This past week a series of middleware projects that aim to facilitate cross-chain interactions rallied behind a manifesto of sorts. The sudden, reactionary alignment between otherwise competitors would not have happened in the absence of a perceived existential threat. This likely has to do with the biggest Ether accumulator having their token bridged to other chains without express, seemingly expected, blessing. In response, the signatories would have it such that chains, in order to benefit from the presence of various tokens, would need to procure a bespoke franchise. Now, I do not care about Layer0 being a good and bad actor. If their stack is proprietary as claimed, I do not wish them well. I do however care about the following two things.  First, most importantly, I want to say: (1) “I told you so“,  crypto coins are, as the majority of bridging providers now recognize, DAOs. (2) I am worried: this instinctive paternalistic reaction needs serious time off.

Originally published on 22/03/2022 as and RFC on Developer DAO governance forum. \_\_\_\_

DAOs are failing, forward, but still, failing. Most of the old guard is not doing too well. (DXdao, Aragon, etc.) Others are mostly permissioned (multisigs), governed by other entities (foundations) or too dense for the light to intuitively get in (Maker). Principal agent problems, mismanagement, failure at equitably recognizing and retaining contributors are some of the issues that plague the space. Carrot on side, some of the innovators and most experienced of proposal driven governance actors have rugged themselves. It is clear, the ever-present default, proposals, are not it.

A Decentralized Internet Organization framework that instrumentalizes fungibility to facilitate access to fully trustless and explainable collective efforts. It primarily accomplishes this by means of three low-complexity devices: inflation, majority vote and membership.

Most of everything blockchain today is subsumed on mainstream financial channels using the term cryptocurrencies. The more ripe the opiner, the more likely for them to refer to entire ecosystems with a diverse class of applications as “coins”. And here’s the thing, it’s not only that they found a sufficiently revelatory local minimum that fully accounts for an unfamiliar  up and coming, young and tie-less global player but also unsurprisingly they depict it using pejoratively construed routine language, “a fixed supply of nothing”, to condescendingly wave it aside as a nothing-burger.

(See end fot tl;dr answer.)

- that makes power distributions rationalizable and accounted for to the widest extent possible