There is already a “Genesis DAO” that is being created. Could Bitsquare make a proposal to “The Genesis DAO”. I feel that this is a much better approach than issuing a brand new DAO tokens just for bitshares. The “Genesis DAO” holder can then be the arbitrator for settling disputes in exchange for the arbitration fees etc. I’d like this thread to engage in some serious conversations integrating “Bitsquare” into the “Genesis DAO” like slock.it is being integrated into it.
This way, bitsquare will gain quick traction from thousands of account that is being created by the “Genesis DAO”. Genesis DAO will probably raise close to $100MM by the time the token sale ends. It’s good for so many reasons that I can’t go through it all here. I think the Genesis DAO might vote to approve it. If they don’t then of course bitsquare can create their own DAO, but if they do then it would be really great to grow the Genesis DAO.
If you agree please share this idea to the developers.
What are some thoughts/Criticisms concerning this?
Sorry for the late reply. I am traveling for presenting Bitsquare atm so I did not had enough time (still don’t have) to read suffiently about the DAO to give a meaningful response.
I still have no clear opinion but I tend to be sceptical.
Some random thoughts:
The DAO.Link will be an interesting but central (centralized) and problematic element.
Bitsquare is already operational. The first “seed invetment round” was funded unconventionally by myself (savings, work) and donations. DAO is more focussed for idea-stage/prototype-stage projects.
Bitcoin is the base currency in Bitsquare, I prefer a token solution which does not introduce a dependency to another coin (though that is not too critical to me)
I think in general the blockchain is abused for code execution (contracts) and storage for usages which is only relevant to a special, limited group (e.g. Bitsquare shareholders). I want to use the Bitsquare P2P network and the clients for those tasks (the jvm is much more powerful, faster anc cheaper to execute code then the “ethereum computer”). Bitsquare has the infrastructure in place to use that (a P2P network is the missing for many Dapps, so they use Ethereum for that and have to pay for that). I need the Bitcoin blockchain only for timestamping to avoid double spends when a share is traded. I think fees will rise a lot and I don’t think it is a good idea to run complex code on Ethereum as it gets too expensive and is slow. I will publish a whitepaper about the concept of the Bitsquare DAO hopefully soon.
I think raising a lot of money creates a lot fo liability. My approach is to “stream” the required funds/work over time. So each months there are issued the shares needed to pay for the contributors. That way we reduce risks for both sides and avoid the “trick the un-experienced investor” problem.
One of the main open questions so far is the legal/tax situation. DAO.Link might be a solution but is problematic IMO. My approach is to avoid the problems why regulation or laws are created for (in exchange context: not holding funds, in ICO/IPO context: don’t raise money). But that is the most critical open issue and I need more feedback from lawyers how to setup a virtual cooperation (note: I don’t use the word corporation). To solve legal issues by tricking law with complex and convoluted contructs created by expensive lawyers (defining EHT as software instead of tokens/money) is one way to get around that, but I think it is not the best way and does not scale (not everyone has money for that, using DAO.Link gives them a lot of power).
If anyone has a link to more details how the DAO.Link get around the legal issues please post it here!
I want to emphasize that even the above sounds very anti-DAO I am interested in their conecpt but had still no time to get a clear picture and I am sceptical if the hype around it is justified.
DAO.Link is only an intermediary between slock.it and TheDao. Non one is forced to use them, If you want some funds and free publicity theDao can definetely help but maybe you just want to stay a niche product who knows…
The legal and tax issues might be pretty complicate to solve without using DAO.Link, si I fear that will become a central point in the system for any dao. I know it is not mandatory but if the alternative is to spend yourself 100k on lawyers or operate legally unsafe then most will use it.
I think they mostly get around the legal issues just by being based in Switzerland. I can’t claim to know all the details, but according to Slock.it the main issue is that a business has to provide an address for a legal entity who they are doing business with, which is difficult when dealing with a dao, but the Swiss do not require so many details.
This is for people making proposals to the dao though, the dao itself is legally a partnership between token holders - which in most places means that it is the individual token holders who must comply with tax laws etc in their country and the dao itself doesn’t need to do anything.
I’d seen that; it is an interesting read but I disagree with the comparison to Bitshares re voter participation: BTS primarily presents itself as a currency, with decentralized governance as a secondary characteristic. Dao tokens present decentralized governance as the primary characteristic so I would expect higher participation rates. We’ll have to wait and see whether I’m right though.