There’s no question that web3 opens up a whole range of organizational possibilities, by providing designers with more sophisticated formal mechanisms. But does it also advance the informal side? What I mean by that is culture, norms, lore, what you might call the goopy stuff or intangibles? Answering this is important because it influences how much a forum like SCRF should even engage with the non-mechanistic dimensions of decentralized design.
I see four main answers.
- Orthogonal. web3, having been designed to advance the “tangibles,” is agnostic to the intangibles, leaving them just as mysterious and important and elusive as they are in traditional orgs.
- Helps. web3, by “solving” the tangible side with ever greater rigor, leads to some kind of renewed focus/clarity/creativity around the importance of getting the intangibles right as well. This would be maybe an “explainable variance” story: organizational outcomes are the result of tangible and intangible components; web3 succeeds at explaining enough variance in the tangible component to bringing focus to the other component with the most variance to explain.
- Hurts. web3 brings attention even further away from the intangibles and their importance. This would be the “lamppost effect” story: organizational innovation in web3 will be driven by the joy of pushing the tangibles as far as they’ll go, because that’s what it give us to push.
- Substitutes. web3 makes it possible to replace all goopy intangibles with mechanisms/tangibles, revolutionizing org design by making all of its important dimensions rigorous, trustless, and secure. “Intangibles? What intangibles?”
What do you think? What should I think? Where I am right now, I’d love to believe it Helps, but I currently believe that it is Agnostic or Hurts, and I’m not a believer in the Substitutes answer.
(This post, by the way, is a fork off of this project update. It develops my reply to @dwither’s comments)