Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jan-2024 11:12:42 JST Nathan Schneider

   • Josh Davis

   In which I respond to @GuerillaOntologist's article on DAO tooling in co-ops like Social.coop: https://geo.coop/comment/1533#comment-1533

   • Embed this notice
     Ed Summers (edsu@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jan-2024 14:34:01 JST Ed Summers

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist I still struggle with the concept of "trusstlessness" in DAO and why I would want such interactions in social.coop, for example. Trust seems like an important property for the coop to cultivate. It's difficult to scale, but maybe that's ok? What do you make of this term and how it is used?

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jan-2024 15:12:57 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @edsu @GuerillaOntologist totally. But don't take the "trustless" claims too literally, serious participants reject it. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2020/10/blockchain-confidence-machine-problem-trust-challenges-governance

     Any sophisticated DAO also recognizes the need to develop some spaces of trust and relationships, and some spaces that don't require trust. Some have asked me for lessons on doing this from co-ops!

     Co-ops also rely on trustless tools. Why bother with stock? Money? Bylaws? We recognize that trustless tools can help give us the foundation for trust.

   • Embed this notice
     Ed Summers (edsu@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Jan-2024 16:09:45 JST Ed Summers

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist thanks for that reference--I like the distinction they make between trust and confidence. It seems that people who equate trust in the mathematical propfs with trust in the deployment of complex software assemblages do so at their own peril...

     So are you saying that our use of money and bylaws in social.coop are trustless?

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:28:34 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @edsu @GuerillaOntologist Yes, probably not a good term. But most other terms one might use are harder to say:)

     All money is trust-reducing technology. It externalizes and concretizes debt relationships. It participates in an economy designed around the assumption that people have to do paid work to be trustworthy enough to access basic needs. Employment contracts are similar: you promise to do this, or else the cops are coming after you.

   • Embed this notice
     Ed Summers (edsu@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:28:36 JST Ed Summers

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @ntnsndr @GuerillaOntologist because I feel like I am trusting the coop to use my donation to help pay for the server and help support the work people put into maintaining it as a social media space. Similarly I trust that people follow the bylaws as part of the operation of the coop as best they can. These seem to be trust-full, but perhaps I'm just not getting what is meant by trust-less? Or maybe it's not a good term to be using in serious conversation? :-)

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:30:56 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @edsu @GuerillaOntologist Co-ops don't hesitate to use money or sign legal contracts. (Co-ops love this stuff! I've known many co-ops that have expensive lawyers before they even have a business model.) So I don't understand why they would be opposed to exploring alternative infrastructures for agreements and transactions. Especially ones that have even the potential of being themselves cooperative.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:35:02 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @edsu @GuerillaOntologist Money and legal incorporation are backed by states, which are quasi-democratic institutions backed by a monopoly on violence, semi-accountable to voters. DAOs are backed by blockchains, which are quasi-democratic institutions backed by cryptography and economic incentives, semi-accountable to users who invest in maintaining the network.

     Neither is perfect by any means. Each comes with dangers and opportunities. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in either basket.

   • Embed this notice
     Josh Davis (guerillaontologist@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:43:12 JST Josh Davis

     in reply to

     @ntnsndr My lengthy response to your lengthy response is now posted.

   • Embed this notice
     Josh Davis (guerillaontologist@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:45:34 JST Josh Davis

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers

     @ntnsndr @edsu
     My brother in Christ, your crypto tokens are also backed by state issued money. Why do you think the price of ETH is reported in dollars?

   • Embed this notice
     Josh Davis (guerillaontologist@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:51:38 JST Josh Davis

     in reply to

     @ntnsndr This is the wildest statement I've read in awhile:

     "why is it okay to sell shares of co-op stock backed by cops with guns but not digital tokens backed by cryptographic software?"

     I think a lot of co-ops would be surprised to find that cops with guns have anything to do with their member recruitment.

   • Embed this notice
     Josh Davis (guerillaontologist@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 01:58:24 JST Josh Davis

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers

     @ntnsndr @edsu
     Equating "using money and signing contracts" with getting into crypto is another wild statement. I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like saying "you already buy movie tickets, so I don't understand your problem with buying lottery tickets."

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 02:27:21 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @GuerillaOntologist I think co-op leader Janelle Orsi captures this point powerfully. See the slide at 15:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQLCheXzyhY

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 02:32:15 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @GuerillaOntologist @edsu I'm not sure that is the correct analogy.

     What I'm saying is more like "you're already buying war bonds, so I don't understand your problem with joining a pirate crew."

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 02:34:12 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Ed Summers
     • Josh Davis

     @GuerillaOntologist @edsu Because, currently, the power of the US military is greater than that of global cryptographic networks, and thus sets a baseline of comprehensibility and liquidity for many people.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 03:04:47 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @GuerillaOntologist Co-op member shares, in the traditional context, are legal securities backed by the enforcement power of the state and a securities regime largely designed to protect wealth holders. We try to leverage those tools to build our communities nevertheless, but it is still reliance on compromised infrastructures. People trying to build healthy DAOs experience similar compromises (as well as distinct ones).

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 03:06:31 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • Josh Davis

     @GuerillaOntologist Thanks for that! I'm not sure I have another lengthy response in me, but I'm grateful for the conversation.