Session 2. September 1, 2020.
In our second governance session, we started by exploring what makes the behavior on DADA different from other social media and crypto art platforms and why. We also discussed collectors earning the right to collect, just like artists have to earn the right to participate in certain platforms or to answer conversations on DADA, and many other interesting ideas. Watch:
Here are some of the insights shared in the chat:
https://igipartners.com/read-holacracy-comic-book-free#page-1
Marielle: we shouldn’t forget the algorithms/hands behind the scenes that influence who becomes the influencers and who the influencers influence…
Judy: Algorithms are terrible and biased.
On DADA people level up by acquiring dots the more they draw and people can only draw from their dot level and down. However, artists can decide what level can respond to them and most artists, including the ones with more dots, allow all levels to respond.
Marielle: There is something fascinating about the downgrading of one's level as a way of valuing improved access and “fresh blood”.
Judy: It’s a way to welcome everyone or almost everyone to your drawing. To open it to a variety of responses.
Ilan: it’s kind of like an inversion in a way.
Marielle: we should explore the economics of that action.
Ilan spoke about a game designed by Lenara Verle:
http://www.coinspiration.org/game/
Antonio: Why do not we use (maybe fluid or dynamic) “brackets” to control the power of money?
Judy: I have a problem with the concept of donations, because it ascribes charity to something that has value, and should be valued.
Marielle: personally view it as a way of recognizing values that are not being accounted for, rather than a “donation” or charity.
Judy: I agree that donation or support works when its for unaccounted or more abstract value.
Antonio: The quadratic function could work (just as in QV)
James: It’s also very easy to game still. I will split my money into 10 accounts and spend it accordingly = I still have all the power.
The idea of assigning voting rights to collectors sparked an interesting discussion about what this would that entail, or should they have voting power.
Ilan: I feel like x amount of paintings purchased = how much power is tricky.
Marielle: I’m going to explore some classic aesthetics works to see if anything bubbles up.
Antonio: You can equal buying to selling in votes and them stuff is balances (just gotta lower the function for the artists).
Anuj: log(amount) x sqrt(num_paintings) is what I was suggesting. It’s true that it might be possible to game this, but if “buying paintings only” only counts as “1 of 10 activities that earn you votes” then it becomes very difficult to game the system.
Antonio: There can always be a cap based on transactions and the allocation functions could vary to optimize the results.
Sebnem: the question is what will they be able to decide on with that voting <power>, also if the actors want/need it. Is there anything that collectors should be able to decide on because it affects them?
Anuj: or base 10 itself sets a limit — getting 7 votes instead of 6 costs $900,000
James: they could also delegate any votes/credits back to the original creator
or even delegate to a commons DAO
Sebnem: or leave it in the pot and let the community decide what happens etc.
Ilan shared his collections:
https://app.rarible.com/ilan_katin/collectibles
https://superrare.co/blindcollector/collection
https://opensea.io/accounts/BLINDCOLLECTOR
Sam: Have you messed around with https://gallerist.collectorshub.art/?
Antonio:
Evolutionary Stable Strategies: I think if artists always hold majority, the system might be an ESS. I recommend Ben Polak from Yale.
See you in two weeks!
