When people talk about a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), they sound to me, a native-born Israeli, like they are talking about a Kibbutz.

A Kibbutz is an original Israeli social invention. An intentional community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The first kibbutz was established in 1909. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial factories and high-tech enterprises. The Kibbutz began as a utopian community, a combination of socialism and the rise of the Israeli national movement.

The basic tenet of the Kibbutz was

Everyone will contribute according to his/her capabilities

To everyone, we will give according to his/her needs

Decisions about governance in the Kibbutz are discussed and voted in the general assembly of the members. Each member has equal voting power.

A DAO is an organization governed by its members, with decisions obtained through voting. The voting power of a member is relative to the number of tokens of the DAO that the member owns.

There are variations of this idea, but the general concept is voting power relative to the amount of token ownership.

Universal Creative Income is an argument to use company revenue to fund a Universal Creative Income program for emerging creators on the platform.

The Kibbutz has, over the years, developed similar programs allowing some members to become creators. This was well before the concept of creator economy was invented.

Measured in the decades, the Kibbutz declined as a successful social experiment. One of the reasons was an over-expansion of the economic endeavors attempted by the Kibbutz, which resulted in a debt crisis.

However, a more fundamental reason was the inability of many of these communities to sustain themselves in the long run, as younger generations decided to move into the standard form of living.

Moreover, the individual economic success of members due to employment outside the community has gradually created a sense of inequality, with some members earning significantly more income.

Gradually the Kibbutz turned into a community that is more of a residential community, with members owning their houses and paying for some common residential services.

From my experience as a freelancer and participating in cooperative freelancing, it is often the case that as long as people feel that they contribute approximately equally to the cooperation, they feel well with it.

Once there is a gross imbalance in the contribution, the collaboration eventually deteriorates, and then it is each to its own.

It is well known that there is a power law in the creator economy with earnings concentrated in the top tier of creators.

So while all these DAO ideas seem ideal, a social experiment at a much larger time scale seems to have failed, possibly being contradictory to human economic nature.

I believe a DAO can be suitable for a small group for a few years. Like a student dorm. But it does not seem like something that would stand the test of time.

When people talk about a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), they sound to me, a native-born Israeli, like they are talking about a Kibbutz.

A Kibbutz is an original Israeli social invention. An intentional community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The first kibbutz was established in 1909. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial factories and high-tech enterprises. The Kibbutz began as a utopian community, a combination of socialism and the rise of the Israeli national movement.

The basic tenet of the Kibbutz was

Everyone will contribute according to his/her capabilities

To everyone, we will give according to his/her needs

Decisions about governance in the Kibbutz are discussed and voted in the general assembly of the members. Each member has equal voting power.

A DAO is an organization governed by its members, with decisions obtained through voting. The voting power of a member is relative to the number of tokens of the DAO that the member owns.

There are variations of this idea, but the general concept is voting power relative to the amount of token ownership.

Universal Creative Income is an argument to use company revenue to fund a Universal Creative Income program for emerging creators on the platform.

The Kibbutz has, over the years, developed similar programs allowing some members to become creators. This was well before the concept of creator economy was invented.

Measured in the decades, the Kibbutz declined as a successful social experiment. One of the reasons was an over-expansion of the economic endeavors attempted by the Kibbutz, which resulted in a debt crisis.

However, a more fundamental reason was the inability of many of these communities to sustain themselves in the long run, as younger generations decided to move into the standard form of living.

Moreover, the individual economic success of members due to employment outside the community has gradually created a sense of inequality, with some members earning significantly more income.

Gradually the Kibbutz turned into a community that is more of a residential community, with members owning their houses and paying for some common residential services.

From my experience as a freelancer and participating in cooperative freelancing, it is often the case that as long as people feel that they contribute approximately equally to the cooperation, they feel well with it.

Once there is a gross imbalance in the contribution, the collaboration eventually deteriorates, and then it is each to its own.

It is well known that there is a power law in the creator economy with earnings concentrated in the top tier of creators.

So while all these DAO ideas seem ideal, a social experiment at a much larger time scale seems to have failed, possibly being contradictory to human economic nature.

I believe a DAO can be suitable for a small group for a few years. Like a student dorm. But it does not seem like something that would stand the test of time.