I had thought one of the points of a DAO was that it was autonomous: not just that there is some voting process, but that the voting process actually controls the functioning of the organization...
I had thought one of the points of a DAO was that it was autonomous: not just that there is some voting process, but that the voting process actually controls the functioning of the organization directly, eg, through causing transfers of funds, creating transactions or putting data on blockchains, and so on. This model does have some attempt to address questions of corporate governance, in that it tries to remove any need for a governing body at all, but is extremely limited in what it can actually do, and, when there are inevitably bugs in code, has its own disastrous results that point out the need for governance beyond code.
Yet of course, this being part of the cryptocurrency community, ConstitutionDAO appears not to have been a DAO in any meaningful sense of the word, in that it was simply a large number of people giving money in an unrestricted way to a group forming an LLC, with a legally and functionally meaningless voting system attached to it, presumably to give (presumably non-binding) advice to the board of the LLC. This didn't, of course, keep them from advertising it as a DAO.
I had thought one of the points of a DAO was that it was autonomous: not just that there is some voting process, but that the voting process actually controls the functioning of the organization directly, eg, through causing transfers of funds, creating transactions or putting data on blockchains, and so on. This model does have some attempt to address questions of corporate governance, in that it tries to remove any need for a governing body at all, but is extremely limited in what it can actually do, and, when there are inevitably bugs in code, has its own disastrous results that point out the need for governance beyond code.
Yet of course, this being part of the cryptocurrency community, ConstitutionDAO appears not to have been a DAO in any meaningful sense of the word, in that it was simply a large number of people giving money in an unrestricted way to a group forming an LLC, with a legally and functionally meaningless voting system attached to it, presumably to give (presumably non-binding) advice to the board of the LLC. This didn't, of course, keep them from advertising it as a DAO.