How do DAOs work?
As a new form of collaboration, it is quite different from the company. The company interviewed through layers of screening, eliminated most of the candidates, and sought the optimal solution for that expectation in the vast crowd. DAO, on the other hand, is open to all rivers, and you can go and stay at will. Judging a person’s contribution to the DAO through PoW. People who are not suitable or good at it are inefficient, and if they continue to stay without the expected reward, then he will naturally quit. This is more of a survival of the fittest that follows the laws of nature.
Because of its low entry threshold, DAO allows all those who are interested in participating in it to easily participate in the operation of DAO. As a DAO with rapid development today, Bankless DAO can be said to be quite successful in the closed loop of operation and governance. At present, Bankless DAO has thirteen unions in writing, finance, translation, research, operations, marketing, law, education, design, business development, development, video, and data analysis, as well as management groups such as multi-signature groups and grant committees. Most guilds and groups are governed through voluntary participation and voting by members. Just write your name on the corresponding Notion page. The success of Bankless DAO is mainly due to the following points:
- Good community atmosphere: The threshold for joining DAO is low, and value output can be started in a very short period. Due to the large number of channels and the wide professional span, whether it is an industry expert or a meeting recorder, everyone can find what they like to do here.
- Continue to evolve in problem-finding and problem-solving: unifying values through a vision. Respect everyone’s right to speak, and everyone is their own master. Put decision-making in the collective hands. Governance decisions are made through the wisdom of the crowd. Enables communities to continuously drive new initiatives and implement actions quickly.
- Several guilds gather people with specific talents, and then through reasonable allocation of human, material and financial resources to reach the approved proposal. However, due to the decentralization of DAO, most projects received much more spiritual support than action support when they were launched. Projects without actual action would be eliminated, and the preliminary project screening process was completed by collective consensus.
- Response speed when implementing decision-making: Consensus is divided into two types: soft and hard. Proposals related to financial budget belong to the consensus hard consensus passed by voting and require full DAO-level voting; soft consensus does not clearly stipulate the plan, and there will also be some problems, but the overall pros outweigh the cons.
- When the scale of DAO is large enough, multi-threaded projects can be carried out at the same time; some irrelevant interests are set up, just for entertainment and active atmosphere, to improve the sense of identity and belonging within the DAO; lower the entry threshold of formal members to attract more The more people come to join, the more people will have more contributions to accelerate the development of DAO.
When everyone has a strong sense of belonging and pride, they can do their best to contribute their abilities and jointly develop and grow DAO. All DAO members can also benefit from it (reputation, network or money) when more funds are obtained. The whole process will form a closed-loop flywheel, leading members to move forward with great strides in the Web3 world.
Athenian Democracy and the DAO
The author believes that the governance form of DAO is very similar to Athenian democracy:
- Thorough direct democracy, majority vote. A political form in which all the people (DAO members) participate in major decision-making. It is an ideal democratic political form, but it is difficult to implement due to the vast size of the country (the DAO members are many and the organization is large), and most of them have a representative system (the contribution is greater). DAO member/leader).
- Members of the collective are considered citizens (DAO members), women, children and slaves cannot be considered citizens (people who have entered a DAO and enjoy the benefits of this DAO, but are not involved in governance).
- All voters have a very high degree of participation, and if they do not participate in governance, they will be punished.
There are also differences:
- In Athenian-style democracy, there was a shard exile law, whereby the people of Athens could vote to force a person into exile, with the aim of expelling political figures who might threaten the democratic system of Athens. What are politicians who threaten democracy? That is, a leader who is good enough to lead the people. So the purpose of this bill is to expel those who are excellent, as long as all citizens are the same, not those who are particularly excellent in a certain aspect, because such people are not conducive to the development of the democratic system.
In the governance of DAO, because of the low threshold, the ability and productivity of most people are not enough to be competent for a certain job independently. Through the natural selection mechanism mentioned above, let people with better ability take up the position of team leader. On the premise of passing the proposal, unify the meager but numerous productive forces to do the same thing, so as to achieve the purpose of improving efficiency.
- In the city-state of Athens, whether it was the Citizens’ Assembly, the Council of Five Hundreds, or the People’s Court, each vote had the same weight. The downside of such voting is that the decisions made under this law depend to a considerable extent on the sentiments of citizens, which often fluctuate with the encouragement of some politicians. Therefore, citizens may not always be able to make well-thought-out judgments of officials’ merits and demerits, and judgments made with pottery votes may not be accurate.
In the governance of DAO, if the PoW mechanism is adopted in the early stage of establishment to evaluate everyone’s contribution to the DAO, and then allocate Token quota/airdrop. It can not only eliminate those who are not highly motivated, but also give the most weight to those who understand the DAO situation best, so that there will be no major mistakes in key decision-making and the entire DAO will be destroyed.
How to divide the cake reasonably
Decentralization is the method, not the end. If you blindly pursue decentralization of everything, then although everyone is equal in DAO, there will definitely be differences in ability in work. Over time, those who have excellent working ability, whose views are in line with the development of DAO, and who actively participate in the entire DAO governance, will be elected as everyone’s opinion leaders due to the influence of herd mentality. As the saying goes, talking about money hurts feelings. Even the proposals put forward by opinion leaders are unlikely to convince everyone. Then we can build a fairer and more decentralized solution to solve this problem.
- Through the will of the group leader, a large number of PoW proposals are initially classified, and then the first step of benefit distribution is carried out among each group, and then the second step of intra-group distribution is carried out.
- The team leader sets the corresponding remuneration for each job. And according to the needs of the DAO, it has the right to increase the remuneration for certain types of tasks, so as to guide the team members to work
- Temporary work is issued by the team leader, and team members are on a first-come, first-served basis. When there is no similar workload evaluation standard, the team leader will evaluate it according to factors such as the urgency of the matter and the difficulty of the work.
- When additional workload occurs, special contributors should be rewarded based on the results. Can be brought up by anyone, but needs to be justified or quantified as standard work often. Evaluating only the results can avoid those wasted efforts and let the members think about what to do to get the results more efficiently.
A more decentralized proposal voting system
The voting weight of each person is determined according to the number of pledged VeTokens (the weight is 1 before the issuance of tokens, and the group leader is additionally weighted). When the workload of all votes is too large, [lazy voting] will be adopted, and when the percentage of the current number of affirmative votes to the number of votes exceeds X%, it will be deemed passed.
SnapFingers DAO’s PoW pilot scheme adopts a decentralized proposal voting system that sacrifices certain efficiency, and absorbs some of the advantages of centralized governance. The author refers to the calculation formula of ICPDAO, combined with the specific situation, and designed our own PoW scheme.
- After completing the work, the Owner initiates a proposal and gives the desired [size], states the reason for the offer, and adds proof of work.
- By randomly matching two jobs of the same/similar [size] in a cycle, let the entire working group of n people vote.
In theory, the workload of the two people is the same, and the number of votes [votes] obtained are both n/2.
- The actual [reward] at the time of allocation is the theoretical [size] × coefficient
- During the early trial operation, game theory was used to converge the theoretical quotation [size] of each job to a consensus range (small fluctuations are allowed, because the quality of completion varies).
- When this quotation reference table is completed, the number of random matching scores can be reduced, thereby improving efficiency.
- The voter will also have a percentage showing how well he can rate a person correctly.
Advantages of this program:
- The quotation [size] of each job is not made by one person, but the final result of consensus.
- Increasing the number of random matches dilutes the emotional votes between team members due to relationship likes and dislikes.
- Fuzzy matching can increase the matching voting range and avoid too few scoring times.
- Work in extreme cases (too big or too small) can also be quoted through a special contribution.
- After the quotation reference table is completed, the reduced number of matches can greatly reduce the workload and improve efficiency.
- Through the supervision of the mechanism, everyone can self-adjust the quotation; let the voters think about voting with their hearts.
- The influence of malicious bid competitors will be minimized and will eventually be eliminated as the cycle repeats.
- There is a [reward] deduction for those who do not work seriously, and there are additional bonus rewards for those who work hard.
Of course there are also some disadvantages:
- If the small group is large enough, it can use [vote] biased voting to exclude dissidents.
- Election bribery cannot be avoided. But with the increase in the number of working groups, the difficulty of bribery will also increase accordingly.
Governance of DAOs is a very difficult subject, and if all the bad extremes are taken into account, it will become an impossible triangle that cannot be completed. Therefore, we can only assume that everyone who joins the DAO has the same beautiful goal as the collective – to grow our DAO and build it better. On this premise, formulate a plan, and try to solve all the problems that can be covered. The author will continue to devote to the research of DAO governance, and welcome all friends who resonate with this plan to have a deeper discussion.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/how-to-design-daos-pow-criteria-and-balance-the-impossible-triangle/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.