Session 4
A spirited conversation about how and to whom to ascribe governing privileges. Watch:
The sidebar was smokin’:
Massimo: This reminds me of Proof of Stake consensus mechanism.
Terrence: I’d say folks could delegate their power to folks they think would make good decisions, but we get back to the problems of voting systems more broadly, yup, delegated proof of stake.
Lenara: Ilan’s idea of sortition (aka jury duty) can be useful for some things
Terrence: As long as folks need more than just buying a token to get into position to have power delegated to them
Massimo: Yes I also like the random choice idea.
Terrence: so that folks could be trusted with the power, skin in the game, known quantity, etc. So delegate then but make folks vet through being a presence in the community first. I think the initial thing of the places in the ecosystem being different for governance and technical things vs the creation is key. Division of labor. But trust is absolutely required to keep it from descending into political games.
SerSte: We could test some ways, maybe in small groups.
Terrence: So it then gets back to how those folks without the drawing only orientation prove themselves, which Bea was getting at 😄.
SerSte: So if I have the token to vote, I can give it to Judy, the expert, and then she would have the power to vote for me, right? Exactly. ok!
Terrence: Correct, slightly different in the technical (you give it to a voting contract on chain). I’m not familiar with liquid democracy much, but a term just spun out in my head from it based on what we were talking about re DPOS. Liquid republic: i.e., constantly changing delegation depending on proven expertise. Within reason, but fun idea!
Ilan: Yes… and if you feel like the person is not making the right decisions you can withdraw your delegation to them at any time.
Serste: It could promote eclecticism.
Judy: It triggers memories of constantly changing executives when I worked in advertising in corporate America… :(
Terrence: like I say, within reason.
Judy: YES.
Terrence: I can see the chaos even now. It’s why the initial filter for getting into the system, so to speak, is so important; can’t be gameable.
Ilan: yes… but the idea is that the delegation is for only a particular area, not to control over the whole organization.
Terrence: oh absolutely.
SerSte: It can be just a part of the mechanism, as the randomness part.
Terrence: But we’re really talking rates and proportions, rather than moral values, which is excellent!
Massimo:
Judy: Thanks, Massimo.
Terrence: Totally Judy. Attaching a number to that sort of earned prestige is insane. The whole point is there isn’t one there. Some “inefficiencies” are there for a reason.
Karen: A delayed comment, FWIW: Getting to a point where I can live driven entirely by intrinsic values is my own life goal. However, I think it’s important to remember that being able to say “intrinsic motive is its own reward” is a hugely privileged thing. Not everyone has that luxury. So how to convince people whose lives are truly affected by extrinsic lack to let go of the “what’s in it for me” wiring?
Lenara: So basically in regards to Karen’s question, DADA will naturally filter out that mentality.
Karen: Live by example, in other words. :)
Judy: Hopefully.
Lenara: Yes, hopefully, the example will make a difference. It is important to see in the world examples of things to be inspired by, or even to be aware that something exists in the realm of possibilities and might be felt as close enough or achievable.
Terrence: It’s a little out of place to use it here, but I get authoritarian parallels.
Lenara:
As Bea likes to say, what’s the point of voting if someone else chooses the options on the ballot.
Judy: Or there are no real options.
Lenara: Theoretically because there are more informed folks on certain topics, in practice: money
but the ones you want are not even there
Terrence: Yup yup. Some stuff scales differently. Dunbar’s number and all that.
Lenara: We have been talking about growing, improving, changing. If DADA was made immutable 2, 3 years ago we would not be here now discussing.
Terrence: Absolutely! Was just a thought experiment.
Serste: Your insights are precious, Terrence!
Sparrow: Agree with Serste… I think your insights are really valuable TS.
Judy: YAS
Terrence: Thank you guys ❤️
Lenara: Yes, in this case, other members of DADA served as a check-in, or at least an alerting system.
SerSte: I didn’t understand we had to compete.
Lenara: Yes and it needs to be fast enough, like emergency brakes.
Terrence: Editorial voice, tone.
Judy: @Serste haha it’s not going to be a competition.
Serste: good to know already I usually fail then! Well… let’s take it as a test.
Terrence: Now I know why you’re so good 😄
Sparrow: I would look at it as cooperating to get a gift of money from the sponsors of the event.
Lenara: Yes. Good point, Marko.
Lenara: Accounts can become compromised. It’s a big deal. We need to think about it.
Terrence: and crypto UX and ed itself is pretty poor too, honestly.
Lenara: How to reinstate someone if their account gets taken, how to revoke “reputation” associated with that account, how to reissue to a new account, etc.
[Ilan mentioned there should be a DADA Constitution]
Serste: An assembly?
Lenara: The usual way the crypto world deals is “that person was dumb, they deserve this.”
Karen: Short instructional manifesto. :)
And matching tattoos.
Terrence: How much DAO talk/research has gone on? I like designing for the MVP first is real good. Yup, design for the outcome you want in the most minimal way possible. Mechanism only, but what you’re tracking with it.
Sparrow: But from my experience, DAO terms muddy more than help.
Terrence:
For sure, but the stuff like what happens when folks ghost, etc. There are out of the box mechanisms for, I get that we're talking about the higher level.
Heady stuff! See you in two weeks!
