Current DAO unsuitable for fund transfer

🦅 Aragon Network
#54

What you are implying is that there’s one canonical DAO for the Aragon project and that all ANT holders are subject to its governance process.

I not only completely disagree, but I also think that the whole point of DAOs is to opt-in and to exercise optionality.

First, the opt-in principle would be broken if you force 99.9% of ANT holders into an exclusive agreement with a DAO that they haven’t entered into.

Second, you completely destroy optionality since you are claiming there’s exclusivity, meaning that other DAOs that take ANT holdings as voting power are “illegal”.

The whole point of DAOs is that if I want I can launch a YFI DAO, AAVE DAO, or whatever I want, in 5 minutes. I don’t even need the permission of the core teams of those projects. Maybe their token holders like it even more than their previous one, and engage with the new DAO instead.

Of course within a project there can be certain hard links to a specific DAO. Most of the time that’s a DAO controlling smart contracts that are meaningful to the project. The most important smart contract is of course the token itself, and its minting schedule.

But apart from that, there’s nothing that prevents multiple DAOs from existing in parallel even within a same project.

In traditional nation states you are born into a set of laws entered in without your consent, and into one and only governance system you cannot exit. Let’s not replicate that.

5 Likes
#55

Thanks for the reply @luis. I also completely disagree with what you wrote.

What you say about AAVE and YFI seems wrong. They are protocol DAOs, which manage treasuries and complex transactions. They have exact procedural rules, safety mechanisms, multisig signers, etc. So your five minutes story seems not that conclusive. The task of managing the protocol can only be of one single DAO (perhaps with sub-DAOs, departments etc. delegated by the main DAO).

You basically rely on the distinction between a DAO and a project. In doing this, I think that you are really biased by the genesis of the AN DAO. This distinction does usually not exist and I invite you to present an example of a DAO built to be the “MAIN DAO” that gets substituted by a different DAO according to the rules that a whale has decided in a given moment.

Apparently, you consider the AN DAO as a kind of test of decentralization that may be set aside if needed. In reality, in reading the contents of the Charter, the AN DAO is the DAO that has been framed by the “project” (as you called it) and voted by the ANT token holders. The procedural rules are now there in order to protect the goal of the project and the people that are involved in the project (who currently are mainly DAO contributors).

You complain about the 0.1% voting issue. This happened because governance rules where not there at that time. Now that we have them, you do not want to follow them. According to your reasoning, ANT holders can create new DAOs without any limitation. This means that, in the absence of rules, you could create a new Aragon DAO, choose the technology, vote alone and dispose alone the transfer of funds. Again, it does not work like this. In reality, given the characteristics of Aragon and the presence of AA, what you claim empowers the idea of centralization for the simple reason that Aragon’s treasury belongs to the Association.

Let me express also some thoughts on what you wrote in conclusion:

“In traditional nation states you are born into a set of laws entered in without your consent, and into one and only governance system you cannot exit. Let’s not replicate that.”

I don’t know your background and I respect your point of view. Personally, I am more than happy to be born after the second WW in a State that has a constitution and was a founding member of the European Union. Constitutions and Treaties are there in order to grant certain fundamental rights and forms of governance. The aim is to avoid that the strongest party can take over and infringe the rights of the citizens. By the way, the governance system can be modified, but these needs to be done in accordance to the rules.

It seems to me that you want to create new rules for the simple fact that you don’t like the ones that have been decided by the community. In doing this, you are exercising a centralized power. The Charter can be of course amended/ameliorated etc., BUT the rules that are encompassed therein are aimed exactly to avoid behaviors like yours. It is therefore my duty to confirm that what you are claiming is unlawful. Let’s be faithful to the community and follow the rules.

3 Likes
#56

Wrong, I haven’t said that. What I think is that competing DAOs can coexist and there shouldn’t be anyone who unilaterally claimed a DAO as the one sacred DAO.

Wrong again. If I would engage with the AN DAO, I would gladly follow its governance rules. But here I’m talking about not engaging with it, which is within the freedom of any ANT holder.

Honestly that whole statist paragraph just confirms even more that you don’t get it. The whole point of DAOs and crypto is to provide a right to exit and fork out. In a trad nation state, even if there’s a way to change the system, the system eventually gets crooked and becomes immune to change. That’s why you need alternative ways to exit. This has been engrained in the Aragon culture since 2016 (and in the manifesto since I wrote it).

How the hell am I exercising centralized power, if the only thing I’m defending is that you can have multiple DAOs and that ANT holders shouldn’t be bound by exclusivity rights they haven’t entered into! In my dictionary choice is freedom, please don’t twist things.

Well, so far the only thing I’ve done is writing, so if the rules prohibit free speech, we have a problem :sweat_smile:

3 Likes
#57

I reply one last time. I am frankly embarrassed in doing so.

On the one site, there are your writings and your believes and, on the other site, there is the reality. I deal with the reality when it comes to Aragon, DAOs and cryptocurrencies.

  1. I do not challenge the founding ethos of Aragon, but stating that today Aragon is a movement to fight for the revolution is simplistic and wrong. Aragon is a full stack tech organization that tries to increase the adoption of its tooling, to create best practices at a DAO governance level and to conclude partnerships able to strengthen its positioning for the growth of the web3 industry. This is ofc only my opinion: people that jump in the discord to ask help or who adopt Aragon’s technology are not even aware about the existence of the Manifesto. Moreover, Aragon is deeply respectful of State laws and agreements. Just read the last part of the Charter on jurisdiction and applicable law to understand the implications of what you say.

  2. Your approach towards crypto and DAOs is completely wrong and absolutely not mainstream. Obviously, people like crypto and blockchain for freedom and inclusiveness, but nobody thinks that legal rules should be set aside. Recent regulatory evolutions, OFAC sanctions to smart contracts, MiCA, US class actions, increased KYC/AML practices, show that without a proper compliance crypto will remain a niche or, worst case, stop to exist. Therefore, your claim “we are free, let’s break the rules” goes exactly in the direction of killing the industry. Also DAOs will not have a future without a proper governance (there were many recent criticism to DAO treasury management, absence of accountability etc., which you don’t seem to consider).

From what you write, it seems clear that you don’t properly follow DAO governance discussions nor crypto news. Apparently, you even don’t follow Maker, which is a kind of must for people who want to understand something in the space. Tbh you were not very active on Aragon’s social networks during the last year. Just look at how the AN DAO was presented and see how different the actual situation is compared to your assumptions.

Not by chance, you begun to discuss on the forum in occasion of the treasury transfer. In this moment, you noticed that you don’t like the rules, but – again – your idea of trample on the Charter is unlawful and unjust. I suggest you to look at the present activities of Aragon and of the AN DAO and to read more about DAOs, crypto and blockchains. Things move very fast in the industry and you seem to need an big update.

DYOR! Given your attitude, I will stop to explain you things on the forum. However I will always be open to talk to you, perhaps with a different and more personal medium.

2 Likes
#58

The current DAO Charter, whilst clearly in need of significant revision, was written in a way to allow significant flexibility for change to the AN DAO, it’s sub-DAOs and the associated charter. It’s the reason so few immutable guidelines were included:

Whilst ANT holders could of course decide to deploy a new DAO with a completely new charter (I’m not aware of anything that would prohibit that), I believe this would not be in the best interests of the Aragon project as it would effectively send a message that any future charter governance rules (including any potential immutable guidelines that may be included in a new charter) could also not be adhered to.

My recommendation would be to therefore simply keep the current immutable guidelines of the existing charter and change anything else that needs to be changed. In this way, it’s an evolution of the existing charter and Aragon’s governance systems rather than a completely new one.

The only potentially problematic immutable guideline is “ANT held by the Main DAO and/or Sub-DAOs must not be used to influence proposals nor votes, nor be staked in Aragon Court.” However, I don’t believe there is anything within the charter that prohibits changing the definition of Main DAO/Sub-DAO or Aragon Court (defined on p21) and on that basis, I think it’s safe to proceed building on an evolution of the current charter, retaining only its immutable guidelines.

Last but not least, AN DAO should and is in these early stages about experimentation to see what works and what doesn’t. There’s nothing in the current charter that prevents multiple Aragon DAOs from being deployed, operating in parallel to one another.

5 Likes
#59

I agree. Almost everything can be changed, but in accordance to the procedural rules. I don’t see the point of not following the rules.

3 Likes
#60

Dear all I am jumping in here to provide a neutral view from a Swiss legal perspective, as the charter has been established under Swiss law. This may help to put the right questions up for vote.

What is the form of the AN Network DAO formed under the current charter?

The AN Network DAO charter represent a simple partnership according to article 530 et seq. Swiss Code of Obligations among all natural or legal persons that interacting with the AN Network DAO i.e. actively contribute to discussions and other activities of the DAO. The AN Network DAO is governed by the charter, and in the absence of any rule by the Swiss Code of Obligations for simple partnerships.

Is any ANT holder automatically bound by the charter?

No, if an ANT holder is not engaging in the AN Network DAO, it is not part of the “simple partnership” and is not bound by the charter.

Who is bound by the charter?

Every natural or legal person that interacts with the AN Network DAO through active contribution or other participation.

What is the function of the ANT in relation to the charter?

ANTs are used as means of voting for the AN Network DAO formed under the charter. If someone participates in the AN Network DAO without holding any ANT, such participant cannot vote but still participate in activities.

Is it possible to just ignore the current AN Network DAO and form a new DAO under a new charter?

Yes, it is possible. The current charter neither restricts current participants in the AN Network DAO nor anyone else (e.g. ANT holders currently not participating in the AN Network DAO) from establishing a separate / forked DAO. See however section (3) regarding required resignation/withdrawal.

What options exist to modify/ restructure the current AN Network DAO?

The following options exists to modify / restructure the current charter under Swiss law:

(1) amendment of the current charter:

Expect of the immutable guidelines, all provisions in the charter can be amended. The current charter consists of the following documents that together form the charter:

(i) Introduction to the Charter
(ii) Aragon Network DAO Agreement
(iii) Aragon Manifesto
(iv) Smart contract code
(v) Aragon Community Guidelines
(vi) Aragon Governance Proposal (AGP) Process
(vii) Sub-DAO Agreements

Aragon Network DAO Agreement
Only the Aragon Network DAO Agreement includes a special provision regarding modifications of the mutable provisions. They can be modified by a majority vote and a minimum quorum of 0.5% of ANT holders. The suggested amendment must be published at least 30 days before the vote starts and the voting window must be at least 14 days. Immutable provision cannot be changed according to the Aragon Network DAO Agreement. Nevertheless, the Swiss legal doctrine allows simple partnerships to change even immutable provisions if such modification is supported by all participants in the simple partnership (unanimous vote).

Other documents included in the charter
Other sections/documents of the charter (ii) – (vii) do not include special modification procedures. Therefore, they are subject to the general modification procedure in the document (vi) Aragon Governance Proposal (AGP) Process, as the definition of “Proposal” in the “Additional Definitions” section of the charter states that Proposal means “*

“any suggested amendment to the Network contracts, Network parameters, the Agreements of the Aragon Network (i.e. Aragon Network Charter and composing agreements, and Agreements of any Aub-DAOs.”

*” Such modifications must follow the procedure set out in section 5 of the document (vi) Aragon Governance Proposal (AGP) Process. Accordingly, a proposal must be posted in the Aragon forum for at least 7 days and max. 14 days. The approval of a modification proposal requires the support of at least 5,000 ANT and a simple majority of the votes cast (see section 5 f, iii. (vi) Aragon Governance Proposal [AGP] Process).

(2) Dissolve the current AN Network DAO and establish a new one:

The current AN Network DAO can be dissolved by following the modification procedures set out above.

(3) For the current AN Network DAO and start a new one:
The current charter does not prohibit participants in the AN Network DAO to engage in a competing DAO. According to article 536 Swiss Code of Obligations, participants shall not engage in any activities that are to the detriment of the simple partnership i.e. the AN Network DAO. This means that participants of the current AN Network DAO can only participate in a new competing AN DAO if they withdraw and stop contributing to the existing AN Network DAO.

Way forward
As outlined above, multiple option exists on how the Aragon DAO can evolve. If the community cannot decide on how to move forward, it may make sense to first call for a pre-vote on the three options and second a vote on the selected option from the pre-vote with all documents already drafted in detail.

11 Likes
Governance Proposal : Future of the AN DAO Charter
Governance Proposal : Future of the AN DAO Charter
#61

I understand that you’re referring to section 3 of article 530 from the Swiss Code of Obligations. Is that correct?

Given the charter itself does not have any listed procedures for dissolution of the partnership and that we’re instead falling back on Swiss partnership law, would it be reasonable to conclude that IF some ANT holders that originally voted in favour of the initial charter did not also vote to subsequently dissolve it, then the original partnership (so current AN DAO and Charter) may continue to exist?

If so, wondering what else can be done here @ronald_k to have a clean break (if that’s what ANT holders vote for).

2 Likes
#62

no, I refer to the modification procedures:

As you pointed out, there is no specific provision regarding the dissolution. But as there is a quorum for modifications, it is possible to modify the charter, include a dissolution procedure and then dissolve the current AN Network DAO. As such two-step approach is possible, the “modification provision” can also be interpreted to already include the right to dissolve i.e. the result is the same.

2 Likes
#63

Got it, yes that would make sense to me.

#64

Thanks for the Input here @ronald_k. I have pulled the three questions out to a separate forum post as well. May not be named the best happy to re-tag as appropriate.

#65

I see this sentence as problematic. The Charter regulates the relationship between the ANT holders and the “Aragon network”. It’s not a matter of AN DAO but of the Aragon Network, which is presented within the Charter as a different organization which encompasses the AN DAO and the ANT holders.

This is evident from the Introduction: “As an ANT Holder, natural or legal person interacting with the Aragon Network, you accept and agree to act in good faith and be bound by this Charter, which forms an agreement between you and anyone else that participates or otherwise interacts with the Aragon Network. If you do not accept and agree to be bound by this Charter, you must cease to access, use, interact and participate within the Aragon Network”.

Therefore, the response to the question should be: “Yes in interacting with the Aragon Network every ANT holder is automatically bound to the Charter”. In fact, being holder of ANT means to interact with the Aragon Network.

This is just to confirm that all the three options outlined by @ronald_k must follow the Aragon Governance Proposal Process. In this regard, the Charter states: “The purpose of the Aragon Governance Proposal (AGP) process is to provide a structured process for making changes to the shared resources of the Aragon Network”. Also the prospective new DAO would be part of the Aragon Network and therefore rules must be followed

2 Likes
#66

Sounds highly motivating, I bet if Fight for Freedom had that wording we could have attracted the best community of boring people ever created.

Which states? The ones that are arresting open source developers and stating that decentralized organizations can be used for money laundering?. Maybe they got your respect, but I didn’t start this project to adulate the gerontocracy that’s literally burning our planet. Fuck them.

Quite the opposite. If crypto becomes just like fiat but digital and fully traceable, let’s just stop doing what we are doing, because we are helping a dystopia come true.

Can you point me to a single thing you have built?

Same, I think I’m getting depressed by the bureaucratic and pro-status quo attitude. Best of luck with legally wrapped DAOs, KYC NFTs and fully traceable and compliant cryptocurrencies. I’ll be busy building technology for human liberation to dethrone the status quo that puts open source developers and whistleblowers in jail, kills children with drones in the Middle East, and denazifies Ukraine. Cheers!

#67

This makes sense.

Genuine question, how do you define the Aragon Network? There are only two entities that exist within such network in its current form:

  • The token itself
  • The AN DAO

So the Aragon Network right now is not an entity, therefore you cannot interact with it. The idea in the beginning was that the Aragon Network would become a decentralized jurisdiction (a sovereign one, no trad states involved). In that case, anyone who entered agreements inside such jurisdiction would opt in to be bound by them. Now Aragon isn’t pursuing that route, so what really is the Aragon Network?

So, correct me if I’m wrong: I can create an ETH DAO and vote with my ETH (which is an extremely small amount of the supply) on a charter which legally binds all other ETH holders to certain rules, without them opting in. Sense not found.

1 Like
#68

Aragon Manifesto
We are committed to creating collaboration mechanisms in which violence is not only disincentivized but impossible.

@eaglelex is undertaking work he was elected to do via as good a legitimate and decentralized form of governance as we had at the time. He has helped to support the AN DAO and brings legal expertise, wisdom and needed support and diversity of perspective to these decentralised governance efforts.

DAO technology, while a means to an end that I support, will imo only be successful once it proves it can serve the people. Modelling the ideal of “human liberation” could have applied here with Aragon Network DAO.

Pretty sure, not a single person here - (by simple definition interacting with the Aragon Network DAO & therefore bound by the current Charter) hoped to be locked into the current status quo, yet those with the power by their silence, worked not to liberate this community from the status quo of the Charter and so the fight for freedom, it’s right here…

We can do a better job of modelling the values we are here to advance.

1 Like
#69

Wow, such a conversation here! Welcome to the world of politics! :upside_down_face:
I have around 10 comments to this conversation, will try to structure it as a story:

  1. We are digital nomads of the internet, finally we have got connected by the idea crystallised in the pledge to fight for freedom and results.

Sorry, mate, but you are probably not aware of what is happening now. By the year 2030 most of the humanity will be digitally “imprisoned” by some centralised AI-driven government, focused on 3 pillars: total surveillance via centralised digital identity, economical control via CBDC and social control via social credit system. This is an agenda promoted by World Economic Forum and supported by many influencers, politicians and corporates, this video summarises it pretty well. So our pledge to fight for freedom is actual more than ever:

We believe humankind should use technology as a liberating tool to unleash all the goodwill and creativity of our species, rather than as a tool to enslave and take advantage of one another.

Thou we are here not to start a revolution, but to provide methods and tools to facilitate evolution of human organisation in long-term. Meanwhile, you have a point regarding short-term goals - to increase the adoption, to create best practices and to conclude partnerships.

2 Likes
#70
  1. We’ve submitted this pledge by acquiring the ANTs via token sale, exchange or contribution. So now we are a community, a substrate for any virtual state (network state(s) arising in the future).

And first thing that community forms is electorate - active token holders exercising… politics. Don’t be afraid of this, before democracy, politics was a sole privilege of the top class - divine monarchy. Now this privilege is ours, so lets master this art of governance - govern better together! :eagle:

That allows us to legitimate any collective agreement (not otherwise! there will never be a primary agreement that secondary will bound people together without their consent):

So the binding is working only on members participating in AN DAO by contributing, voting or applying for AN DAO services. Other token holders might not know about the charter, there is no mechanism to get their consent.

:question: The question we ask our-selfs initially can be formulated as “what is politics?” meaning actually what is political power, where is it applicable and how do we exercise this power? Aragon founders came with a simple solution - your power is equal to your ANTs, that were designed to govern core smart-contracts, treasury and agreements via direct (token voting) or non-direct (AA) way. So you can exercise it by share-based voting or by communication in the forum with AA representatives.

This solution was pushed in a centralised manner in the direction of decentralisation, responding to the pledge. That shows that the sole basis of decentralised governance legitimacy is encoded into the manifesto and is represented by the active token holders:

#71
  1. With the political solution we started the process of establishing basic governance rules: we defined the quorum - minimum number of the electorate that should participate in the voting to execute decisions.

And here we’ve got our first mistake: instead of identifying electorate, we assumed that all community members are willing to take part in the politics, while huge portions of ANT are held by investment funds, financial companies and private whales without any political position in regards to Aragon community. That limited us by the voting apathy and led to an extremely low quorum of 0.1%, enabling small group of token holders to steer the creation of AN DAO and its charter:

This doesn’t mean that the AN DAO is not legitimate, and this doesn’t mean that AN DAO is ONLY legitimate structure. It rather shows that some members of the community with total political power around 0.5% formed an electorate that chose to collaborate under the AN DAO charter. This specific agreement attracted contributors, community members and came to the point of transformation by means of amending the charter.

  1. The AN DAO transformation merged with the claim to have political power over the treasury that initiated a political process of competition in determining the way - we see groups of people arguing about different governance strategies:

a) to accept the AN DAO as only legitimate structure and modify it enough to inherit the treasury from centralised politics of AA - reformation

b) to accept the AN DAO as only legitimate structure and replace it by completely new AN DAO v2 - revolution

c) to accept that AN DAO is just a legitimate candidate with 0.5% voting power (related to the AN DAO quorum) and create another candidate to enter the political competition over the inheritance of the treasury - evolution:

Thanks for bringing legal ground to the conversation, it is proving the point!

So no we are at the beginning of political game, that can go a) in terms and conditions dictated by the AN DAO charter or it can go b) freely and be based solely on manifesto. The prise is not only the treasury, but also core smart-contracts and reputation in web3 industry. To win this game we need to know the rules, right?

@lee0007 was referring to the established set of rules, pointing towards a):

Meanwhile option b) has its benefits:

:bangbang:Proposal: Lets define the rules of the game!

We have to accept that even if we go with the charter, there always a possibility for anyone to create ANT-based DAO and claim it’s legitimacy by acquiring support. If the AN DAO controls treasury, claim has to comply with AN DAO procedures, but right now this claim can go directly to AA. If this claim will have support bigger than AN DAO and will comply only with manifesto - transfer of funds will be finished.

To define the rules of the game we first define who are playing and who are arbitraging:

  • Players - AN DAO represented by political parties like dGov or/and other decentralised organisations of ANT holders, who comply with manifesto and claimed the prize - treasury funds.
  • Referee - Aragon Association.

Next, we need AA to give us a clear answer what they will consider as winning terms - the trigger to transfer funds. Is it bigger support only?

The signalling vote is a good idea to start, but what if the signalling vote will be made by few whales rather than by large number of members? By the current statistics only one vote from @luis can outbid the total AN DAO support.

Now take a pause and imagine a bigger picture:
several teams and people from Aragon Community are competing over the power. This is already governance! Separation of powers came along exactly because of such situation happening more than 3 hundreds years ago, you can read The Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu to find the similarity)
That means we can take current situation, wrap it into the open and inclusive procedure and in result we will have a proper structure of Aragon Network, that can inherit treasury and distribute it to a smaller states (or charter-based DAOs).

As a result, any DAO build on Aragon will have a possibility to claim power by entering the game - we will have diversity of different organisations with variety of governance models.

1 Like
#72

Thank you very much for the interesting observations.

In the light of my role I will just clarify some aspects that seems to be unclear.

The scope of application of the Charter is not limited to the AN DAO, but concerns the Aragon Network.

In the Charter the the “Aragon Network” is defined as:

“network of ANT Holders and the organisations and technology created by them to pursue the goals and live the values defined in the Aragon Manifesto. Including but not limited to: The Aragon Network DAO, ANT Holders, their affiliates, employees, contributors, licensors and service providers, and their respective officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, licensors, suppliers, parent companies, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives.”

This is why the Charter obviously binds every ANT Holder, as I have indicated in a previous post.

That said, as @ronald_k pointed out, it would be possible to create a second DAO, but this should be done in accordance to the rules set by the Charter, as promoted by @AlexClay.

Concerning the 0.5% argument, we should also consider the optimistic governance model embraced by Aragon. The vote passed and has not been challenged. Therefore, it seems frankly absurd to state that ANT holders are not bound because they didn’t know it. Every ANT holder should be aware about how the decision making process of Aragon works.

It is not referred to you @MikeAnanyin, but my general feeling is that before exchanging ideas about the Charter it would be actually correct to look what is written within the Charter. Not knowing the difference between Aragon Network and AN DAO means not understanding the basics about Aragon’s structure.

1 Like
#73

Thank you for bringing this! It is very important to understand the limitations of law!

Yes, from the legal point it is absurd - not knowing the law does not protect from the punishment in case the law was broken!
BUT
there is no mechanism to punish those who do not comply (there was no any binding term for the token sale or migration) - > holding tokens practically does not mean to comply with any charter. It is a conscious decision to follow the charter and interact with AN DAO.

the reality shows that when we assume something social as “should be” in most of the case appeared as “probably”.
oh, if tokens can “buzz” when the decision is happening! that would solve the electorate problem :star_struck:

This is a statement of the agreement accepted by 0.5% as legitimate. It is legitimate until… anybody from 99.5% claim that it was made without their consent and so is not legitimate, at least for them :no_entry_sign: because

Practical example: imagine a 1% of the nation decided to create a constitution stating that everyone including other 99% are obliged to obey and respect this constitution. This successfully happened in humankind history only in 2 types of cases: really good constitution supported by the “whales” of that time (like aristocracy, capitalists, landlords) or really good dictatorship. Nowadays even dictators have to follow some democratic procedures to create a picture of majoritarian support with 51% quorum.

In all other cases people were challenging such binding agreements by all means, and almost never by the terms proposed in a such agreement. This is a political game, and before it was too personal and very cruel. Thanks to greatest minds, we have democracy now - more civilised and public framework of political competition and agreement.

Within this framework political game is played for the support of a majority (political capital), because it is in human nature to fall into the social gravitation of the organised crowd.
What is a political game for us? probably the same if AA will go with the major public opinion even if this opinion will say “forget about AN DAO, let’s start a new one”.
BUT
AA has to comply with AN DAO charter, right? So the decision to move funds have to be made via AN DAO procedure described in the Charter.

The question here is WHERE AA will send funds, to AN DAO? or to AN DAOv2? or maybe to Aragon State DAO? :thinking:
Which structure can and will inherit the power objects - treasury, core SCs, accountability and reputation?

I am pointing at the fact that doesn’t matter how loud we will say “obey the law of charter” there always will be an opposing saying “I will not obey, I have my own rules” that can trigger creation of another DAO followed by the claim of power. This blockchain feature is the main game changer - any body can create or participate in alternative economy and governance.

So, I will call for it again:
Lets design such rules of the political game, where any DAO can claim the portion of power.

In practice, lets design wireframes and logic of such balanced governance procedures, where a number of organisations with different charters and governance can apply for managing the treasury, core SCs code and accountability within the Aragon Network structure. And then lets see which organisation will enable bigger electorate - activate more token holders. This will work beneficial both for the organisations and for Aragon Network because it will facilitate healthy political competition and evolution of governance :dna:

1 Like