D.A.O.s have hardened their voting systems. The Quorums have gotten lower and the whales who vote accumulate more. Rather than speed running the history of governance, we have perpetuated the norms of a late stage republican democracy (the long way of saying plutocratic & oligarchic). This article looks to shake that up. 

Cryptocurrency looked to be a trailblazer and a leader in innovation. Solving the Byzantine Question was a great feat but it wasn't enough to continue innovation. We watched as Ethereum launched and continued to attract the best and brightest developers to push the narrative of a smart contract platform. 

Human coordination, the center of all life, was to be improved with the idea of a decentralized autonomous organization. The words lead people to think that the job would be easy. The idea that an organization is autonomous might lead people to think it needs much less improvement than it does. 

These D.A.O's were further dilapidated when governance tokens were issued. The demand for these tokens was thought to be as a representation of the people's desire to vote in the organization. I hate to be the one to say it, but they became little less than stocks. 

These tokens became items of speculation. D.A.O's went forward attempting to work with less than 10% of tokens being used in any given vote, and quorum being reached by a small cadre of individuals (often less than 10). These organizations became solidified and elevated oligarchs with large purses to the head of any ballot. 

All you need is money to vote, and of course if you put your money somewhere you mean well by the investment right? Some people don't care about money. Money does not make you care about the project. I might own millions of dollars of Apple Shares but I assure you, I could not build an iPhone nor could I run the company. Why do we expect more from crypto holders?

Cryptocurrency markets live and breathe on the backs of a few people. Whole protocols rely on a handful of hardworking people to continue working hard. Without these few the whole picture falls apart. I understand why these people might also be the majority holders in the token, and they may have everyone's best interest at heart.

But what if they don't? What if a group chooses not to improve & innovate but to slow the application to nothing? Of course you can head to your nearest exchange and dump the token, but what if you want the token? What if you are so passionately drive that you wish to change the course? You can't get around the fact that these persons own the majority of the tokens. 

This state of organization in cryptocurrency is plutocracy & oligarchy. We often hear Bankless say that crypto is speed running the history of money and finance, but this is not true about governance. If we began this way in governance we would have struggled through democracy, entered the period of the god king, found ourselves in a monarchic period and back to republican democracy. 

This isn't where we are though. We jumped straight to the period of the late stage wealthy representative democracy where all powers are reserved by a finite group of individuals. The act of voting is without merit because most of the decisions would be made regardless of the candidate. Only wealthy candidates can go for office. Only wealthy token holders can force quorum.

The French Were Right Again

The French are probably the most important people in the world when it comes to democracy. I go back and read the social contracts that they so labored to weave into the fabric of society. Charles Montesquieu is probably one of my favorite French philosophers, and the invention of Checks and Balances is important. 

I ask myself, "What checks do I have against the wealthy holders of a token in my D.A.O.'s?" I have only one, but in this article I propose new organizations should develop a second. 

The existing check on power that we have is the social contract. The power that we need to establish is democracy.

The Social Contract is a code by which an organization can measure itself and its actions. When an organization strays away from its social contract, it begins to fall apart and failure is eminent. This contract is the fabric and the basis of human coordination in each and every organization. 

The Principle of all Sovereignty lies resides imprescriptibly in the nation.  - Marquis de Lafayette's Declaration of the Rights of Man

Lafayette wanted to ensure that the King of France was aware that he was not the source of the power of France, but it was the people of France. The king was a mere result of their honor, reverence and respect for him. 

There is much to add to this. Every token holder, every voter, and every person who uses the protocol is a member of the nation that makes it great. If the app sucked, their'd be no users and the contract would be dead. If there were no token? 

When the United States was trying to find its way, there was a great debate about effective representation at the federal level. One house based on population (benefits the northern more populous states), or one house with equal representation regardless of population (benefits less populous southern states). 

Eventually, someone said, "Why not both?"

This was probably the smartest idea anyone had. Currently, D.A.O.'s are ruled by the token whales, or by people who can afford to buy them. But there should be a second house, where participation, both on-chain & off-chain, rewards users with non-transferable tokens. 

These tokens would be the engine of the second house. It also allows communities to experiment with governance on chain without the need to airdrop tokens to a community. 

The Political liberty, of the subject (separation of powers), is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion of each person has of safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one need not be afraid of another. Charles Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws

The alternative experience of this second house will have some odd effects. In the absence of financial incentives, far less people will look to be members of the organization. But those who do show up might be more true and more willing to work with the social contract in mind. 

I'd even argue that most organizations that use Decentralized Technologies don't even need a token, but would do much better with a non-transferable token. 

There is a great need to encourage decentralized governance without the need token weighted voting. The presence of a second house provides a place for people who don't own much of the token supply to contend with those who do. This offers a chance for friction. Friction offers a chance for sharpening.

In order to continue innovating we need shake things up. I think this is a good start in that direction. 

D.A.O.s have hardened their voting systems. The Quorums have gotten lower and the whales who vote accumulate more. Rather than speed running the history of governance, we have perpetuated the norms of a late stage republican democracy (the long way of saying plutocratic & oligarchic). This article looks to shake that up. 

Cryptocurrency looked to be a trailblazer and a leader in innovation. Solving the Byzantine Question was a great feat but it wasn't enough to continue innovation. We watched as Ethereum launched and continued to attract the best and brightest developers to push the narrative of a smart contract platform. 

Human coordination, the center of all life, was to be improved with the idea of a decentralized autonomous organization. The words lead people to think that the job would be easy. The idea that an organization is autonomous might lead people to think it needs much less improvement than it does. 

These D.A.O's were further dilapidated when governance tokens were issued. The demand for these tokens was thought to be as a representation of the people's desire to vote in the organization. I hate to be the one to say it, but they became little less than stocks. 

These tokens became items of speculation. D.A.O's went forward attempting to work with less than 10% of tokens being used in any given vote, and quorum being reached by a small cadre of individuals (often less than 10). These organizations became solidified and elevated oligarchs with large purses to the head of any ballot. 

All you need is money to vote, and of course if you put your money somewhere you mean well by the investment right? Some people don't care about money. Money does not make you care about the project. I might own millions of dollars of Apple Shares but I assure you, I could not build an iPhone nor could I run the company. Why do we expect more from crypto holders?

Cryptocurrency markets live and breathe on the backs of a few people. Whole protocols rely on a handful of hardworking people to continue working hard. Without these few the whole picture falls apart. I understand why these people might also be the majority holders in the token, and they may have everyone's best interest at heart.

But what if they don't? What if a group chooses not to improve & innovate but to slow the application to nothing? Of course you can head to your nearest exchange and dump the token, but what if you want the token? What if you are so passionately drive that you wish to change the course? You can't get around the fact that these persons own the majority of the tokens. 

This state of organization in cryptocurrency is plutocracy & oligarchy. We often hear Bankless say that crypto is speed running the history of money and finance, but this is not true about governance. If we began this way in governance we would have struggled through democracy, entered the period of the god king, found ourselves in a monarchic period and back to republican democracy. 

This isn't where we are though. We jumped straight to the period of the late stage wealthy representative democracy where all powers are reserved by a finite group of individuals. The act of voting is without merit because most of the decisions would be made regardless of the candidate. Only wealthy candidates can go for office. Only wealthy token holders can force quorum.

The French Were Right Again

The French are probably the most important people in the world when it comes to democracy. I go back and read the social contracts that they so labored to weave into the fabric of society. Charles Montesquieu is probably one of my favorite French philosophers, and the invention of Checks and Balances is important. 

I ask myself, "What checks do I have against the wealthy holders of a token in my D.A.O.'s?" I have only one, but in this article I propose new organizations should develop a second. 

The existing check on power that we have is the social contract. The power that we need to establish is democracy.

The Social Contract is a code by which an organization can measure itself and its actions. When an organization strays away from its social contract, it begins to fall apart and failure is eminent. This contract is the fabric and the basis of human coordination in each and every organization. 

The Principle of all Sovereignty lies resides imprescriptibly in the nation.  - Marquis de Lafayette's Declaration of the Rights of Man

Lafayette wanted to ensure that the King of France was aware that he was not the source of the power of France, but it was the people of France. The king was a mere result of their honor, reverence and respect for him. 

There is much to add to this. Every token holder, every voter, and every person who uses the protocol is a member of the nation that makes it great. If the app sucked, their'd be no users and the contract would be dead. If there were no token? 

When the United States was trying to find its way, there was a great debate about effective representation at the federal level. One house based on population (benefits the northern more populous states), or one house with equal representation regardless of population (benefits less populous southern states). 

Eventually, someone said, "Why not both?"

This was probably the smartest idea anyone had. Currently, D.A.O.'s are ruled by the token whales, or by people who can afford to buy them. But there should be a second house, where participation, both on-chain & off-chain, rewards users with non-transferable tokens. 

These tokens would be the engine of the second house. It also allows communities to experiment with governance on chain without the need to airdrop tokens to a community. 

The Political liberty, of the subject (separation of powers), is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion of each person has of safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one need not be afraid of another. Charles Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws

The alternative experience of this second house will have some odd effects. In the absence of financial incentives, far less people will look to be members of the organization. But those who do show up might be more true and more willing to work with the social contract in mind. 

I'd even argue that most organizations that use Decentralized Technologies don't even need a token, but would do much better with a non-transferable token. 

There is a great need to encourage decentralized governance without the need token weighted voting. The presence of a second house provides a place for people who don't own much of the token supply to contend with those who do. This offers a chance for friction. Friction offers a chance for sharpening.

In order to continue innovating we need shake things up. I think this is a good start in that direction.