Original author:Jaleel，BlockBeats
Original editor: Jack, BlockBeats
Establishing a complete fork mechanism does not mean encouraging forks, but forks may be an inevitable consequence of DAO becoming decentralized.
The fork of NounsDAO has been discussed many times, but it was actually implemented last month after Proposal 356 of NounsDAO V3 was officially passed. After the Fork v3 proposal is passed, the NounsDAO official website launches the fork page, and holders can join the fork and split the DAO treasury. The time window to support the fork is one week. According to the rules, after the window period ends, if 20% of Nouns NFT supports the fork, the supporters will separate from the NounsDAO body and directly divide the corresponding proportion of ETH from the treasury.
On September 9, 214 Nouns NFTs chose to join the fork, exceeding 20%. At that time, the fork of NounsDAO was destined to happen.
Does the fork mechanism necessarily cause forks? How did the crisis of trust occur? In addition to decentralization, DAO also needs to be de-humanized? What reasonable level of dehumanization should be achieved? With the progress of Nouns fork, the debate about DAO fork has once again been brought to the stage, forcing the entire crypto community to re-examine the governance of DAO and re-understand fork. These issues may be an ongoing challenge for all DAO organizations.
Exploration of DAO governance mechanism
The DAO, recognized by many OGs as one of the most elegant in the crypto industry, forked.
Nouns was born on August 8, 2021, and to this day, as part of the main culture of Nouns, the auction that takes place every 24 hours is still ongoing. After each auction, 100% of the proceeds are sent to the treasury to be managed by Nouns owners.
On September 16, this day is called Fork Day by the Nouns community, and NounsDAO completed the fork. 472 of the 846 Nouns NFTs joined the fork, and more than half of the holders chose to leave Nouns. They withdrew nearly $27.3 million in ETH from the treasury.
Quitting doesn’t just mean “quitting in anger”
The biggest difference between the forked NounsDAO fork 0 and the original NounsDAO is that it has a ragequit mechanism. Like forks, the angry withdrawal mechanism has been discussed many times in NounsDAO, but has never been implemented.
“Contrary to what many people understand, rage quit is not just used to describe the behavior of DAO members quitting in anger.”During the interview with BlockBeats, Wang Chao (OG), an OG participant in the DAO field@cw web3) said so. The angry quit function first came from the design of the Moloch protocol. If members are very dissatisfied with a project they decide to invest in, they can vote against it. After voting against, if the proposal is still passed, members have seven days to choose to quit in anger. In this DAO, the proposal will not be executed until seven days later. This waiting period is the window for dissatisfied members to perform an angry exit. However, the practice of the angry exit function is not common in the DAO field, and it can even be said to be very limited.
The angry withdrawal function allows members to exit by burning their own tokens in exchange for a certain proportion of the treasury share. MolochDAO derived from the Moloch protocol can be said to be the pioneer of investment in DAO. It is a DAO that promotes ETH 2.0 through donations. It is also the first DAO launched based on the Moloch V1 version protocol. After receiving support from Vitalik and ConsenSys founder Joesph Lubin who donated 1,000 ETH each, Moloch became famous. It can be said that most of the investment DAOs currently running around the world are built on Moloch.
Since then, the “angry withdrawal mechanism” has been gradually adopted by some DAOs. Under the consensus of the majority of people, a small group of people will also be considered to follow their personal wishes. This is the value of the angry retreat mechanism. For example, if a DAO member disagrees with the group consensus on decision-making, he or she can exercise the ability to retreat.
Since NounsDAO is open, anyone can join freely. As the wishes of members continue to evolve, it is inevitable that the DAO will bring together many different opinions. As the DAO gathers more and more dissatisfied members, anger quitting may have been an option long ago.
In March of this year, 4156, one of the founders of NounsDAO, wrote on his blog about his thoughts on the angry exit mechanism: The original design of angry exit was to protect the minority in the DAO and prevent them from being oppressed by the majority. The basic logic is: if a proposal is supported by the majority but opposed by a minority, then these opposing members have the right to withdraw their share of the DAO treasury and withdraw before the proposal is implemented.
An extreme example is a 51% attack, where a majority of voters propose withdrawing the entire treasury. But more likely to be concerns about legal risks or dissatisfaction with the allocation of funds. We cannot clearly code in the agreement when the rights of the minority should be protected, so their rights are ultimately protected by the angry exit mechanism. Reasonable implementation of angry exit can not only provide protection for the DAO minority, but also prevent an existing minority from transforming into a majority through strategic actions. Developing a highly compatible rage exit mechanism should be considered a priority, as this will ensure that minorities are protected in the future and allow the DAO to focus more on its core goals.
Related Reading:Thinking About Rage Quit: NounsDAO founder 4156’s thoughts on the rage withdrawal mechanism》
Vesta Finance, a DeFi lending protocol in which crypto KOL DCFGod participated as an investor and serves as a strategic advisor, has also recently fallen into a major disagreement among the project team. Two of the projects three co-founders, James Atum Peterson and Midnight, posted a rage quit proposal on the governance forum to exit the project.
Some investors, including early backers of the project, have called for a rage exit. Ogle, the main investor in Vesta, believes that for investors at present, angry exit is the best outcome. It will be very difficult to recover from this. Several DAO members are also strongly demanding angry exit, which is a big blow to all related parties. Its all the best solution for everyone.
On the issue of whether the angry withdrawal mechanism is important, BlockBeats interviewed Shawn (@ShawnMelUni), Shawn believes that a DAO should have three basic mechanisms: one is to ensure multiple signatures from the treasury, the other is to have a complete on-chain voting mechanism, and the next is the angry withdrawal mechanism.
In an interview with BlockBeats,ShawnHe has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the construction of the angry withdrawal mechanism to the DAO organization: In the DAO organization, the angry withdrawal mechanism should be the most basic and bottom-level function. At present, many teams, whether they succeed or fail, will encounter various problems in the early stage. It is not uncommon for team members to leave because of different opinions. However, if there is an angry quit mechanism, most problems can be solved relatively smoothly. After all, it can also solve the partnership problems we often encounter in traditional companies. I personally believe that the angry withdrawal mechanism is a cornerstone of DAO.
The guardian behind DAO in the middle of the night
When NounsDAO forked, I seemed to have seen the classic moment of fork between Ethereum and Ethereum in 2016. Compared with the angry retreat ignored by many DAOs, forking is one of the most native cultures in the encryption industry. one.
Brian Flynn (@Flynnjamm), CEO of Rabbithole, expressed similar sentiments. He supported this fork and chose to join NounsDAO fork 0. In his eyes, the original NounsDAO is more like ETC, while the forked one is more like ETH.
Forks allow the holder group to migrate to a new protocol instance together, thereby maintaining the original ecological momentum as much as possible. The most famous examples are the Ethereum Classic fork and the Bitcoin Cash fork.
As a well-known NFT collector, xaix 2k is also the owner of Noun 1. He successfully bid for Nouns first auction on August 8, 2021 with 613.37 ETH. Although he did not comment much on the subsequent development of Nouns, it was obvious that he had reservations about the fork and retreat of Nouns, believing that it was unfair to early holders.
Nouns Protector Governance TeamSaid that they strongly support the fork behavior, but they still voted against the 356 fork proposal. The reasons focus on two major aspects: First, mixed issues. Proposal 356 bundles two very different issues. The Fork proposal involves deep incentive and organizational structural changes, while the V3 feature focuses on improving the governance engagement process. This bundling confuses discussions and leads to loss of governance transparency.
More importantly, the NounsDAO Fork proposal bypasses regular procedures and should not be proposed by just one team. From inception to implementation, the Fork feature is emotion-driven and eschews expected processes. After the angry exit of Prop. 248, a utopian voice emerged in the community, envisioning an infinitely forked NounsDAO future. Two emotional currents rushed to launch the Nouns DAO Fork feature, bypassing regular procedures.
The incentive mechanism of the quickly introduced fork mechanism will distort the behavior of community participants. Therefore.Nouns Protector Governance TeamIt is recommended to reject proposal 356, promote the V3 upgrade without Fork function, return the Fork function to the research stage, launch the DAOFork Research Sprint, solicit research from multiple parties, and advance the proposal again.
When a new proposal emerges, members of the governance team do a lot of research behind the scenes and discuss it at a meeting every Tuesday at 8 p.m. Sometimes when I see some good proposals, I feel very lucky that I have the votes to support them. This kind of thing is worth spending time to study. On the other hand, for proposals that are so bad that I want to shoot them down, I am glad that there is such a thing as Nouns Protector Organize to supervise.”
Nouns ProtectorThey will not vote in favor. They choose to appear in front of relatively radical proposals. They believe that everyone will like excellent proposals and vote in favor. However, proposals that waste money need to be identified and supervised. thereforeNouns ProtectorOnly vote against and abstain, present the risks to the DAO members, pour cold water on the fever of brainstorming, like a cold guardian of NounsDAO, the guardian behind the DAO in the middle of the night.
Re-understand bifurcation
For many people, whether they are forks or retreats, they seem to be signs that the DAO is experiencing pain and confusion, a bad omen. Because of this, many opinions believe that the first fork of Nouns involved more than 28,000 ETH, which is an astonishing number and a very bad thing.
But Jacob, the co-founder of Zora, has a positive view on the Nouns fork. Generally speaking, the fork is a good thing.
Jacob believes that unlike Ethereum’s forks to combat large-scale hacking attacks, Nouns’s forks are long-term and ongoing and have become an inherent part of the protocol. The design of Nouns is an improvement because it allows Noun holders easily choose whether to fork, while the entire community can transparently monitor the process.
Not only that, unlike Ethereum’s forks, where people can own both ETH and ETC, Nouns holders have to choose between the original Nouns and the new version. At the same time, this fork provides a complete exit mechanism. Through this design of Nouns, users can choose to exit peacefully and at the same time get back the value behind their Nouns, which is approximately 36.6 ETH.
Related Reading:Zora founder talks about Nouns, Fork is a good thing》
Establishing a complete forking mechanism does not mean that forking is encouraged, nor does it mean that forking is a necessity. Forking is just an option, and the forking mechanism is just a function.
Healthy forks are positive sum evolution
The forking mechanism is perhaps the most unique feature of DAO. It allows copying and creating new versions of the system under new ownership. Just like mutations in biological evolution, small changes in DNA can cause new species to arise while old ones remain.
The NounsDAO fork incident is considered a big event in the encryption circle on the outside. One of the big reasons is that the community is rethinking and understanding the fork. Although bifurcation is a big challenge and can lead to reduced mobility, less concentration of talent, and increased management complexity. But when a community grows large and wealth accumulates, forking may be a natural result. This may also be a touchstone for DAO. A DAO that can solve these problems may be a successful experiment.
If we think of DAO governance as about finding consensus among countless decisions, rather than just about getting a handful of decisions from the top, then we can think of it as a way for large groups to break up into smaller ones when they find it difficult to coordinate. , efficient subgroups while also creating value for each other. From this perspective, forking is actually the highest form of decentralization, which transforms governance into social interaction and helps people find like-minded small groups to achieve their goals.
At its core, this form of governance encourages the community to share and express its preferences: good governance is a good user experience. Through healthy disagreements, we can encourage the formation of sub-DAOs, which in turn drives the development and growth of the ecosystem. Bifurcation, like cell division and biological reproduction, can produce diversity.
A healthy fork is not only an improvement in technology or governance model, but also a refinement of community culture and values. It allows a large community to be subdivided into smaller, more focused groups that serve their own unique needs and goals. This segmentation is not a zero-sum game—one group gains and another loses. Rather, it is positive-sum in that each subgroup can innovate and prosper according to its specific needs and goals.
In most cases, forks occur because the community is divided on an issue. Large organizations will inevitably face disagreements, and if these differences are irreconcilable, they may lead to bifurcation. All organizations that can survive will have a group of staunch fans. As long as the overall consensus is not damaged, the community will not die.
But from another perspective, forking can be seen as a way of evolution of the community. Just as species adapt to their environment through natural selection and variation, communities can fork to adapt to their unique challenges and opportunities. This adaptability ensures the persistence and resilience of communities, allowing them to thrive in the ever-changing crypto landscape.
In the era of memes and CC0, there are many invisible forks. A new perspective and new use case based on the core IP story is a fork. By incentivizing anyone to use its IP for free, more value will be returned to the core IP. By abandoning the requirement for short-term revenue, the value of the brand may become more valuable.
This is still a kind of brand building and marketing communication for memes and CC0s IP itself. Therefore, forks are not just a zero-sum game of replacing the original version, but also a positive-sum game of accumulating value back to the original IP and brand.
subDAO is another form of fork
There are already many subDAOs in the Nouns ecosystem, which are essentially DAOs that are funded or organized and work in the Nouns ecosystem. Nouns Builder is a tool built specifically to make this precise behavior as easy as possible. By presetting the parameters of the auction, such as auction period, starting price, etc., anyone can initiate a DAO with a Nouns structure. The team behind Nouns Builder is Zora. Zora used the tool he made to build Nouns BuilderDAO. Nouns BuilderDAO applied for 1,000 ETH from the NounsDAO treasury, and then used this startup capital to incubate more creative NounishDAO and spread the Nouns model.
A typical subDAO is LilNouns. Except for the difference in parameters, the rules of LilNouns are basically the same as Nouns in other aspects. The auction cycle of LilNouns is 15 minutes, and the starting price is 0.15 ETH. The votes in the LilNouns treasury will participate in the voting of each Nouns proposal, and by lowering the participation threshold, more members will be brought into the Nouns ecosystem.
Related Reading:Nounish DAO: DAO, governance and the proliferation of cultural symbols》
SubDAO is more flexible and reduces the limitations and impact of large scale and complexity to a certain extent, just like another form of fork.
Maker is one of the oldest DAOs. MakerDAOs annual revenue exceeds US$142 million and project expenditures exceed US$44 million. At this scale, MakerDAO has also struggled with governance coordination issues for years. In order to solve the governance problems in the MakerDAO ecosystem, this established DeFi project announced that it would pass the Endgame plan. During this period, a number of VCs, including a16z, were dissatisfied and sold all their tokens.
In addition to upgrading the brand, subDAO is undoubtedly the biggest feature of Endgame. After all, one problem that no cryptocurrency project can escape is community governance. Rune, the founder of MakerDAO, believes that in order to deeply govern the community, we must reduce complexity into simplicity and split the large and complex system into various subsystems. The goal of Endgames birth is obviously for this purpose.
There are four subDAOs under MakerDAO, among which Sakura DAO is rapidly rising in the Japanese community, and Spark DAO allows the Korean community to find that they can build interactions here. Quant is a SubDAO focused on real world assets (RWA), leveraging technology and scale to create value, combining Makers multi-billion scale with tokenized assets. Quant is a SubDAO focused on real world assets (RWA), leveraging technology and scale to create value, combining Makers multi-billion scale with tokenized assets. Qual is a SubDAO that also focuses on RWA and finance, but Qual is more oriented to the Chinese encryption community and the Southeast Asian community.
In an interview with BlockBeats, MakerDAO founder Rune expressed his views on subDAO: Even when subDAO was still in the hypothetical stage, I had clearly seen that subDAO was the trend of the future. I think anyone who wants to do it in the future Projects that are successful in this field and have the opportunity to expand will all adopt some version of the subDAO model. If separation management is not carried out from the beginning, a DAO can only expand to a certain extent, or can only become a company. , thus abandoning the entire decentralization and governance. Now we have further development, we have shaped the DAO according to the signals of the market and community.”
Related Reading:Exclusive interview with MakerDAO: Solana is not our only choice》
Behind governance wars and arbitrage: how the crisis of trust arises
Many people in the community believe that the main reason for the NounsDAO fork is the erosion of trust among community members. Noun 40 (@noun 40__) also expressed his opinion on this issue: For sure, the reason for adding the fork mechanism is not to pay off arbitrageurs or invite people we disagree with to leave. The reason for adding the forking mechanism is to enable the remaining factions to coordinate with more trust. Im not saying that the fork mechanism necessarily causes forks. My hope and expectation is that the existence of the fork mechanism will allow both parties to receive more sincere cooperation from the other.
Similar trust issues do not only occur on NounsDAO.
BuidlerDAO, Paraspace: Who controls the treasury?
At the beginning of this year, BuildlerDAO was caught in a controversy surrounding the management of its treasury funds and a dispute between the founding team. Chen Jian, a former team member of BuidlerDAO, claimed in his circle of friends that the founder did something that went against the bottom line. In the following time, this statement aroused widespread concern in the community, and there were even rumors that the founder used the national treasury to speculate in coins, which made BuidlerDAO It once fell into a crisis of credibility.
A few months later, BuildlerDAO founder Kui Xiaoba Niels issued a public document to clarify the incident, believing that the incident was caused by a conflict between him and Chen Jian, another core member of the team. According to Kui Xiaoba Niels’ clarification, he admitted that he had adjusted 150,000 U of assets in the treasury to ETH and BTC in December 2022, but this operation was based on the consultation and advice of investors, and this operation did not involve any Signs of funds flowing to individual wallets or exchanges. The data on the chain is as follows: https://etherscan.io/address/0x72Dcfc6F1Aa963d01b1D48C53a1b0630EF87db28.
The BuidlerDAO incident is not just a conflict between the two founding team members, it also reflects core issues such as transparency and automated governance in DAO governance. Although Kui Xiaoba Niels has provided a reasonable explanation for his behavior, because the treasury multi-signature and the rules have not been established before, and the treasury multi-signature wallet of BuildlerDAO is only controlled by Kui Xiaoba Niels, this has also caused him to be criticized. , to some extent weakened the transparency and credibility of BuidlerDAO, and BuidlerDAO also learned a valuable lesson from it.
Not only BuildlerDAO, but Paraspace, a team that has received more than 10 million US dollars in investment from top VCs such as Sequoia, Coinbase, and Founders Fund, also staged a wonderful power struggle due to funding-related issues. On the afternoon of May 10, several well-known KOLs issued warnings about problems with the NFT lending agreement Paraspace and recommended that users withdraw their funds as soon as possible. The news quickly spread on Twitter and the community, triggering intense panic. Paraspace founder Yubo is not only facing accusations of misappropriation of funds, but governance disagreements within Paraspace have also erupted like a volcano.
The cause of the incident was that Paraspace had been hacked and its funds were damaged. When the damaged funds intercepted by the security company BlockSec were returned to Paraspace, the returned funds were not fully returned in time according to the agreement.
In response to the accusation of misappropriation of funds, Yubo stated on Twitter Space that this is because the protocol debt gap is stablecoin, but the funds returned by BlockSec are ETH, so it was decided to gradually sell and make up for the protocol debt gap based on market changes. The address starting with 0x 909 is actually Paraspaces daily operating wallet, which is indeed controlled by Paraspace for efficiency reasons. The premise of the misappropriation of public funds controversy is precisely because Blocksec sent stolen funds to a user address that cannot be controlled by the protocols smart contract. However, the Paraspace team as a whole should immediately decide what address to use to receive the funds after the stolen funds are recovered, and what return process to take after receiving the funds. The main point of contention in this war is the specific return process of funds, which has resulted in a crisis of trust.
Arbitrage that has existed longer than the DAO
Arbitrage in the market has existed longer than the DAO organization itself.
Returning to NounsDAO, the problem of waste of Nouns treasury funds has made community members increasingly dissatisfied. There are endless arbitrageurs, the adoption rate of junk proposals is high, the proposals that pass are not delivered well, participants vote with their feet, and many holders are quite critical. Seneca, one of the founders of NounsDAO, said frankly that in the early days of NounsDAOs development, the attitude towards finance was indeed loose. This not only wasted the opportunity to try many experiments, but also damaged the network value of Nouns. But now NounsDAO should improve this aspect.
Kol hype（@hype_eth) also revealed on social media how nounsbrand stole nearly 400 e (about 640,000 US dollars) from the national treasury: first, he raised 355 e from the national treasury to start building the brand nounsbrand, and then applied to raise 33 e from the national treasury to make a head-shaking product. of bootleg LV luggage, yet they never delivered anything. Now they have also deleted all nouns-related content from their pictures, websites and social networking sites.
0x Bobateas is the proposer of Nounify New York Fashion Week (i.e. Proposition 129). He also disclosed the matter in more detail in an article: After getting acquainted with the Advsiry team, Advsiry promised to provide Advice X Nouns attendance badges and Nouns gifts to guests, Nouns branding at the venue, hosting a Nounish afterparty, displaying Nouns objects designed by Keith Herron on the catwalk, filming a documentary for Nouns, all for a price of 33 ETH.
After leveraging 0x Bobateas connections to drum up support, Proposition 129 passed with a vote of 59 to 1. Disappointingly, however, Nouns was virtually absent from New York Fashion Week events. The proposal was almost never implemented, and 33 ETH was not refunded. This is how the trust among Nouns community members was eroded. Since the birth of Nouns, community members have been thinking about how to use treasury funds to buy influence and become priority decision-makers in the public sphere culture. The proposal was passed loosely and, to many holders, appeared to be a design flaw.
The entire fork process of Nouns was also a large-scale arbitrageur activity.
For fork participants, they can choose to continue using new NFTs in the new Nouns DAO fork, or use the angry exit mechanism to withdraw their ETH contributions in proportion. Considering that participating in the fork may bring a book value of about 35 ETH, and current market dynamics show that Noun’s selling price has been lower than its “book value”, the auction price is mainly between 20-30 ETH, and arbitrageurs are obviously in the middle I saw the room for price difference.
In recent months, arbitrageurs have been actively buying Nouns during market downturns, hoping to trade for higher returns for their ETH after the fork. These voters had recently purchased Nouns at below book value and were opposed to most proposals, with the exception of v3 audits, core development funds, and vote refunds - all of which were directly or Indirectly supporting their arbitrage or cost-saving measures.
Regarding this type of arbitrage behavior, the person in charge of the SeeDAO incubatorShawnHe told BlockBeats: The phenomenon of arbitrage is actually expected. It provides a challenge and opportunity for the DAO organization, and is even a touchstone for the DAO organization. This is just like a witch attack. We cannot avoid witch attacks, but similar Attacks can actually make the organization perfect. It is important that organizations recognize these phenomena and make corresponding adjustments and improvements. Without such challenges, organizations may become complacent and stop making progress.
BlockBeats fromNouns Protector Governance TeamLearned: Operations purely for the purpose of arbitrage account for only a small part of the reasons for Fork. From May this year to before the launch of Fork, it can be seen that the number of Nouners has basically stopped growing, and the auction of Nouns is still in progress. During this period, participating in the auction to hoard Nouns, and going to the secondary market to obtain more Nouns before and after Fork was launched, are normal market behaviors, and there are participants who have real long Nouns and have contributed to Nouns. The impetus for the eventual large-scale participation in Fork should not be attributed to individuals, but to the overall spontaneity.
Not only must it be decentralized, DAO must also be decentralized.
During the interview with BlockBeats, OG participants in the DAO fieldWang ChaoExpressed his opinion: If we follow the standards and concepts of DAO stipulated in the previous Ethereum white paper, there may not yet be a real DAO in the world, because human participation and governance are still required in actual operation.
The idea of a DAO is to automate certain governance processes so that they run continuously without human intervention. In the Ethereum white paper, the real DAO should be a decentralized autonomous organization that does not rely on human coordination at all. Even Bitcoin only realizes this concept to a certain extent, closer to the definition of DAO, but not completely consistent. Strictly speaking, although many organizations call themselves DAOs, they have not yet achieved true autonomy and autonomy. DAO not only needs to be decentralized, but also needs to be dehumanized.
Reduce human rule and move towards autonomy
In some DeFi DAO or community DAO, due to flaws in the design of the governance mechanism or other constraints, excessive human governance has led to unreasonable decisions or actions. On March 28, the Arbitrum community launched the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal 1 (AIP-1) proposal vote on Snapshot, which proposed the introduction of ArbitrumDAO, a decentralized autonomous organizational structure managed by ARB holders. The Arbitrum Foundation will also provide support for ArbitrumDAO To serve and be governed by the community.
However, the voting is not over yet, and the AIP-1 proposal has not yet passed. However, it was revealed in a blog post by Patrick McCorry that the Arbitrum Foundation had created a multi-signature wallet with an address named Arbitrum DAO Treasury 2 in advance, received nearly 700 million ARB Tokens, and had sold ARB Tokens in advance in exchange for Stablecoin. The community and some partners are extremely disappointed with the Arbitrum team and the so-called governance. They believe that AIP-1 is not a real vote and throws the DAO principles directly out of the window. What is the point of such a vote when the content of the proposal has been implemented without the consent of the community?
Although the concept of DAO aims to allow organizations to be completely controlled by code, in reality many DAOs still have too much human participation and decision-making, and these excessive human participation are the essential cause of the trust crisis in DAOs.
In interviews with OG players in the DAO spaceWang ChaoTelling BlockBeats that he also agrees with this view to some extent, If a DAO still requires a lot of human governance, then it may actually have strayed away from the definition of a true DAO. When an organization relies too much on human decision-making, it is closer To a simple decentralized organization, rather than a fully autonomous DAO, he said.
With the development of smart contracts and infrastructure, DAO is gradually increasing its degree of decentralization. For example, NounsDAO has implemented fund management through multi-signature wallets, while using smart contracts to automatically trigger allocations after the proposal is approved.
But complete on-chain governance remains a challenge for many projects. Although the underlying technology continues to improve, many complex decisions and business logic are still difficult to automate. This means that human participation is still necessary in many cases, such as the execution risks DAO faces in the real world, whether it is batch allocation, or review of task completion, and the most important execution proposal, all require human participation .
DAO not only needs to be decentralized, but also how dehumanized it needs to be? This may be an ongoing challenge for all DAO organizations.
After the fork, where do we go?
Which one is more orthodox, the new DAO or the original DAO?
in this problem,Nouns Protector Governance TeamTell BlockBeats that the current debate over orthodoxy is unimportant and that the issue is too early. A lot of the current discussion about legitimacy is just because everyone is pursuing practical interests. If we were to discuss the legitimacy debate of Ethereum in 2016, it would be a bit ridiculous. In the short term, the party holding the most funds often has a greater say. But in the long run, what really matters is which organization can incubate meaningful and valuable innovation.
Of course, many people are worried about the possibility of infinite forks of Nouns. On this issue, BlockBeatsWang ChaoIt is understood that from a tool perspective, Nouns seems to be prone to forking. But in fact, it is believed that forks will not happen frequently. After all, it is extremely challenging to successfully maintain an active and socially consensus organization. Although the recent fork triggered a long debate and exposed some dissatisfaction, I feel that this is only a temporary state. I am not fully aware of the current development trend, but this fork is likely to be a wake-up call. I still believe that Nouns can continue to develop healthily.Wang Chaosaid.
After the fork, where will the holders go? When it comes to the choice between the new DAO and the original DAO, BlockBeats found that the community’s choice is mostly based on loyalty to its own trust. Wherever our trusted friends, teams, and community members are, thats where we choose to go.
Let’s take a look at the precedent MolochDAO after many forks. Since its launch in March 2019, MolochDAO has been forked into multiple DAOs with different goals, such as MetaCartel Ventures and Marketing DAO. Although MolochDAO has not invested in many well-known projects except Tornado.cash, the DAOs forked from MolochDAO today can be described as colorful.
NounsDAOs fork plan has also attracted a lot of attention in the governance of other DAO organizations and has become a reference blueprint for other DAOs. For example, members of FloorDAO also put forward a proposal in the community to implement an angry exit mechanism for token holders by forking the DAO FloorkDAO.
Are full autonomy and decentralization nothing more than utopian phantoms? In this new encrypted world defined by code as law, will human subjective will still play an important role? The fork of NounsDAO also caused many governance practitioners and the encryption community to begin to re-examine the meaning and prospects of DAO.
Perhaps it is difficult for DAO to completely get rid of human influence at present, and the road to autonomy is bumpy and tortuous. But with the advancement of AI tools and crypto industry infrastructure, for those idealists, the future of DAO must be more than just a large experiment.
Special thanks for this article:Nouns Protector Governance Team、Wang Chao, OG participant in DAO field、Shawn, head of SeeDAO incubator。
Reference content:
3.《Introducing Nouns Fork: A Last-Resort Minority Protection Mechanism》
5.《Fork is a good thing: its a new feature, not a bug》
6.《Cross-community sharing-when the elegant NounsDAO encounters governance attacks》
IOS
Android