Nanopublications LDF server

Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s ?p ""DAO"what? The term “DAO” is doing more harm than good to the growth of blockchain-powered communities. A thread🧵 --- Most active DAOs today lie within one of the following types: - treasury-driven DAOs. - service-provider DAOs. And none of them really exploit the key value proposition brought by blockchain tech to most communities outside the crypto-niche. --- Treasury-driven DAOs, which represent most of the active ones, are actually an anomaly. On one side, let’s be honest, they are held together by the treasury, nothing else, and, on the other, they emerge out of an uncommon situation: an excess of money 🙃 --- Using treasury-driven DAOs as a reference on how to grow and manage blockchain-powered communities beyond the crypto-niche is just counter-productive. --- The other type is “service DAOs”, like @dOrg_tech and others, and these do represent a better use case. Using a blockchain to transparently handle money within a group of semi-independent teams is useful. Adding decision-making and reputation might be cool too. --- The problem is that service DAOs ask for deep and long-term commitments to be really useful, and, in the end, if they end up being run as a normal consultancy firm, the value of the blockchain becomes less clear. --- So, is blockchain tech useless for normal communities? How can this be possible? We thought blockchain would enable a completely new set of coordination patterns, didn't we? --- Maybe that is the problem! We were so excited about the possibilities of DAOs that we went straight for the utopian vision, thinking that we could skip any intermediary steps from the status quo to a fully decentralized future without corporations or decadent institutions. --- In retrospect, it was obvious we were going to fail :) What can we do then? --- Shift the perspective. Instead of designing abstract solutions that enable new types of organizations, we should go and meet groups and communities where they are and offer them solutions that are both very useful for them and only possible because of blockchain tech. --- This might look a bit boring. We, blockchain visionaries, lowering down to the boring world of normal people 😁. --- But you can bet on it. It's 100x harder to find a real problem and build a solution to it than it is to envision a complex governance system designed to work on hypothetical decentralized communities that exist only in our imagination. --- This is why my current focus is on finding what is it that blockchain tech can offer to normal groups of people that no other tech can offer them. --- The answer is quite surprising: A lot! Blockchain can offer unique solutions to groups and communities that are just impossible without the tech. --- I can think of two things here: 1) Handle money openly and transparently 2) Use cryptography for privacy --- Handling money by a group of people requires a legal entity + a bank account + a lot of bureaucracy. And even then, the process is opaque and hidden to most members of the community. Collectively handling a stablecoin with trustless processes would be so convenient. --- It's so obvious, but, yet, you cannot find teams building DAO-tooling who are laser-focused on this. --- Then there is ZK-tech, which allows members of the community to communicate anonymously among themselves without relying on web2 platforms and their identities. This can be a critical feature in environments where people are afraid to talk and act. --- Voting, or aggregating the community sentiment around a given issue, anonymously, would make this so much more useful, and is now totally possible using dev-friendly tools like Semaphore from @PrivacyScaling. --- These two features by themselves potentially offer a lot of value to communities, but they are only useful as long as the technology is accessible to normal people. --- This means that, just as for the rest of web3 products, tools for communities need to fix the onboarding problem. Here is where account abstraction and cloud wallet services become essential. --- Members of a group should not need to set up a wallet or, god forbid, buy crypto, to start participating. They should just need a mobile phone, that’s it. The good news is that all the pieces needed are already there with services like @magic_labs or @privy_io. --- The resulting landscape becomes pretty exciting, then! There are millions of groups or would-be groups around the world that could really use this technology, if only we, as builders, make it easy for them to do so. --- Let’s do it then! Let’s just keep it simple for now." ?g. }

• assertion comment ""DAO"what? The term “DAO” is doing more harm than good to the growth of blockchain-powered communities. A thread🧵 --- Most active DAOs today lie within one of the following types: - treasury-driven DAOs. - service-provider DAOs. And none of them really exploit the key value proposition brought by blockchain tech to most communities outside the crypto-niche. --- Treasury-driven DAOs, which represent most of the active ones, are actually an anomaly. On one side, let’s be honest, they are held together by the treasury, nothing else, and, on the other, they emerge out of an uncommon situation: an excess of money 🙃 --- Using treasury-driven DAOs as a reference on how to grow and manage blockchain-powered communities beyond the crypto-niche is just counter-productive. --- The other type is “service DAOs”, like @dOrg_tech and others, and these do represent a better use case. Using a blockchain to transparently handle money within a group of semi-independent teams is useful. Adding decision-making and reputation might be cool too. --- The problem is that service DAOs ask for deep and long-term commitments to be really useful, and, in the end, if they end up being run as a normal consultancy firm, the value of the blockchain becomes less clear. --- So, is blockchain tech useless for normal communities? How can this be possible? We thought blockchain would enable a completely new set of coordination patterns, didn't we? --- Maybe that is the problem! We were so excited about the possibilities of DAOs that we went straight for the utopian vision, thinking that we could skip any intermediary steps from the status quo to a fully decentralized future without corporations or decadent institutions. --- In retrospect, it was obvious we were going to fail :) What can we do then? --- Shift the perspective. Instead of designing abstract solutions that enable new types of organizations, we should go and meet groups and communities where they are and offer them solutions that are both very useful for them and only possible because of blockchain tech. --- This might look a bit boring. We, blockchain visionaries, lowering down to the boring world of normal people 😁. --- But you can bet on it. It's 100x harder to find a real problem and build a solution to it than it is to envision a complex governance system designed to work on hypothetical decentralized communities that exist only in our imagination. --- This is why my current focus is on finding what is it that blockchain tech can offer to normal groups of people that no other tech can offer them. --- The answer is quite surprising: A lot! Blockchain can offer unique solutions to groups and communities that are just impossible without the tech. --- I can think of two things here: 1) Handle money openly and transparently 2) Use cryptography for privacy --- Handling money by a group of people requires a legal entity + a bank account + a lot of bureaucracy. And even then, the process is opaque and hidden to most members of the community. Collectively handling a stablecoin with trustless processes would be so convenient. --- It's so obvious, but, yet, you cannot find teams building DAO-tooling who are laser-focused on this. --- Then there is ZK-tech, which allows members of the community to communicate anonymously among themselves without relying on web2 platforms and their identities. This can be a critical feature in environments where people are afraid to talk and act. --- Voting, or aggregating the community sentiment around a given issue, anonymously, would make this so much more useful, and is now totally possible using dev-friendly tools like Semaphore from @PrivacyScaling. --- These two features by themselves potentially offer a lot of value to communities, but they are only useful as long as the technology is accessible to normal people. --- This means that, just as for the rest of web3 products, tools for communities need to fix the onboarding problem. Here is where account abstraction and cloud wallet services become essential. --- Members of a group should not need to set up a wallet or, god forbid, buy crypto, to start participating. They should just need a mobile phone, that’s it. The good news is that all the pieces needed are already there with services like @magic_labs or @privy_io. --- The resulting landscape becomes pretty exciting, then! There are millions of groups or would-be groups around the world that could really use this technology, if only we, as builders, make it easy for them to do so. --- Let’s do it then! Let’s just keep it simple for now." assertion.