Direct democracy is a delusion that will never exist

[sockpuppet1]

https://daohub.org/index.html

This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.

Pitching the word 'revolution' in the first marketing sentence is a more effective way to start another ETH style pump.

Here we go again with the inane fantasies of the Delirium (Bitalik Vuterin) ecosystem.

No it's not, because it's basically the same as any other ICO.

No there is a very significant difference.

> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO

IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.

You seem to not believe and/or understand why direct democracy results in abject failure.

I do not believe in the smart crowd.

This is quite an interesting paradox. There are two very famous sayings that demonstate this.

The wisdom of the crowd is positive: "Two heads are better than one."

The wisdom of the crowd is negative: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

Direct democracy has never existed and never will, because organization of work is incongruent with such a flat decision hierarchy. It is one of the reasons that Communism ends up as despotism.

Switzerland, despite being applauded as a role model of direct democracy in a modern society, actually applies an indirect democracy instead. However, its political system leaves room for direct election and referendum.

Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.

Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.

It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.

This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.

Athens was run by the merchant class. There was no direct democracy. There never has been and there never will be, because flat structures do not function. The uniform distribution doesn't exist in nature, it is only a delusion of man.

Can you imagine a ship at sea in a storm with 100 people at the helm fighting over each navigation decision.

What you will end up with is a normal corporate structure with a board and the investors will vote to elect the board which oversees and makes the decisions for the corporation.

This is no different than an ICO that matures into being a real company with shareholders.

The real issue here is that crypto-currency which is not distributed by decentralized proof-of-work is masquerading as an illegal unregistered investment security. Thus the desire to side-skirt securities law by creating a token that can vote on governance. But this functionally must end up the same as a voting share in a corporation, thus it is still an illegal, unregistered investment security.

Please quote my post before it is deleted by the mods.

When will two left-thumbs Elmer Fudd (aka theymoist) learn he can't ban an expert hacker. Technically impossible if he also allows anonymous trolls. Make up your mind theymouse. Are you for freedom-of-speech or not? I wanted to respect you, but I learned that you've been censoring the debates about Bitcoin.

[EUROPEANTURK]

https://daohub.org/index.html

This looks to be a much more effective way to crowdfund than to run a typical ICO.

Pitching the word 'revolution' in the first marketing sentence is a more effective way to start another ETH style pump.

Here we go again with the inane fantasies of the Delirium (Bitalik Vuterin) ecosystem.

No it's not, because it's basically the same as any other ICO.

No there is a very significant difference.

> If you had a project which needed to be funded, why would you create a DAO

IMO, this is the backwards way to think about this. The people that are providing funds to companies might (should) start insisting that they work with DAOs that they are part of. This allows investors to retain leverage and power over their money. In ICOs the investors usually have little to no power after their investment and lead to a lot of situations where the investors get taken advantage of.

You seem to not believe and/or understand why direct democracy results in abject failure.

I do not believe in the smart crowd.

This is quite an interesting paradox. There are two very famous sayings that demonstate this.

The wisdom of the crowd is positive: "Two heads are better than one."

The wisdom of the crowd is negative: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

Direct democracy has never existed and never will, because organization of work is incongruent with such a flat decision hierarchy. It is one of the reasons that Communism ends up as despotism.

Switzerland, despite being applauded as a role model of direct democracy in a modern society, actually applies an indirect democracy instead. However, its political system leaves room for direct election and referendum.

Direct democracy lacks procedures, promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, and causes despotism.

Such a democracy demands all citizens to have an unambiguous, either-yes-or-no opinion, which is quite often extreme, on each and every issue.

It ignores the complexity and ambiguity of issues, thus this decision-making often encourages people to resort to their basic emotions instead of their rational judgement.

This way of decision-making leads to a strict uniformity well known to the Chinese population, discounting the fact that citizens often don’t have a clear-cut position on many issues.

Athens was run by the merchant class. There was no direct democracy. There never has been and there never will be, because flat structures do not function. The uniform distribution doesn't exist in nature, it is only a delusion of man.

Can you imagine a ship at sea in a storm with 100 people at the helm fighting over each navigation decision.

What you will end up with is a normal corporate structure with a board and the investors will vote to elect the board which oversees and makes the decisions for the corporation.

This is no different than an ICO that matures into being a real company with shareholders.

The real issue here is that crypto-currency which is not distributed by decentralized proof-of-work is masquerading as an illegal unregistered investment security. Thus the desire to side-skirt securities law by creating a token that can vote on governance. But this functionally must end up the same as a voting share in a corporation, thus it is still an illegal, unregistered investment security.

Please quote my post before it is deleted by the mods.

When will two left-thumbs Elmer Fudd (aka theymoist) learn he can't ban an expert hacker. Technically impossible if he also allows anonymous trolls. Make up your mind theymouse. Are you for freedom-of-speech or not? I wanted to respect you, but I learned that you've been censoring the debates about Bitcoin.

Democracy didnt exist before, it isnt existing now and it wont exist in the future because as people, we have a tendency to be ruled by a man not to be ruled by whole society..

[sapol]

Direct democracy is a delusion that will never exist

Giving plain function of voting to everyone is foolish, but direct democracy is a trend many people are picking up because the technology allows us to participate.
Here is a project of electronic governance that uses direct democracy with government moderation:
http://pluralpower.org

[BADecker]

Why not do it the opposite way. Whatever this is called, do it this way.

First, if you hurt anyone, or damage his property, even if it has to do with breaking a contract, you can go to the courts and get damages through a jury trial. Leave the jury in place. The jury rules in all cases.

Second, ALL laws need to be voted on. If they are not voted on, they do not become law.

Third, if laws are voted on, then they apply only to the people who voted in favor of them, but they don't apply to anyone else.

Fourth, those people who vote for any laws, are the only ones who pay any money to implement those laws, and they are the only ones who receive whatever benefits those laws create... at least until some non-voter becomes a voter and pays his dues.

Fifth, if a law harms anyone who did not vote for it, the jury makes those who voted the law IN, to pay those who the law harmed.

That's basically IT.

To implement, drop all laws and government right now. Make the jury to be the only judges. Make court judges to only be referees in the courts for court order (they don't actually do any judging themselves).

Then set up a roster of laws, and include records of those who voted for them.

Set up polling houses with polling clerks. The polling houses would be open 24/7/365 for anyone who wanted to vote on any law, to come in and do his voting, and to make his "dues" payment if any is required.

Keep a copy of the records open for all to see who is included in any of the voting. And make those who voted the law IN, pay for record-keeping of the activity produced by the particular law, so that everyone can see if he is being harmed by the law.

Other than that, everyone is free to do anything he wants. Remember, the jury makes him pay if he harms anyone.

Now, of course, this is extremely brief. There are parts of it that would have to be thought over before implementation. But, you get the idea.