have been thinking that pro-DAO law reform generally gets this mixed up. Much of the time it focuses on taking an assumed end result (basically a Wyoming-type DAO) and working backwards to that. My preference would instead be to ask questions like “is there any reason why a person ought not to be able to choose to contract with a [true] DAO?” “Is there any reason why participants in a [true] DAO ought not have their personal assets protected from any creditor of the DAO?” “Is it possible and desirable for those things to be recognised and protected, while preserving anonymity?”.
Answers to those questions might end up being policy-led but at least preserve the meaning of a DAO, rather than inserting a Discord group into a hedge fund structure.
This post was *so* overdue. Thank you for the clarifications. Everyone in 'crypto' should read this.
thanks ser 🙌🏻
have been thinking that pro-DAO law reform generally gets this mixed up. Much of the time it focuses on taking an assumed end result (basically a Wyoming-type DAO) and working backwards to that. My preference would instead be to ask questions like “is there any reason why a person ought not to be able to choose to contract with a [true] DAO?” “Is there any reason why participants in a [true] DAO ought not have their personal assets protected from any creditor of the DAO?” “Is it possible and desirable for those things to be recognised and protected, while preserving anonymity?”.
Answers to those questions might end up being policy-led but at least preserve the meaning of a DAO, rather than inserting a Discord group into a hedge fund structure.
I just noticed your framework sort of mirrors the inverse of this tweet:
https://twitter.com/0xkaito/status/1481374225394900995?s=20&t=uvf9AyS0LYs-ModqSX9VIw
Great piece, Gabe. Also, tip of the hat for coining the concept of "non-exit liquidity" recently.
Perhaps one acid test for DAOs can be - is resistant to the concept of non-exit liquidity.
Incredibly helpful post, always grateful for your insight