# "Getting Along" in DAOs

*Are IRL groupchats any different?*

By [For the 💗 of DAO](https://paragraph.com/@ilovedaos) · 2024-04-29

daos, governance, collaboration, getting along, ragequit, consent, coliving, irl

---

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/02797e9b5d388336f5500b03face6f4a.png)

Can we translate digital collaboration in governance to IRL?

Traditions, Paradigms, and Protocols
------------------------------------

* * *

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/a914158562a7825f03ee8abae1eca8b3.jpg)

[@GraceRachmany](https://twitter.com/GraceRachmany)

> "If you are living with other humans, getting along is essential. You need human discussion and consent. For example, ragequit is not a good mechanism for co-living. Deeper understanding and willingness to find compromise isn't part of DAO tooling."
> 
> "Better frameworks for living together are group rituals, culture, storytelling, sharing protocols, and even religion or spirituality. There's rich history in ecovillages and intentional communities about what works and what doesn't."

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/8cb735790bddd4cc102c254cfb9ee49f.jpg)

[@DrNickA](https://twitter.com/DrNickA)

> "they still need to manage money"

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/ea07921638154d752045ef6a0e7def95.jpg)

[@flow\_science](https://twitter.com/flow_science)

> "They still need to manage **_assets_**."
> 
> **Ragequit:** this feature embodies the very spirit of Moloch. It's an action designed for individual self-preservation by removing oneself from the process of collective governance. Anyone who ragequits needs to pack their bags and leave the commune. As identified above, ragequit should be wholly excluded from many community coordination strategies; depending on what the specific governable asset(s) are and the context around the community managing them.
> 
> **Discussion and Consent:** I would reframe these two participatory activities as being 100% essential components in a "_healthy"_ DAO. They can also be embedded as conditions that gate access to proposing and/or voting in various ways. A more nuanced approach is to apply granular permissions on which members & groups in a DAO can create different types of proposals (e.g. [@AstroDao](https://twitter.com/AstroDao) policies) - and by using some sort of "reputation modifiers" to adjust vote weight depending on whether a member participated in a contributing activity.
> 
> **Co-living Frameworks:** as with discussion & consent, we can systematically apply conditions and weights to members' proposal & voting rights based on specific actions performed in any of the co-living strategies mentioned above (e.g. group rituals, storytelling, etc). Defining these conditions along with appropriate input and output metrics can be done fairly easily using flexible documentation & referencing systems like [@eas\_eth](https://twitter.com/eas_eth) and [@HyperfilesOrg](https://twitter.com/HyperfilesOrg).

Contrarian Takes
----------------

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/16cb110b2a6df4f35e02525b6a137ecc.jpg)

[@TheOfficeMystic](https://twitter.com/TheOfficeMystic)

> Ragequit has proven to be a valuable tool in reimagining exit strategies for IRL projects. It _does_ happen a lot, causing dreams to be buried and land sold. Life changes are a part of life, you have to go in prepared to go out even if you think you never will.

* * *

* * *

**This article is composed of excerpts from** [**one of Dr. Nick's post on X**](https://x.com/DrNickA/status/1784666922862219305)**.**

---

*Originally published on [For the 💗 of DAO](https://paragraph.com/@ilovedaos/getting-along-daos)*