Scaled Value in DAO Growth Priorities

Are these elegant POAPs from Adrienne’s designs?


How did DAOs grow? What is the meaning of scale when it comes to amorphous dynamic entities like DAOs? This topic is derived from our conversation about democracy and the DAO, which in turn emerges from the conversation about Anticapture. This topic does make sense to us, especially as we consider self-governing structures, and how to build tools that interface with larger cultural structures. Join DAOrayaki to explore what scale and growth mean in different dimensions at DAO and beyond.


What does size mean to you? It is not clearly defined, especially in the DAO ecosystem. Where does DAO start and end? How does it interact with the larger geopolitical bubble we’re in? What is the scale that we bring into this space? Will our future abundance be assured by up and right arrows? What incentives can we consider as an alternative to unlimited growth? How can we learn from other types of organizations to escape these unsustainable developments?

size and structure

In the case of DAOhaus, scale is rooted in our current experience as we continue to scale and integrate other organizations that benefit from our platform. Different levels of our organizations and communities seem to require different types of structures. As they expand, do structural changes need to be made to keep them efficient and alive? As an organization, how can we reflect on our structures to assess whether they are still working as intended? Are there any indicators to help us judge that this may all turn into a mess?

What is the size of the DAO? Can one person be a DAO or does it require multiple signers? Is 100 people enough? Can the whole world be formed into a DAO? Is Dunbar’s number[1] the limit for a DAO community? Are there limits? If conversations and connections are too difficult, information starts to crumble. Should we adopt divisions and should this be part of the process?

Let us remember unstructured tyranny [2]. Without structure, the loudest sound in a room can have the most impact, so of course we need some kind of structure to avoid that, but what’s the minimum feasible size? How do we think about the right size for various applications? As a local consideration, how do we move from a universal or standard Dunbar number to an oscillating Dunbar number that reflects the needs of the community?

Crypto Twitter proclaims that flat organizations are stupid, DAOs don’t work, organizations should start with centralization and can then move to decentralization [3]. Some of the way we deal with scale is technology-related, so some of the reflections in the 70s didn’t take into account the changes over the years. How big a community is, and where the limits are, is an ever-changing variable.

Scale and Bias

Why is our bias implied in the expansion of scale?

Manufacturing is an economy of scale, but the traditional problem of optimizing efficiency in business has led to an unfortunate race to the bottom. We try to capture market share through marketing and need to dynamically adjust size based on the momentum of our competitors. Why do we organize our industry this way? This feels like colonialism, like a crusade to conquer fragile territories and exploit their resources, leading to ideological warfare. We must figure out an alternative scaling method to avoid the tyranny of tyranny!

As an organization grows and gains trust and accountability from the community, the need for scale goes hand in hand with earning and spending more money. Is there also a need for prediction in these entanglements? The scaling strategies between different social systems are very different. We tend to see scaling and the pursuit of pure growth as undesirable, but we all like to see ETH rise and society’s opinion on DAOs improve. Is this hypocritical? Is this an inevitable and unavoidable contradiction?

Positive-sum games are not the only way. Let’s continue to challenge each other to make intentional adjustments to our organizational design by asking why. There are of course good reasons to scale, but we should ensure that this development supports our core principles and values. The increase in scale greatly increases coordination costs. If we’re not prepared for this, then Moloch wins! “.

We should hold ourselves accountable and come up with an alternative. We can consider forming linkers as an alternative to traditional collectives. “Connectors can reduce swelling tissue structures that are trying to engulf each other”.

Scale and Narrative

We are stewards of our own narratives, but we must recognize that there is a potential for cultural capture. When self-interest is scaled, it becomes a failure of uncontrolled organizational ambition. How can we organize differently, codifying our collective values ​​into agreements? We should focus on scaling our values ​​rather than our organization.

The NFT community likes to talk about the top 100 true fans. They believe that value comes from true believers and does not necessarily need to be on a large scale (although this is not always the case). Organizations are ephemeral and fragmented. Individuals can allow organizations to have different distributions of strength and size, but this requires breaking our old habits.

Let’s harmonize the terminology and start by agreeing on the usage of scale when trying to design it. When we first think about scale, it seems like it just adds more people, but must that be true? Can it scale without becoming a giant? How do variables such as influence, income, value, and relevance come into play? What skills do we need to develop today?

Scale and Mechanism Design

Should there be a size limit? Who decides these limits? Are we going to design a mechanism that allows world governments to override the DAO ecosystem? Can a more humble scale be identified, one that is more aligned with our values?

We like to use two pizzas to describe our preferred team size: each internal team should be small enough to feed it on two pizzas. ?? Once we get close to a certain threshold, the nervousness of the big team can drag and distract us, and we respect each other’s perspectives while being nervous to focus on development. How can we improve the emotional intelligence of organizations and individuals to ensure that scaling does not silence the voices of contributors, who also represent the principles we want to scale.

An organization cannot optimize without sacrificing value. Perhaps scaling for value is a gradual path, so time needs to be considered here. What are your principles and how do you know you stick to them? How long will it take to implement these principles?

“A life well spent” (A life well spent[4], proposed by DAOist and Token Engineering Commons) is working on reward systems, and they raise some interesting questions. How do we establish our values? How do we rely on the Honor code? How do we think about encoding ethics into our protocols? “As long as the project remains dynamic, we can withdraw in anger with our shares at any time, which is great.”

 “Your morals are my chances,” says David Phelps.

The famous book Antifragile[5] is a good example here. We become stronger as a group when we experience challenges. Let’s learn from the challenges of other organizations. We have enough history to refer to.

scale and success

“What metrics do you use to define winning or losing?” ?

MetaFactory said something like, “You can’t compete with people who are having fun”. In a globally dispersed community, it is very interesting to think about how our local values ​​connect with global dynamics. For example, many things that Americans care about are not attractive to Europeans. So, how do we use “soft power” in a very deliberate way, with a powerful story that can get the most people to change their conception of success?

We should constantly test strategies and preconceived notions of success. How do other concepts, like spiritual satisfaction or acting with integrity and dignity, work out in this “professional” field? We can be sensitive to things that seem absurd to challenge our perceptions beyond outdated mindsets.

“Let’s go to kindergarten together.” This childish remark is not meant to express immaturity, but to welcome the innocent expression of fresh ideas. We must continually remind ourselves that our activities do not have to be competitive or adversarial. There are other games (games) to play!

size and community

The founders of DAOhaus put their own funds into the organization as shares, and what we have today is a scaled-up version of this initial structure. They invite more people into the DAO who apply for shares at a set price. The inner working circle was established when there were about 10 people. The core team is now 30-40 people and operates as part of a larger ecosystem. Every step the organization takes, the structure is reassessed, but deciding on day one to become a DAO and maintain decentralized power is definitely a part of our success.

Forced to scale up regardless of community needs or sensitive nodes, just like some L1 challengers, trying to achieve a technologically ideal other side. “It’s like irrigating in the desert”. We need to ask ourselves first, how did people come together? “What kind of reality are we building?”

Some really successful communities decided to DAO up. Bankless has experienced a continuous transformation from podcaster to brand to fandom to community to token. The culture of the community serves Bankless, and they have differentiated guilds. RaidGuild started as a DAO with just a few people, and then slowly grew.

Community-run products receive large amounts of cash and use the cash they grab to change the staking of the entire ecosystem. Are “money influence” and “community influence” equivalent? The DAO narrative is being distorted by money, which affects how people enter the circle. When investors say here’s $200,000 and you can build a Meetup group, they want a return.

What technology can we use to resist this momentum, shift this narrative, and put the community back on top of the various protocols? Can we be more specialized and do less to create some redundancy and allow for growth through composability? How do we ensure it is done in a sustainable and repeatable way?

“Why don’t online communities foster true human relationships? How can we do better?”?

Are we failing in the people-to-people connections we want to encourage and support? It turns out that online communities can create powerful friendships. Issues of friendship and trust at the human level evoke Tools for Conviviality by Ivan Illich, a powerful statement by groups opposed to mining. At DAOhaus, we advocate and optimize a different set of values, rather than focusing solely on scale. Here, let’s imagine a different future, where the rich don’t get richer and the voices of the few are heard.

“We are carefully and intentionally designing this transition.”

It is DAOrayaki’s mission to build a public media that puts democracy above profit, where the rich no longer manipulate public opinion and the voices of the few can be heard. Let’s make up our minds to live up to this vision!

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
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.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-04-06 10:22
Next 2022-04-06 10:26

Related articles