Owocki.Ξth (🍄,🟢) on Twitter / X
“The community has hurt itself by restrictively defining DAO to mean "a community group embracing the tyranny of structurelessness".There's been a rather successful movement to discredit the efforts of any DAO with even a loosely centralized structure as "not being a real DAO".
IMO, this is totally wrong. The "D" can just mean "decentralized governance via a permissionless token", it doesn't have to mean "chaotic loose web of individuals".The "A" in DAO can just mean "some level of smart contract automation to help with high-level decision-making".
it doesn't have to mean "all initiatives must be atomic, well-formed Compound-style direct democracy proposals".The "O" in DAO can just mean what it means in tradfi, "a group of people and resources with a mission & structure to achieve that mission".
It doesn't have to mean "grassroots organization / political movement / aspect of one's personal identity"I think the tyranny of structureless is real and pernicious, for many DAOs its valid to start out being more like "web3 native corporations in a global jurisdiction".
+ then progressively decentralize.Using blockchain tech for what it's good at, ie. highest-level coordination, agreements, financing, etc, & traditional human capital technology (ie. corporate-style structures) for what it's good at: making aggressive progress on big missions.
The above thoughts are from a friend, not my own. But I'm sharing them bc I think they are an interesting counter-trend perspective. I will credit them if they tell me its ok to do so.
Read about the tyranny of the structurelessness here =>
Here is a visualization of the above thread.
wait i was wrong. i think this is right”
