start, the idea was to evolve past this problem. Here is who the community selected as stewards at the start of the DAO:
I was pretty happy with how that created a basis of legitimacy for the DAO.
The FDD is using supervision by council. So far so good I believe! FDD calls it the Source Council and is now using a peer-evaluation system called Coordinape to calculate a portion of the council members rewards. It is the latest iteration of FDD governance and really is the best yet imo.
The power & resource sharing between state or provincial government and the feds has been a contentious and divisive issue in the early days of the formation of USA and Canada. I see parallels of this in the dao-space.
It has been suggested digital-communities are a new form of nation without geo-political borders (…so far groan). It has also been suggested (thanks E.O.) that groups benefit from a structure of multiple sub-groups due mostly to the fact large groups are harder to operate efficiently.
Kevin, can you please talk about how you see the hard issues of power & resource sharing playing out in daos… Not looking for specific answers just thought exploration.
Some wonderings I have about this area:
Will traditional comprehensive lawyer-negotiated contracts be needed or can we find a newer way via smart contracts?
If a sub-structure is attainable with advanced coordination tools why shouldn’t most daos be sub-groups of the same parent-group? The Public Goods Dao? The New Globe Org? (get it…the new form of NGO haha?)
Is the research about sub-groups current or has it been superseded?
We have a lot of great discussions about values in DAO Vibes. As someone still learning, a lot of the values of Web3 that are discussed often seem cultural and impossible to program into our money – what are the values we can program into our money?
If you could only recommend one book to someone getting into Web3, what book would it be and why?
I think that with a turing complete smart contract language and oracles that put info on chain, you could plausibly program really any value into money (in theory). But the ecosystem is only a few years old + not mature enough for that to happen yet.
In the meantime, tools for creating intersubjective consensus (like CoordinAPE, Gitcoin Grants, CLRFund) are a nice shim to make sure that financial rewards match our values.