The “DAO Model Law” guide by COALA researchers outlines 11 technical and governance requirements for DAOs to meet the requirements for legal recognition as an entity, including:1. Deployed on a blockchain,2. Provide a unique public address for others to review its operations,3. Open source software code,4. Get code audited,5. Have at least one interface for laypeople to read critical information on DAO smart contracts and tokens,6. Have by-laws that are comprehensible to lay people,7. Have governance that is technically decentralized (i.e. not controlled by a single party),8. Have at least one member at any given time,9. Have a specific way for people to contact the DAO,10. Have a binding internal dispute resolution mechanism for participants,11. Have an external dispute resolution mechanism to resolve disputes with third-parties (e.g. service providers).These factors and considerations constitute a legal basis for conceptualizing DAOs.

Some obvious but useful DAO design or analysis questions are:1. What is being decentralized? (technically, economically, or politically),2. Who or what is being made autonomous, and from who or what?3. What is being automated?4. What is being organized?From here, subjective goals, beliefs and values can be articulated to determine design choices.

Hive Naija

Hive Naija

Hive Naija

HIVE BLOCKCHAIN, HERE I COME!

HIVE BLOCKCHAIN, HERE I COME!

Life Lessons Learned from the Hive Blockchain

Life Lessons Learned from the Hive Blockchain

Hive blockchain, our new home

Hive blockchain, our new home

Hive Condenser and Wallet apps

Hive blockchain

Knowledge of Hive Blockchain

Knowledge of Hive Blockchain

3 years on HIVE blockchain

3 years on HIVE blockchain

The purpose of Shrewdies.com is to explain Shrewd Learning Services and to evolve new Shrewd Learning Subjects

CTP

FUN

LOLZ

he decimation of the existing incentive models for internet creators and communities (as flawed as they are) is not a bug: it’s a feature

the decentralisation of the web enables participation of people to shape the future based on their contributions

It included a shared public ledger with crypto-provable integrity that recorded all this stuff. But no blockchain because we just couldn’t convince ourselves that the real world wanted zero-trust; so there was a transaction manager you had to trust. Dear Reader: I think that at some point, in a civilization, there has to be trust. I think that’s maybe the main reason we have civilizations. Call me crazy.

With UDO we are also trying to solve the problem of sustainable financing for user-facing projects. All projects need a long-term development model that secures a steady stream of funding for their future development and continuous adoption. Most currently operating web3 projects rely on funds acquired through ICOs or NFT token auctions. While many of them are able to acquire substantial capital this way, this is not a sustainable financing model. It is also not a model that prioritizes the users’ needs.

in practice most of them follow similar operational blueprints and make use of the same “organization legos”. DAOs may aspire to be decentralized and autonomous, but they are not as diverse in their design as one would hope considering their globe-spanning, culture-crossing, and regulation-free nature.

A protocol is simply a set of rules that mediate how a system works

“That’s the mantra of web3, to be open and composable, and with CC0 no one owns the rights to the intellectual property. This creates huge potential for what can be created in the future. But the bigger corporations are coming into the space and trying to close things down, tracking wallets and essentially bringing web2 into web3. I don’t want that. I want web3 to continue to be built by the people, for the people, which is why all these public goods are crucial for the future of web3.”

By nature of running on a blockchain, Hyperstructures can run forever with no ability to stop them. They can continuously function without a maintainer or operator, and they can run for as long as the underlying blockchain is running

钱包是什么？反直觉和反常识的是，数字钱包并不装钱，而是装密钥（私钥和公钥）的容器，是用来帮助用户存储、转移、结算、交易和管理数字资产的工具，而用户的数字资产实际存放在区块链地址指向的分布式账本里。

问题中蕴含着这样的底层逻辑--原生的区块链网络中缺失了“人”及“人际网络”的表达--不可转让社交身份的原生组件及由此构建的社交网络图谱，社会经济价值缺失了承载的主体，以至于Web3赋能实体经济的相关应用难以创建和落地实施。

区块链发展至今，从基础设施层、组件层、扩展层、激励层、治理层、到应用接入层，目前正在不断扩展和完善。这个发展过程有一个显著的特点，那就是跟原生网络--可信计算网络特性紧密相关的应用首先得以发展。

The ability to exit with your data intact is a core tenet of web3; web3 turns your data into your personal, programmable property.

The DeanBeat: Why Web3 companies created the Open Metaverse Alliance

tokens to represent the value of assets in an account

blockchain's consensus model

use a more elaborate method to select transactions and choose between conflicting state transition.

Open source and web3, simplified

When worlds collide: Joining Web3 and crypto from Web2

How to get started learning web5

“The idea makes sense, but perhaps the timing was bad,” says the art market economist and author Magnus Resch, who in June published the book How To Create And Sell NFTs. “Prohibitively high prices and a complicated entry into collecting are the biggest problems with NFTs. But by holding events and educating people you’re building trust.”

Curatorial Governance: An Interview with Tony Lashley

Web3手机出现 硬件崛起能否带Web3飞入寻常百姓家

Web3 Use Cases: The Future

Subsidiarity, which uses “data cooperatives, collaboratives, and trusts with privacy-preserving and -enhancing techniques for data processing, such as federated learning and secure multiparty computation.”

In general, I would say that I think there are only a few circumstances in which markets produce good incentives and distributions, and that these depend heavily on publicly accountable governance that set up their rules.

在 Monegro 发表总结的 2016 年，Web3 一词还未如今天一般流行，但他还是提出了一种新的范式，也就是反过来，把协议层做厚，应用层做薄，不同的应用共享协议层提供的基础数据，比如用户的个人信息、支付等等。当这些基础数据和能力都沉淀到协议层之后，应用层就不需要重复造轮子，也就会轻量化许多，有机会更加去中心化，更开放。

So where does this leave us? The Open Network Learning Mooc has a focus on using open platforms and Open Education Resources; except for the Adobe Connect Pro software being used for webinars. This model of openness signifies a significant move forward in making education accessible and flexible for all participants. However there is still a long way to go before the huge amounts of knowledge and information locked down in courses and databases is made more available. In Primary schools, with the majority of students under 13, an LMS seems logical because of privacy issues. However for older students, university students in particular, and all of the life-long learners out there who can’t access/afford/etc formal learning, open learning makes far more sense. A brilliant debate, carried out over a series of blog posts is a must read for anyone interested in this area. It begins with a polemic by Leigh Blackall, stating there is no need for any type of learning environment at all…and is responded to by Dave Cormier who points out some salient arguments for the PLE. Harold Jarache and Miguel Guhlin join in the debate (see the comments) with responses of their own (sadly the links to these are now dead :-(). These great minds were debating over 5 years ago a topic that is still developing today.

It aims to build a decentralized, scalable cloud-like platform that can store data, perform computation, and support community-driven governance. It’s addressing the issues plaguing traditional internet, such as relatively low data security and an oligopoly consisting of big tech companies.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of centralization. I started building a decentralized, permissionless system almost a quarter-century ago. It would be wonderful if we could figure out how to build a Web that would resist centralization. But all the technical and financial cleverness that's been poured into cryptocurrencies hasn't succeeded in doing that. Why? It is because It Isn't About The Technology.

In conclusion, the fact that stablecoins or Bitcoin itself acquire the aura of saviours in countries hit by inflation, like Turkey, is nothing more than a measure of the desperation of the people: they will clutch at straws. Stablecoins offer Turks no respite from inflation that buying euros or dollars cannot offer. So, why buy Tether instead of dollars or euros? Why rely on the shadowy characters running a private currency board? Only because the latter deploy good marketing to exploit desperate people.

But, and this is a gigantic but, DAO-like tools will not bring about this new society in which DAO-like tools are useful. (Nb. We can already see how DAOs are being usurped by regressives and real estate moguls in the United States.)

To think that Bitcoin can solve the problem of money, or the problem of the state, is to misunderstand what money is or what states do. Every exploitative socio-economic system is predicated on what the minority running it can make the rest do for them (who does what to whom, as Lenin famously put it). Money and the state are epiphenomena of this system. To believe that you can fix money, or that you can fix the state, is to demonstrate a devastating innocence regarding the larger exploitative system with which they are integrated. No smart contract can, for example, subvert the labour contracts that underpin society’s layered patterns of exploitation. No NFT can change an art world where art is a commodity within a universe of commodified people and things. No central bank can serve the interests of the people so long as it is independent of the demos. Yes, blockchain will be useful in societies liberated from the patterned extractive power of the few. However, blockchain will not liberate us. Indeed, any digital service, currency, or good that is built on it within the present system will simply reproduce the present system’s legitimacy.

The other two tools more or less emerge to help us scale coordination: institutions and markets.

Software can’t single-handedly solve for the “completeness” of every contract, but it can help — and through token enabled ownership, it can help communities overcome the bootstrap problem to fostering innovation. 

But if we accept that contracts are simply decision logic — akin to computer programs, then contract theory gives us a framework for thinking about different types of smart contracts and crypto-enabled projects — and how they can scale (including governance of them).

Let’s start by identifying projects that are (mostly) “complete”. These projects aim to specify a system end-to-end, minimizing the need for subjective interpretation, renegotiation, and external governance. In software terminology, the goal of these systems is to be “correct by construction”. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mining is one such system. Bitcoin’s completeness is a function of its verifiable computation — deterministic hashing algorithms plus hard-coded game-theoretic incentives. Together, these consistently drive the system towards the outcome of producing a correct chain, while minimizing the need for human interpretation or external decision-making.

An aside on NFTs Because they’re “unique” objects, NFTs are a perfect vehicle for wash trading. You can easily ensure you only wash trade to yourself. The common scheme is to wash trade with yourself until some credible dunce buys the NFT from you at your manufactured “fair” value, leaving you to walk away with real money.

Offshore crypto exchanges like Binance offer absurd leverage in the 20-125x range. But the exchange is both a broker offering leveraged products and the clearinghouse of the leveraged trades. This can easily create “failure to deliver” situations from the clearinghouse side. Take this example:

While people think the main innovation of cryptocurrencies are public blockchain ledger transactions, the vast majority of crypto trading happens on private centralized exchanges.

Uniswap's protocol, and the product offerings built on top of it, are widely used in the crypto space, driving a need to provide a high quality user experience on the product and support front. This is compounded by prominent forks such as Sushiswap, which additionally place Uniswap Labs under significant competitive pressure. But treating community members as end-users conflicts with the desire to treat them as stakeholders, discussion participants, or governance leaders. This conflict is visible in the Discord where support crowds out other conversations, but also in the fragmentation of stakeholder types across different platforms, as we address in the next section.

Imagine if a portion of that 12+ trillion USD that central banks made went to set up local food systems that sequestered carbon and ended world hunger.

My first impressions of web3

I don’t think it would have taken off because this is a gold rush. People have made money through cryptocurrency speculation, those people are interested in spending that cryptocurrency in ways that support their investment while offering additional returns, and so that defines the setting for the market of transfer of wealth.

Partisans of the blockchain might say that it’s okay if these types of centralized platforms emerge, because the state itself is available on the blockchain, so if these platforms misbehave clients can simply move elsewhere. However, I would suggest that this is a very simplistic view of the dynamics that make platforms what they are.

MetaMask doesn’t actually do much, it’s just a view onto data provided by these centralized APIs. This isn’t a problem specific to MetaMask – what other option do they have? Rainbow, etc are set up in exactly the same way. (Interestingly, Rainbow has their own data for the social features they’re building into their wallet – social graph, showcases, etc – and have chosen to build all of that on top of Firebase instead of the blockchain.) All this means that if your NFT is removed from OpenSea, it also disappears from your wallet. It doesn’t functionally matter that my NFT is indelibly on the blockchain somewhere, because the wallet (and increasingly everything else in the ecosystem) is just using the OpenSea API to display NFTs, which began returning 304 No Content for the query of NFTs owned by my address!

What I learnt from Francesco Nachira and his interest in constructivism and theories of language and cognition is that decentralisation can never be just about decentralising infrastructures. One always needs to have a requisite strategy for decentralising institutions as well.So that’s why we always aimed at the decentralisation of economic and political power as the necessary condition of possibility that was needed to deliver on the true emancipatory potential of decentralising digital infrastructures. When I look at the promises made by the proponents of DAOs and NFTs, they seem to believe that technology itself would somehow do the job: once we code a DAO correctly, it will ensure a new institutional form and that form would have revolutionary effects, etc. This seems to me short-sighted and also very inward-looking.It’s not, of course, only about decentralising power. It’s also about creating new institutions to keep old power – which, by now, has taken on new forms – in check. Where are these new institutions when it comes to crypto and Web3? Everyone seems to believe that big tech platforms and Wall Street and Hollywood will just stand idle as they are being disrupted by “crypto.” Does this really sound plausible to anyone?

Well, first of all, I don’t see how Web3 – focused as it is on the creator economy and tokenisation – would allow us to deal with questions regarding infrastructural power and the industrial policy of the future… things like broadband, 5G, data centres, cloud computing, AI, quantum computing, microchips, the next generation of batteries. It’s not just the advertising business models of Web 2.0 that should concern us. What does Web3 offer us here? Not much. The Web3 discourse accepts today’s status quo as a fact and moves on to discuss all these other aspects.Most of the stuff about DeFi seems to me just a temporary phenomenon – the result of central banks’ inaction and delay in grasping the threats that come from leaving this industry unregulated. In this sense, China seems to be seeing through all the Web3 rhetoric and asking the right strategic questions, both in terms of controlling the whole stack, from batteries to AI, to establishing control over the FinTech sector in a way that would reduce risks to the country’s overall financial system. Europe, of course, doesn’t operate in the same political climate, so acting so resolutely about Web3 might not be an option (also for geopolitical reasons). It’s hard to imagine Chinese policymakers spending any time discussing Dogecoin.

This purely technical effort at decentralisation also falls short in thinking about the political and social institutions that are needed to take full advantage of this decentralisation. The big questions that I – and you – have been raising over the past decade, with regards to the political economy of data and infrastructures, of technological sovereignty, of the geopolitics of the stacks, all seem to have dropped the agenda completely. What is being “decentralised” is the ability to extract value and make money, incentivising even further the financialisation of social behaviours. Worse, it seems that people pushing the Web3 agenda have learned very little from the experiences of all the other movements, from free software to Indymedia to the rise of digital democratic cities, that did try to build a more decentralised and democratic digital sphere.

Crypto has transformed grassroots-level organizing. For the first time in history, it is possible to economically align networks of strangers into working together by using programmable incentives and providing them with tools to make decisions and govern shared resources in a decentralized manner.

This setup means that #projectTokens will form and dissolve as necessary. If everyone leaves, all ETH will be refunded and all #projectTokens will cease to exist. If you buy in early, you will get more tokens for the same price. If you buy in later, you will get less tokens for the same price. If you sell back into the pool, you will get less ETH per token vs selling back into the pool when the outstanding supply is higher.The value derived from curved bonding is that it rewards participants for being early and buying tokens in that project. If they leave at a later point, selling their #projectTokens back into the communal pool will net them a reward. The reason you want separate tokens for separate projects is so that it more easily fits the value being produced from these separate projects. The crypto-economic feedback loops necessary to sustain certain systems will only work if the value being produced is mapped to its own token. For more info, read here:

When I first read this explanation in the OlympusDAO documentation, I laughed and laughed. “Well yes right,” I thought, “the way a Ponzi scheme works is that early ‘investors’ get rich as long as later investors keep buying more.” Sure, (3, 3). “If we all keep buying this thing its price will go up and we will be rich” is absolutely the main financial theme of 2021, but it is an irreducibly silly theme and I would be embarrassed to formalize it with game theory. 

The world experienced a sort of collective delusion around the worth of what is, essentially, a fabric sack of beans. In hindsight, bubbles rarely make sense. “It’s a flaw in the human character,” says Jeremy Grantham, market historian and bubble expert. “No one is immune, no matter how smart you are.”

planet-incinerating Ponzi grifters

Does a “Web3” that depends on Twitter for its mar­ket­ing and coor­di­na­tion chan­nel really deserve the name?

Ethereum is the locus of most of this work — hey, who named that client library web3.js, anyway?—so it’s not unrea­son­able to read “Web3” as “Ethereum-powered inter­net”.

Social platforms will continue to be useful for building audiences

Mirror is the next big change in the long history of symbolic communication. Through a decentralized, user-owned, crypto-based network, Mirror’s publishing platform revolutionizes the way we express, share and monetize our thoughts.

Most of the descriptions I’ve seen focus on mechanisms - block chains, smart contracts, tokens, etc - but I would argue those are implementation details and some are much more likely to succeed than others. (E.g. I think using private keys for authentication/authorization is obviously better if you can get over the UX hump - SSH has shown us that for decades.)

Centralization vs decentralizationIn the table below, we list some of the broad-strokes advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized digital networks.Centralized SystemsDecentralized SystemsLow network diameter (all participants are connected to a central authority); information propagates quickly, as propagation is handled by a central authority with lots of computational resources.The furthest participants on the network may potentially be many edges away from each other. Information broadcast from one side of the network may take a long time to reach the other side.Usually higher performance (higher throughput, fewer total computational resources expended) and easier to implement.Usually lower performance (lower throughput, more total computational resources expended) and more complex to implement.In the event of conflicting data, resolution is clear and easy: the ultimate source of truth is the central authority.A protocol (often complex) is needed for dispute resolution, if peers make conflicting claims about the state of data which participants are meant to be synchronized on.Single point of failure: malicious actors may be able to take down the network by targeting the central authority.No single point of failure: network can still function even if a large proportion of participants are attacked/taken out.Coordination among network participants is much easier, and is handled by a central authority. Central authority can compel network participants to adopt upgrades, protocol updates, etc., with very little friction.Coordination is often difficult, as no single agent has the final say in network-level decisions, protocol upgrades, etc. In the worst case, network is prone to fracturing when there are disagreements about protocol changes.Central authority can censor data, potentially cutting off parts of the network from interacting with the rest of the network.Censorship is much harder, as information has many ways to propagate across the network.Participation in the network is controlled by the central authority.Anyone can participate in the network; there are no “gatekeepers.” Ideally, the cost of participation is very low.

Or the PIs who enjoy and excel at raising funds can do so and even re-deploy it to the right scientists, akin to founders who become angel investors and venture capitalists.

TiddlyWiki es un microwiki o wiki personal que incorpora varías de las ideas de Theodor H. Nelson, en particular enlaces de doble vía y transclusión en sólo un archivo HTML + JavaScript + CSS.

IPFS aims to surpass HTTP in order to build a better web for all of us.

Active Indexers, Curators and Delegators can earn income from the network proportional to the amount of work they perform and their GRT stake.

Curators are subgraph developers, data consumers or community members who signal to Indexers which APIs should be indexed by The Graph Network. Curators deposit GRT into a bonding curve to signal on a specific subgraph and earn a portion of query fees for the subgraphs they signal on; incentivizing the highest quality data sources. Curators will curate on subgraphs and deposit GRT via the Graph Explorer dApp. Because this occurs on a bonding curve, that means that the earlier you signal on a subgraph, the greater share of the query fees you earn on that subgraph for a given amount of GRT deposited. This also means that when you go to withdraw, you could end up with more or less GRT than you started with.

A smart contract is a code that executes a set of conditions required for a trade to occur; if one condition fails, then so does the trade. Thus, by adopting blockchain smart contracts to trade ownership of their work, an artist can ensure resale royalties as a condition for the transfer of title, meaning they automatically get a cut of any future sales of their work.

“The internet is now a place where everyone has an inventory.”

This entire world is built on the assumption the internet will never die, which reflects a pretty big cultural shift in how we think about technology.