This essay is a consequence of the demanding yet satisfying creation process of 12thMan DAO. As my perception of DAOs changed and still changes almost daily, I had to start writing down my most interesting thoughts in order to clear my vision.
I will touch on their nature, purpose and importance in today’s world.
Please consider this a storage of my most important thoughts.
DAOs - communities/movements with a collective treasury and governance?
Fools we are.
Wanted a revolution, but stayed within the old lines,
Fools we are.
Wanted a change, but did not expel the old mind.
Fools we are.
Wanted a new life, but worshiped the same gods.
The corporate culture has made its mark on people. We are used to inch-to-inch management. We are used to being under control, under the lights of higher entities that look for the slightest act of ours not corresponding with their expectations.
Thus, we are used to limiting our creativity, and we stopped expressing our views and opinions.
DAOs could be a revolution. They may not be strictly meant as a replacement for corporations, but they are definitely an answer to people calling for more meaningful lives, socially-wise or work-wise. DAOs will never beat corporations at their own playground, but the same goes the other way. DAOs are DAOs, corporations are corporations, they both have specific traits and strenghts.
So, why do we still keep mixing the two’s? Is it a habit? Is it the dizziness of sudden freedom that emerged from order? Or have we just not realized it yet?
We question ourselves: why is it that DAOs did not achieve their promised success? Because our change has not been complete, we have not adapted to DAOs; we have not adapted to their nature. We still think of them as on-chain corporations, and we still think of ourselves as employees. Yes, the DAOs are not in a perfect state right now, but they are much better than we think. We look for problems in governance, in membership, in tokenomics. We look for problems everywhere, just to not look within ourselves.
And to add to our wound of ignorance, no one seems to question the purpose of DAOs, why are they important for humanity? What does their sudden arrival mean?
DAO needs you to be absolutely free and autonymous. Express your opinions, let people align with your ideas, create with heart, debate with conviction and reason.
Just be yourself, break the chains of the old habit and prejudice. People without these qualities will never realize the true power of DAOs. They will be just another ones calling DAOs failures when it’s them who failed.
There is too much technical understanding, not enough alignment.
There is too much over-documented work, not enough essays.
There are too many NPCs, not enough individuals.
There is too much fake acceptence, not enough debates.
There is too much of corporations in DAOs and not enough communities and movements in them.
DAOs are asking so little from us, and corporations too much. One wants one’s empowerment, the other wants one’s submission. Yet, even with this acknowledgement, it seems so difficult to escape the spares of a conductor and become the conductor and musician in oneself.
But isn’t this transition already familiar to humankind? We have already undergone similar changes in history. From authoritarian regimes that require submission to democratic systems that require empowerment. One system makes people objects, the other one subjects. DAOs are just another cycle of further emphasis on one’s individuality. Where we are no longer viewed as tools in a functioning machine.
Where one is given a chance to express himself. Where the machine stops being a machine made of many components who perform given tasks, and starts to become an organism of living creatures.
In corporations, the only tool used for alignment is money. If we forget certain parts of human nature, it’s the only tool in corporations that makes us seek agreements with other people. It is a bribe we accept, to accept views and opinions of others, even if we don’t agree with them. It is a bribe we accept to sacrifice our own individuality.
It is a bribe we accept to pretend alignment with others in order to reach our individual goals - make more money.
We have individualistic goals that deprive us of our very own individuality. In movements, we gather around common goals that enlighten our individuality.
Unpretended individuality results in a healthier community. When a collective is gathered around fake incentives, failure is almost inveitable, as the foundation of the collective is based on lies. So why should you wear a mask to a place you go willingly and happily? Why should you wear a mask to a place of self-expression?
Why should you wear a mask when there is no judge above you? The imaginary ladder of DAOs can only be climbed by impressing other individuals with your contributions. Only this reputation can take you higher, but even if you already got on top, there is always someone who can get ahead of you in the eyes of others.
No firmly given positions; everything is in movement; everything is in process, just like in life, just like in collectives.
Only when we throw away our masks in pursuit of a greater shared goal and purpose, alignment can emerge.
Super-detailed instructions are for tools, for components, for machines, for corporations.
Essays are for people, for individuals, for movements, for communities, for DAOs.
One makes you a tool, the other a human. One makes you a part of the machine, the other individual in a collective. One requires strict following of the script, the other requires self-expression and creativity. One limits alignment, the other is made for it.
Why align with others? Because there are no movements without alignment. Alignment is the beating heart of the collective. Alignment is the feeling of unspoken collective agreement or disagreement on a given thing.
You can align with others based on the purpose of a certain collective, but there are still X individuals whose opinions and views stay hidden from you. The only assurance of alignment with others available to you is the assumption of alignment based on the main idea/purpose of the collective.
That’s why essays are great tools that deepen the alignment between individuals in the collective. One reads an essay of another, and aligns with his views if they fit his subjective truth. As an essay is a tool of self-expression, one reads a self-expression of another and therefore aligns with him if an “agreement” is reached. In collectives, essays serve as a tool for alignment.
Studies and other formats of text that don’t possess the self-expressing nature can never create such alignment. As their purpose is to provide an objective truth, unlike essays, which provide a subjective truth - the subjective truth of the author.
Once many similar subjective truths meet, a collective is created, with the subjective truth being the beating heart. Studies and informative texts may include information the author does not agree with, thus align with - objective truth, and therefore the whole promise of alignment has been lost.
(This paragraph serves as a comparison, not as a way to downplay informative texts such as studies etc.)
The women in "The Burning Giraffe" are alienated from their true selves by the demands and expectations of men, which are materialized into the crutch-like structures set on the women’s backs. Some believe it’s those precise structures that give women their beauty, others see them as limitations and don’t think of them as a worthy sacrifice for one’s true self.
In corporations, people are alienated from their true selves by the demands and expectations of governing authority, which are materialized into the crutch-like structures set on the people’s backs. Some believe it’s those precise structures that enable collectives to maximize their output, others see them as limitations, and don’t think of them as a worthy sacrifice for one’s individuality.
Again, here is a game of opinions, worldviews, and values being played. In every society, these crutch-like structures set on people’s backs are present, without them, society would be in total chaos. So even in DAOs, people’s freedom is limited to a point. However, in DAOs, there is more freedom due to two main factors:
The rules are created and approved by the whole collective, not by a single or multiple authorities. This lightens the weight of these crutch-like structures, as they are created on demand of the collective.
The anarchic and democratic nature of DAOs prevents the high density of these crutch-like structures.
Even if DAOs are not a reaction to corporations and the way they function, one still cannot deny the fact that most of the time they are exact opposites. Even when it comes to people who support one or the other. These extremist groups will differ as much as the two concepts do.
One supports collective decision-making, the other says it’s a waste of time.
One opposes surveillance, the other says people perform best when they are under such state.
One is a creator, the other is a worker.
One believes in the process, the other in the result.
These are people with completely different worldviews and values. They coexist in our world. Just like DAOs can coexist with corporations. DAOs are for people feeling lost in the world of corporations. Corporations are for people feeling lost in the world of DAOs.
Debates spark life into DAOs. Individuals spark life into debates. Without debates, there’s no alignment. Without debates, there’s no correctly functioning democracy, which is one of the foundation stones of DAOs.
Governance is a place where the final decisions are made, then get materialized into a single vote. Debates and essays are the actions leading towards the final decision, they provide us with the context that led to the decision.
Debates and discussions lead to alignment and understanding, as you need at least two people: as their roles in debate continuesly switch they come closer to a conclusion, which can vary depending on the two debating personas. Conclusion is then followed by alignment and understanding.
You could argue that the same goes for corporations, and it does to a point. As long as the two people are in the same position of power. Some managers propose the idea of a debate. But what they don’t realize is that their very own position of power destroys the concept of debate. Therefore, what was supposed to be a debate becomes a theater where actors compete for the favor of the "higher" entity.
In DAOs, everyone’s voice has the same value apart from the abstract reputation, which one can gain from participation in debates and other activities in the DAO or even outside of it. This feature of equality enables debates to be debates and not a theater.
Corporations are the materialization of the thoughts of the highest authority in the hierarchy. These thoughts go through the grasps of employees, which form them and add something of themselves despite the strict formulas.
Despite the attempts, individuality, creativity, and self-expression cannot be limited. Unfortunately, this doesn’t change the fact that only the highest authority is aligned with the idea of the collective.
DAOs are the materialization of the thoughts of its participating members. Any member is free to create proposals. The proposal is the materialization of the thoughts of its creator. The result of the voting is then the materialization of the thoughts of the participants. Therefore, every member is aligned with the idea of the collective to a certain point and feels like an important part of it.
Why even bother with this innovation? You look around and see companies or authoritarian communities give themselves this fancy name “DAO”. Few authorities give members the power to influence the direction of the “DAO”, until they don’t, until they are dissatisfied with the result of the voting.
Decentralisation is directly linked to democracy. Centralisation is linked to authoritianism. Centralisation is minimised in every possible corner and decentralisation comes into place. To not follow this principle is to not follow true democracy and DAOs.
“I am part of a collective, therefore, I have to try to limit my individuality, which may disrupt the harmony of the collective.”
First of all, there is no harmony in a collective full of pretenders. Harmony, in this case, is only an illusion that we feed ourselves to save the already dead idea of the collective.
“I am part of a collective, therefore, I should NOT try to limit my individuality in order for collective harmony to emerge from truth, as it cannot emerge from falsehood.”
This is the correct mindset for any DAO member, as this is the whole promise of the DAO concept. Why individualism in DAOs?
If they are a reaction to authoritarian corporations limiting one’s individuality and one’s self, then their purpose is to make an individual flourish and not disappear in an attempt to merge with others.
If they are a reaction to authoritarian corporations, then their nature is democratic.
In a healthy democracy, there is no need to hide your personal opinions, on the contrary, it wants you to state your views that start a debate leading to a certain public opinion.
Is a democratic country partly ruled by authoritarian corporations democratic?
Is a democratic country partly ruled by democratic organizations democratic?
When the power of the most powerful was split into millions and millions of pieces and was assigned to the hands of ordinary people, humankind invented a new way to preserve the power of the majority. And so the corporations were created as a hideout for megalomaniacs.
Any form of truly democratic organization can be considered a pushback. Offline, online, off-chain, or on-chain, it doesn’t matter. Their purpose remains the same as long as they are not chained.