This is related to the Coffee House discussion we had with Daniel on Thursday.
Specifically, the part of the discussion around the dangers of egos in DAOs.
It is also related to the concept of public goods. There’s a lot to unpack, but I’ll be brief here. Please don’t take absolute language as absolute belief =)
There is no such thing of a public good. Anyone who provides what is called a public good expects something in return. That thing can be external – fame, recognition, respect, social capital, etc. – or internal – warm fuzzies for the good thing they did.
Ignoring this perspective gives an opening for egos to become unmanageable.
Recognizing the possibility of the accuracy of this perspective opens possibilities to limit the control of the ego. This is why blockchain consensus models rooted in open-source code produce such functional DAOs or DAO-like organisms.
Successful DAOs will be skeptical at a cultural level. They will question every “public good” provided by their participants or any outside actor. They will demand verification. If someone rejects the possibility that they get anything from their actions, their elevation through the DAO will be restricted.
Happy Friday!