
Aragon: Decentralized Organizations - bpierre
https://aragon.org/
======
cr2032
A system that is built on standardized forms that are used for documentation
and votes... calls itself bureaucracy-free?

~~~
lainga
As someone on HN once said, "bureaucracy is systems design for people who are
bad with APIs". That said, I'm not sure naming your product after one of
Spain's autonomous communities is the best idea.

------
jacques_chester
I don't see this working.

In most countries the law has wide acceptance, international recognition, deep
supporting ecosystems, but most of all: access to and authority to command
thousands of men and women with guns and dogs.

Courts are no going to say "oh, shucks, smart contract eh? I guess my power to
exercise judicial review is magically repelled, fooey!"

They are going to hand down judgements. As with other forms of private law,
they will generally not interfere, but they will never surrender the _power_
to interfere, and they will be able to do so whether you or I like it or not.

~~~
joshlemer
However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital currencies
in the general case. Maybe they can arbitrarily threaten the humans involved
(if they can find out who they are), but the state has no ability to control
digital assets.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital
> currencies in the general case._

They don't have to. Judgements are not necessarily scoped to the digital
currency. If someone wins a judgement over a dispute about a smart contract,
they will probably present exactly your argument. The judge can instead enter
orders against bank accounts, crypto exchange accounts (yours or the
exchange's), against your harddrive with cryptocoins on it, garnish your
wages, exercise your options even at a loss, seize or place liens on property,
seize passports, hold people in contempt etc etc.

All of which will be enforceable by men and women with guns and dogs.

Leaving the alternatives of: obey the actual law and make good in some other
way, or disobey the actual law in favour of "smart contracts". Good luck with
that.

~~~
russdpale
It seems there are two logical assumptions being made here that are, in my
opinion, inconclusive to say the least. That is first, the idea that the law
cannot adapt to allow such organizations, and second, that these organizations
would in and of themselves be adversary to the law in which they operate.

~~~
jacques_chester
The common law already recognises unincorporated associations and there is a
rich body of caselaw and legislation built around them.

But the point is not whether there is an adversarial relationship _with_ the
law. The basic concept of the judicial system is that it is an impartial
mechanism for settling disputes and punishing crimes.

The impartiality has no bearing on smart contracts except so far as they will
be considered to resemble existing principles of contract, unincorporated
associations and the like. The common law typically upholds private agreements
and typically defers to private rulemaking where it does not have an
overriding principle that must be applied.

But ultimately there will be disputes about what the smart contract was
_meant_ to be, or about whether a vote was legitimate, whether the principles
of natural justice have been observed and so on and so forth. One or more
parties to the scheme will ask the justice system to settle the dispute and
there will be times where the justice system will in fact do so.

And it will be able to enforce its decisions against someone's will and
without any need to follow the code.

------
0x00_in_the_sh
Really hope something like this takes off. Been waiting for some sort of
decentralized organizational platform that can allow companies to be built and
crowdsourced ephemerally, based on ideas and supported through cryptocurrency
rewards.

Even the idea of building some sort internet shadow group that uses a platform
like this to influence ideas/products/movements is really cool.

