"I, 000000000000000000257044a9121b4ad1a5713c1b3d572c764615da760cc7e8, the leader of this great company, have clearly not done enough to foster a civil workplace environment. We are not yet to the point where A & B can get along, despite my best efforts. As of now, I am appointing 000000000000000000c5e37703f9f0a3c051d832bf46b9a0876ddf34bbc6b768 to the newly created position of Global Head of HR, a move this will ensure we all be able to express ourselves freely and effectively in the near future."
Well, that's not working out well with Bitcoin right now. The "shareholder" in this case are people with mining power, and the fight about blocksize has been going on way too long now.
In the case of a DAO, who would decide the framework of a contract, like what percentage of shareholders has to vote for yes/no, how long that vote goes on until the decision takes place, and such?
Imagine a company is going badly, and there's a proposal to pivot. Should shareholders with a bigger share but no knowledge about the topic really have the bigger share in the vote? Does the pivot take place when 50% vote yes, or 75? Or maybe just 10%?
Blockchains are great for a lot of things, but these things seem a lot like they're just shifting focus and reponsibility from one point to another.
There's huge problems with:
How to organise (no identities/reputation makes difficult business, has money is no substitute)
How to profit (profit = inefficiency)
How to update (see: Bitcoin)
Who will check contracts (see: The DAO)
And then there's all the problems you would usually have with a normal company.
So basically you're trading a HUGE amount of features (the entire world!) in favour of absolutely executed code. And the code is not even easy to make or anything.
6 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadIn the case of a DAO, who would decide the framework of a contract, like what percentage of shareholders has to vote for yes/no, how long that vote goes on until the decision takes place, and such?
Imagine a company is going badly, and there's a proposal to pivot. Should shareholders with a bigger share but no knowledge about the topic really have the bigger share in the vote? Does the pivot take place when 50% vote yes, or 75? Or maybe just 10%?
Blockchains are great for a lot of things, but these things seem a lot like they're just shifting focus and reponsibility from one point to another.
And then there's all the problems you would usually have with a normal company.
So basically you're trading a HUGE amount of features (the entire world!) in favour of absolutely executed code. And the code is not even easy to make or anything.