Recent searches
Search options
@GuerillaOntologist has sparked an interesting debate on DAO Tools and Co-ops. https://geo.coop/blog/doubts-about-dao-tooling#comment-1535
@ntnsndr @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp
@Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist @ntnsndr @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp
Strongly agree with Alanna Irving's take (unsurprisingly - she's consistently one of the most thoughtful people about online collaboration). Sharing here for emphasis:
"They are excited by the parts of the problem that are quantifiable or cryptofiable and forget that the important or hard parts of the problem (building trust, connecting your vision with the outside world) aren't quantifiable at all."
@shauna @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp I agree, absolutely, and have long tried to make that point as well (and have tried to learn as much from Alanna as I can along the way!):
https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/social-justice/economic-justice/an-economy-for-anything
But to me the biggest challenge the co-op movement faces is not our ability to build relationships and trust. We're good at that. Our biggest challenge is quantifiable: we are up against systems with way more money and power.
@ntnsndr @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist Hmmm, that's an interesting point. How is power quantifiable, though? And I'm not sure the elements of money that are quantifiable are the elements that are important.
@shauna @ntnsndr @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist Yeah, what kind of power? And is it power you could wield without it corrupting you? Police and military power, to jail and kill opponents? Amassing private luxury to distribute to cronies? Such power is effective in blocking popular change, but it can't help us.
What is money good for? Helping people cooperate across time and space without directly interacting. Doing that without money is hard, but saving the planet with money may be impossible.
@skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist I like your framing of the problem as "Helping people cooperate across time and space" (not sure about the directly interacting). But two things:
Yes, money is quantifiable, and as long as that drives access to building institutions it matters. When money became available to co-ops through US law in rural electricity, credit unions, and agriculture, co-ops became significant shapers of those sectors. Elsewhere, co-ops remain marginal.
@skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist money is not everything. Some of those co-ops are great, some are terrible. But access to quantifiable resources can at least open the door to the possibility of democracy. This is why a major focus of my work now is policy strategies. To give us that chance to really test our ability to do economic democracy.
@skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist networks are also a way to enable coordination at scale. And I am interested in different kinds of network designs to enable this. I don't think blockchains are in any way perfect, but they do open doors, using some aspects of quantification, to enable collaborations across borders and in novel institutional designs that are not feasible with territorial law and server-centric networks.
@skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist I long for the day when we don't see these questions as black/white, good/bad, but are able to explore the possibilities of any infrastructure both creatively and critically. I really dislike having to be a defender of blockchains, which I have actively criticized since before most people knew about them. But I don't understand the urge to write them off entirely.
Thanks, friends. I am grateful for y'all.
@ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
Maybe someday we'll all be able to see the good side of MLMs too. It's a real shame that people are so down on them, just because they aren't perfect.
Seriously though, critiques of blockchain technology get met with philosophical arguments about the nature of money and claims about the technology that don't stand up to scrutiny. What I don't seem to get is specific responses to specific critiques.
@ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco
Like, it would be super cool to one day actually have someone prove their contention that blockchains are decentralized. Decentralization may be great and all, but the blockchains aren't decentralized, so...
https://blog.dshr.org/2023/11/decentralized-finance-isnt.html
https://blog.dshr.org/2023/02/economic-incentives.html
https://blog.dshr.org/2022/01/another-layer-of-centralization.html
@GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco this is in some respects a red herring in my view. Like Walch, I have published criticisms of the "decentralization" claims: ntnsndr.in/Decentral
No system can be fully "decentralized." Generally what appears to happen is new infrastructures, including blockchains, simply trade one form of centralization for another.
That said, most large crypto projects are incredibly deceptive about their "decentralization," yes.
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco In #TransforMap times, we liked to talk about polycentric topologies. Berlin is one such example of a polycentric network of many towns and villages combined in one entity, the city.
Also store-and-forward protocols like SMTP or https://LoFi.Re remember us that maybe we are talking about different combined degrees of centrality instead. AFAIK P2P discoverability in planet-scale P2P networks remains unsolved.
@GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco The same could be said about the fediverse, for instance: https://fedidb.org/
The aspiration of decentralization, and the tech to support it, will not produce decentralization without economic and policy designs that resist consolidation.
Which is actually precisely the point of the report being criticized—we are seeking economic policy more conducive to distributed ownership.
@GuerillaOntologist @ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Josh, can we name three specific critiques that are missing a response in this thread?
I'm with you about scrutiny in empirical argumentation of the subject.
From the above discussion, I'd pick:
1. Distributed ledgers are not decentralised in terms of protocol design and P2P bootstrap.
2. Philosophical arguments about novel governance and renumeration schemes ignore the fundamental critique of immutable, ungovernable protocol design.
@GuerillaOntologist @ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
3. The identification and naming of quantification as institutional governance model, which is used to enscribe and reproduce monetary power hierarchies within a private property narrative that encloses common resources, limits the discourse within groups and the public plus assumes and presents social stratigraphy as an ontological fact.
@yala @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Thanks for attempting to distill this!
FWIW, my major paper on "novel governance and renumeration schemes" was also a direct attack on "quantification as an institutional governance model": ntnsndr.in/Cryptoecon
And guess what? One of the most prominent people in crypto agreed. https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1442039126606311427
Maybe the point is this: One can engage in exploring coalitions and building solidarity while also critiquing one's coalition partners.
@yala @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes But the critique has to be constructive. Not from the perspective of "you are lying and your work needs to be banished from the earth" but "I recognize that, even through all the noise, there are some shared intentions and interesting ideas here—let's see if we can build on those."
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Thanks for mirroring the arguments. As I might feel tempted to answer to the second example later, I'm inclined to offer a slight variation of the prior:
Nobody accused anyone of lying above, if I'm not mistaken, which might leave us with the following, instead:
"The techno-social architecture of distributed ledgers is not sufficient to redistribute wealth equally to all, why we must choose to abandon this and persue other prospects."
@yala @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes But couldn't one say the same thing of co-ops? "the techno-social architecture of co-op law is not sufficient to redistribute wealth equally to all." That is true. Yet still we find co-ops a useful tool to build on in pursuit of economic justice.
@yala @ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
I'd start with just one question, to keep it simple:
Given that blockchains, in practice, are not distributed or trustless systems, and given that anything you can do with a DAO you can accomplish in other ways, what is the argument for using crypto blockchains?
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Fair question! Though I do think there are aspects of decentralization and trust-reduction in these systems, but anyway... :)
- Enabling "virtual co-ops" (like Social.coop) with international memberships, which territorial law often makes very difficult
- Exploring forms of shared ownership through creative tokenization not available through common stock or LLC designs
- Online governance systems that are resistant to manipulation
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes More:
- Enabling inroads for cooperative culture and values into an emerging, young, and disenchanted set of subcultures
- Experimenting with mechanisms for financing cooperative projects not available in an investor-centric policy environment
- Exploring novel governance designs that assume online-first communities
- Exploring novel economic incentives designs in the tradition of cooperative dividends that support trust and solidarity
@ntnsndr @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
Again, all of these fall under either "can be done better and cheaper some other way," or "presents real legal hazards from possible securities violations."
@ntnsndr @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
-Well we've somehow managed thus far without any need for crypto, right? MyCoolClass has members all over the world without need of crypto, so I think we're already enabled (without paying gas fees).
-This sounds like a legal risk to me, ex an SEC ruling.
-You can do this with permissioned blockchains that do not share the flaws of permissionless blockchains, and are tens of thousands of times cheaper to run. (https://blog.dshr.org/2023/02/economic-incentives.html)
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
- We can talk about MyCoolClass offline
- Legal risk, yeah, so is lots of solidarity work. But that's why the whole point of the report is policy advocacy for shared ownership innovation
- Permissioned blockchains may help in some cases. A favorite example of mine was the "proof of cooperation" of FairCoop. But just as co-ops need dollars and legal shares, sometimes you need an interface with the wider, non-permissioned world
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Given the hours I've spent hearing platform co-op founders complain about the legal challenges of international memberships, I can assure you the problem is far from solved.
@ntnsndr @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
I'll grant you that, but as SBF and others have been finding out, you can't just use blockchain to avoid having to deal with national laws and regulations. Creating a legal framework for int'l co-ops needs to happen, but that in no way means crypto is a good (or legally safe) solution.
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes totally. I have worked with crypto entrepreneurs who have been punished by the legal system for trying to do the right thing by making their ownership more cooperative.
Again, this is why the purpose of the report is not shilling tech, it is advancing shared policy agendas.
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @bhaugen Character limits can be a challenge for this type of discussion: https://geo.coop/blog/doubts-about-dao-tooling#comment-1538
@Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @bhaugen Hehe, no kidding! 
@ntnsndr @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
I have to take issue with that last statement. The vast majority of the report is talking about how to apply DAO tooling to co-ops to supposedly make them more competitive. The space devoted to that far outweighs the space you all devoted to policy proposals. The summary gives a good idea of the amount of space devoted to each. "Shilling tech" are your words, not mine, but I do think that's a pretty fair description of the bulk of the paper.
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes That's fair. I would have liked to see more emphasis on the policy strategies than on the tooling issues.
From my perspective the overall purpose of the report was the policy. It came out of a policy-focused event. But I can see now how it looks like the emphasis is elsewhere.
@yala @ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
Another critique that hasn't even been addressed in this thread is that tech solutions favor the tech savvy and put everyone else at a disadvantage. While anyone who can read can, with a little effort, understand a set of bylaws, in order to read a smart contract you have to learn to code. Again, no one has actually ever addressed this point.
@GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes There is absolutely truth to this. This is why, for instance, I ran a cohort process precisely focused on supporting less tech-savvy communities in exploring this kind of tech: https://www.colorado.edu/lab/medlab/2023/03/22/now-available-sacred-stacks-art-cyborg-community
But if that's the critique, why are we on the fediverse right now? Should we give up on any technology that involves some early-adopter friction?
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist
> why are we on the fediverse right now? Should we give up on any technology that involves some early-adopter friction?
Part 1 of 2:
I think the principle contradiction now (if you go along with that term) is the capitalist economic system. It is behind all of the other oppressive contradictions.
So I think we need to organize a better economic system that will need to start with local experiments that join together.
Part 2 of 2:
Organizing a better economic system will require some technology. I think the fediverse is a pretty good base.
I could go on, but enough for now.
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
Related to this and several; other concurrent threads: distributed shared ledgers without blockchains:
https://write.as/economic-networks/economic-event-protocol-for-distributed-ledgers
@ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
@bhaugen @ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes Halleluja!
I've been waiting for this headline since 2014 the latest: "distributed shared ledgers without blockchains".
@bhaugen @ntnsndr @yala @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
That looks pretty cool. My current favorite example of a good use of this variety of tech is the Sarafu local currency used in Kenya that does utilize a "proof-of-authority" (permissioned) blockchain for their database. But the real cool thing about it is central role the traditional chamas (savings circles) have had in making the whole system a success.
https://geo.coop/articles/how-chamas-and-mutual-credit-are-changing-africa
@ntnsndr @skyfaller @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist You wrote:* "I really dislike having to be a defender of blockchains, which I have actively criticized since before most people knew about them. But I don't understand the urge to write them off entirely."*
People argue their differences rather than their similarities. I actually have a fondness for DAOs, In an already-socialist world they'd be a fun way to experiment. But under capitalism, they enforce the status quo more than challenge it.
@ntnsndr @skyfaller @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist I also have a deep resentment of anything like technosolutionism. Over and over I've seen the people who push for tools or quantification to solve a problem be rewarded by capitalism with investment, grant funding, prestige. Over better efforts.
I was a developer advocate once. I barely wrote code - I was mostly using interpersonal/project management skills. Guess what got me the high salary, though? Which skills were listed as requirements?
@shauna @skyfaller @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist I am with you on technosolutionism, I hope! I mean, interestingly: The report being initially criticized here is not actually about technology, it is about building policy coalitions to achieve what the tech can't achieve on its own.
Many socialists also make that same critique of co-ops: Under capitalism, they will just be capitalist stooges.
@shauna @skyfaller @Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist In both cases, I think we should reject that determinism. We should find opportunities for enabling economic democracy wherever we can, in the shell of the old.
And yes, too often we end up focusing only on the measurable, because they can be measured and forget about everything else
@badri @skyfaller @GuerillaOntologist @Matt_Noyes @shauna Glad we're not ruining your timeline for the day!
@ntnsndr @skyfaller @shauna @Matt_Noyes
Maybe I could agree somewhat if blockchains were what they claim to be (and what you claim them to be), i.e. decentralized, anonymous, immutable. But in practice they are none of those things, which you must be aware of, right?
"the common meaning of ‘decentralized’ as applied to blockchain systems functions as a veil that covers over and prevents many from seeing the actions of key actors within the system." ~Prof. Angela Walch
@ntnsndr I say "without directly interacting" because it's not that hard for me to negotiate an arrangement with a person I am talking to directly without using money. I can build a website for a friend or community member in exchange for any good or service, or just for goodwill or an unspecified favor in the future. But once I need to work with a landlord or other entity outside the community that can't or won't operate at a personal level, I can't just say "my friend owes me a favor".
@skyfaller totally. It helps at any significant level of complexity, including when that involves personal interactions. For instance, my university department depends immensely for its health on us being decent to each other interpersonally. But we could not afford to be there at all were it not for the salaries we are paid. And we also design economic incentives to reward the kinds of work we want to encourage. That can actually improve, not always harm, our interpersonal dynamics.
@ntnsndr @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp
I've talked to a lot of people making co-ops irl, and the major issues they talk about nearly all revolve around building trust and relationships in one way or another. I don't think I've talked to anyone, actually, who's told me their major issue in starting a co-op was finding money.
@shauna @Matt_Noyes @ntnsndr @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp
Bingo. This is also a criticism of a lot of the "platform co-op" space - they focus on the tech too much and the cooperative culture aspects (almost) not at all.
@GuerillaOntologist @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp I don't know where to begin.
But, for instance, that quote is coming from Alanna, who is herself a veteran leader of several cooperative platforms and a major voice in the movement.
Your comment erases the incredible work of many people in our movement.
@GuerillaOntologist @shauna @Matt_Noyes @Stacco @alannairving @mattcropp I might also share the intervention of the DWeb Principles (and related camps and events), led by @mai (and which I contributed to a bit). This is an example of work focused on centering "decentralization" efforts around culture, not tech solutionism: https://getdweb.net/principles/
So many more examples, many of them just part of my daily life and that of my comrades.