Ok, so it makes sense that you can build certain financial derivatives out of it.
However, there is no explanation of how you build an ‘organization’ out of this.
> Law doesn't stop people from breaking laws or not upholding contracts in the same way that code on the evm doesn't force users to interact with it (people break laws and get arrested after the fact and get liquidated all the time).
Agreed. However this Subthread is a follow on to this earlier comment from another commenter:
“Because it can be enforced without being tied to a specific jurisdiction, expensive lawyers and army of accountants.”
> However, there is no explanation of how you build an ‘organization’ out of this.
There's not a one size fits all of what being a DAO is (and many people bicker about those calling themselves a DAO when they may not be[0], and some protocols are more decentralized on day one than others), maybe this can help you understand some of what's going on by some of the examples listed [1] and the various actors (there are non financial DAO's not talked about here).
> And it seems like you are saying this isn’t true.
It is true to the degree that for the positive/negative incentives to take place -- “a specific jurisdiction, expensive lawyers and army of accountants” -- are not needed like they are with centralized organizations who incorporate in a particular jurisdiction.
Sure, but the point is that there is no mechanism for building ‘organizations’. Nobody is explaining how to build anything other than financial derivatives.
This is useful, but really just an optimization on finance as usual.
Because people can write whatever contracts they want that allow of group users to execute actions. The contracts do not need to have any financial incentives at all.
No one tells people how to build/run a company (and neither does the law in any particular jurisdiction, though they may set some boundaries, just like the evm sets a different sort of boundaries), people come up with their own methods for doing such and spread/share those methods with others.
> No one tells people how to build/run a company (and neither does the law in any particular jurisdiction, though they may set boundaries,
This is essentially false. Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction. If you don’t obey them, the state will impose liabilities by force.
> just like the evm sets boundaries)
This is a completely false comparison. Boundaries set by the evm are nothing like legal boundaries.
> people come up with their own methods for doing such and spread/share those methods with others.
Can you think of an example outside finance, where someone has build a company as a DAO instead of using legal incorporation?
> Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction.
If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do.
People have to come up with these things, turn them in to law (or code), while also varying by jurisdiction (and highly susceptible to selective enforcement unlike code the executes the same way thru the evm) that people break/exploit those rules all the time that go against whats stated in them (people can hack contracts whose logic isn't tightly defined).
> Boundaries set by the evm are nothing like legal boundaries.
I'd say they are far superior than legal boundaries at enabling consistent and transparent interactions between people to the degree that some groups of people decide at using them vs incorporating in any jurisdiction at all like they may have in the past.
> Can you think of an example outside finance, where someone has build a company as a DAO instead of using legal incorporation?
If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list)
> If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do.
Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we stop saying these are equivalent? It’s just not true to pretend they are.
Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.
> although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.
You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.
> Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors?
> It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.
If you can find a quote indicating that I’m pretending that they are consistently used, then by all means call me dishonest.
What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.
> > although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.
> You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.
I looked. However I haven’t researched them all.
Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.
> What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.
Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality (compared to evm where the contract will revert at runtime to the state before such method reverting execution if inputs + contract state go beyond the bounds defined within the contract and within the evm, every single time, for all actors as defined by the contract). Just because enforcement of the law sometimes works, does not remove its systemic flaws that might as well make it no real enforcement mechanism at all (especially so for some actors who can bypass meaningful enforcement pretty much any time they make an infraction).
Granted, you do not have to use anything defined by the evm. But others have and will continue to do so without any jurisdictions permission.
> Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.
I think at this point, you have enough info to start to DYOR if you want to or not. I don't think there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff, and you can come to your own conclusions of ones "goodness" or "badness" and not rely on mine, and what ever you conclude, everyone else will not be bounded by such.
> Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality
No, that’s not ‘arguable’. It’s ridiculous and obviously wrong.
> there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff
Or, far more likely, you simply can’t actually produce a good example.
Given that you could simultaneously prove me wrong and inform other people by doing so, I think it’s clear this is just bluster.
> No, that’s not ‘arguable’. It’s ridiculous and obviously wrong.
I'm arguing it now, you may disagree, but I can for sure tell you that If I had at least 5 felonies like certain corporations do (and the exact same ones they were charged with and merely paid punitive fines for that barely scratched the surface of the profits extracted), I certainly would not be able to continue to operate in certain jurisdictions like they can and continue to do. You may not think such is a utter failure of enforcement, but I do. Thankfully, my actions, thoughts and ideas are not bounded by what you think.
Regardless, there are dao's that are not incorporated in any jurisdiction and are sufficiently decentralized that even if any one or many of their actors that are distributed in many jurisdictions we're arrested or killed, their evm deployed contracts will continue operate just fine regardless of what you or I think of such dao's and the assets of such daos, will remain out of reach of punitive actions of any particular jurisdiction.
> Given that you could simultaneously prove me wrong and inform other people by doing so, I think it’s clear this is just bluster.
Right, ignore the social and non finance related dao's listed in the link I provided, and continue to form your opinions strictly based on someone else definitions of "goodness" or "badness". All just bluster ;)
No, you actually don’t present an argument that inconsistent enforcement is equivalent to no enforcement. You just argue that you don’t like inconsistent enforcement.
> You may not think such is a utter failure of enforcement, but I do.
You are entitled to that judgement of it, but it’s obviously not equivalent to no enforcement. To say so is ridiculous on its face, which is why you haven’t in fact been able to argue it.
> Right, ignore the social and non finance related dao's listed in the link I provided
The fact you can’t pick one out shows that there actually aren’t any good examples. That’s my point. I’m not ignoring them.
However, there is no explanation of how you build an ‘organization’ out of this.
> Law doesn't stop people from breaking laws or not upholding contracts in the same way that code on the evm doesn't force users to interact with it (people break laws and get arrested after the fact and get liquidated all the time).
Agreed. However this Subthread is a follow on to this earlier comment from another commenter:
“Because it can be enforced without being tied to a specific jurisdiction, expensive lawyers and army of accountants.”
And it seems like you are saying this isn’t true.