Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The concept of a DAO is too simplistic when presented in all these examples. An organization has multiple levels and on each level there are many decisions being made constantly. Some escalate up, some don't. You cannot just expect that each decision within an organization will be decided via a DAO's shareholder voting mechanism because what will ultimately happen is, there are so many actions to vote on, shareholders will ignore most. If there were 100 shareholders, 2 voted yes, 1 voted no and 97 didn't vote. Do you proceed? This is why a board exists, to represent the interests of shareholders. How much work do you think would get done if you needed to prioritize things with a large body of shareholders on a regular basis?


It's the same problem with proposals for radical direct democracy (i.e. without representation). You'll probably end up with very, very low turnout.


What about a variant which employs representative democracy? Shareholders vote for members to serve on a decision making board.


And then the board selects a CEO to run the day-to-day operations... and we're back to the current system.


they would get done exactly as much as the shareholders were incentivized to do




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: