@Larry_Bates Thanks for sharing this research on practical observation of DAO governance behaviors, it’s super valuable for me who are interested in DAO potential implementations on social mechanisms.
I much agree with the need for “automated”. I’d love to know your opinion on if we can define a standard for the degree of this? Does it make sense to use a given percentage to identify its decentralized degree? For example, company laws or regulations in some jurisdictions regulate the dispersion of share ownership for a company seeking for being listed (In Taiwan, the number of registered shareholders is 1,000 or more. Excluding company insiders and any juristic persons in which such insiders hold more than 50 percent of the shares, the number of registered shareholders is at least 500, and the total number of shares they hold is 20 percent or greater of the total issued shares, or at least 10 million). This kind of regulation could be regarded as the decentralization standard that the regulation requires for a listed company. Do you think we can also use some similar approaches to define a DAO? On the other hand, I also learned from Smart Contract Summit 2021: Governance Theory Panel that there are hierarchies in DAO communities by some KOL’s influence, would it make the purpose of seeking for the standard of decentralization become senseless?