If you are interested in theDAO and prediction markets, we have an open bet on the
topic at BitBet :
https://bitbet.us/bet/1255/thedao-to-be-the-largest-crowdsale-ever/
Enjoy !
The BitBet management team.
GREAT
Topic: Do you think that DAO will replace ICO? (Read 1181 times)
If you are interested in theDAO and prediction markets, we have an open bet on the
topic at BitBet :
https://bitbet.us/bet/1255/thedao-to-be-the-largest-crowdsale-ever/
Enjoy !
The BitBet management team.
GREAT
If you are interested in theDAO and prediction markets, we have an open bet on the
topic at BitBet :
https://bitbet.us/bet/1255/thedao-to-be-the-largest-crowdsale-ever/
Enjoy !
The BitBet management team.
https://daohub.org/index.html
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
Pitching the word 'revolution' in the first marketing sentence is a more effective way to start another ETH style pump.
Here we go again with the inane fantasies of the Delirium (Bitalik Vuterin) ecosystem.
No it's not, because it's basically the same as any other ICO.
No there is a very significant difference.
> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.
You seem to not believe and/or understand why direct democracy results in abject failure.
I do not believe in the smart crowd.
This is quite an interesting paradox. There are two very famous sayings that demonstate this.
The wisdom of the crowd is positive: "Two heads are better than one."
The wisdom of the crowd is negative: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
Direct democracy has never existed and never will, because organization of work is incongruent with such a flat decision hierarchy. It is one of the reasons that Communism ends up as despotism.
Switzerland, despite being applauded as a role model of direct democracy in a modern society, actually applies an indirect democracy instead. However, its political system leaves room for direct election and referendum.
Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.
Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.
It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.
This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.
Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.
Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.
It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.
This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.
Athens was run by the merchant class. There was no direct democracy. There never has been and there never will be, because flat structures do not function. The uniform distribution doesn't exist in nature, it is only a delusion of man.
Can you imagine a ship at sea in a storm with 100 people at the helm fighting over each navigation decision.
What you will end up with is a normal corporate structure with a board and the investors will vote to elect the board which oversees and makes the decisions for the corporation.
This is no different than an ICO that matures into being a real company with shareholders.
The real issue here is that crypto-currency which is not distributed by decentralized proof-of-work is masquerading as an illegal unregistered investment security. Thus the desire to side-skirt securities law by creating a token that can vote on governance. But this functionally must end up the same as a voting share in a corporation, thus it is still an illegal, unregistered investment security.
Please quote my post before it is deleted by the mods.
When will two left-thumbs Elmer Fudd (aka theymoist) learn he can't ban an expert hacker. Technically impossible if he also allows anonymous trolls. Make up your mind theymouse. Are you for freedom-of-speech or not? I wanted to respect you, but I learned that you've been censoring the debates about Bitcoin.
Your voting power is equal to your proportion of DAO over the total supply. Remember about the Pareto law ? This would easily fix your governance issue (hopping people holding the majority would not be dumb).
what are the real difference between the two? one appear toi be delegated and the other no, is this a sufficient thing to think that dao is better?
https://daohub.org/index.html
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
Pitching the word 'revolution' in the first marketing sentence is a more effective way to start another ETH style pump.
Here we go again with the inane fantasies of the Delirium (Bitalik Vuterin) ecosystem.
No it's not, because it's basically the same as any other ICO.
No there is a very significant difference.
> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.
You seem to not believe and/or understand why direct democracy results in abject failure.
I do not believe in the smart crowd.
This is quite an interesting paradox. There are two very famous sayings that demonstate this.
The wisdom of the crowd is positive: "Two heads are better than one."
The wisdom of the crowd is negative: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
Direct democracy has never existed and never will, because organization of work is incongruent with such a flat decision hierarchy. It is one of the reasons that Communism ends up as despotism.
Switzerland, despite being applauded as a role model of direct democracy in a modern society, actually applies an indirect democracy instead. However, its political system leaves room for direct election and referendum.
Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.
Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.
It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.
This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.
Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.
Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.
It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.
This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.
Athens was run by the merchant class. There was no direct democracy. There never has been and there never will be, because flat structures do not function. The uniform distribution doesn't exist in nature, it is only a delusion of man.
Can you imagine a ship at sea in a storm with 100 people at the helm fighting over each navigation decision.
What you will end up with is a normal corporate structure with a board and the investors will vote to elect the board which oversees and makes the decisions for the corporation.
This is no different than an ICO that matures into being a real company with shareholders.
The real issue here is that crypto-currency which is not distributed by decentralized proof-of-work is masquerading as an illegal unregistered investment security. Thus the desire to side-skirt securities law by creating a token that can vote on governance. But this functionally must end up the same as a voting share in a corporation, thus it is still an illegal, unregistered investment security.
Please quote my post before it is deleted by the mods.
When will two left-thumbs Elmer Fudd (aka theymoist) learn he can't ban an expert hacker. Technically impossible if he also allows anonymous trolls. Make up your mind theymouse. Are you for freedom-of-speech or not? I wanted to respect you, but I learned that you've been censoring the debates about Bitcoin.
> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
Yes, it may make sense to work with an already established DAO and make a proposal to one, but not to create one as a means of getting funding.
I do not believe in the smart crowd.
This is quite an interesting paradox. There are two very famous sayings that demonstate this.
The wisdom of the crowd is positive: "Two heads are better than one."
The wisdom of the crowd is negative: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
If you are interested in learning about paradoxes and mathematical proofs I would look to Agoras the stuff they are discussing is bending my mind even further latetly. Anyway - the point I'm trying to make is actually by society the "wisdom of a crowd" is yet an unproved concept when determined on a societal level.
Personally, I do believe it but it is also related to the communication and knowledge channels that these crowds are connected too. If the crowd is inherently more decentralized it means beliefs and otherwise are completely different.
Food for thought. But it will be very interesting.
> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
That's where OP is going with this I believe. Interesting.
> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of. Of course, DAO investing is also very risky, but it at least offers some tools to mitigate those risks.
Bottom line, we should soon see a day where companies that are willing to work with DAOs could obtain larger amounts of funds, and those who insist on doing their own ICO would be met with investor skepticism (even more so that currently) and might not be able to raise the kinds of funds they need.
Latest one time, it became possible to collect huge amounts of money in the ICO.
I do not understand only one thing, what they collect them, having a staff of so many experts?
I do not understand only one thing, what they collect them, having a staff of so many experts?
I do not believe in the smart crowd.
No it's not, because it's basically the same as any other ICO.
This question doesn't make much sense. There is no gurantee that a proposal to a DAO will be accepted. In this case, it is basically guranteed that Slock.it's propsal will be accpeted because they were the one who really got TheDAO rolling and community has been working with them nonstop.
If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO and have its creation phase gather funds, then make a proposal to that dao to fund your poject? What if the DAO would only accept to fund the project with X% of the total funds as opposed to 100%?
Why not just directly have your project funded?
A DAO would be optimal when it is funding numerous successful projects.
Since an ICO is connected to a single project, it doesn't make sense to create a DAO..
Or are you referring to TheDAO whose creation is ongoing right now, and suggesting that instead of a project gathering funds through an ICO, they make a proposal to TheDAO (as opposed to creating a new one)?
I know you linked daohub, but i'm not sure if you're just using that as an example of a dao.
If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO and have its creation phase gather funds, then make a proposal to that dao to fund your poject? What if the DAO would only accept to fund the project with X% of the total funds as opposed to 100%?
Why not just directly have your project funded?
A DAO would be optimal when it is funding numerous successful projects.
Since an ICO is connected to a single project, it doesn't make sense to create a DAO..
Or are you referring to TheDAO whose creation is ongoing right now, and suggesting that instead of a project gathering funds through an ICO, they make a proposal to TheDAO (as opposed to creating a new one)?
I know you linked daohub, but i'm not sure if you're just using that as an example of a dao.
https://daohub.org/index.html
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
Discuss
This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.
Discuss
Jump to: