Cooperative internet movement (eg decentralising Uber, Airbnb type services)

“Cooperative workshop” sounds so much as “hierarchically organized business”, but in the end its not contradictive. Hierarchies exist in every social system, the will overdue in the future in one way or another. I remember a discussion on AirBNB that went more or less the same. Fact is, no, AirBNB and Uber are not good for everyone. AirBNB and Uber are both businesses created based on the idea of creating surplus and the lower edge of society to compete with businesses that are running only slightly higher.

Most taxi drivers are working under minimum wage. The same way AirBNB doesn´t put pressure on luxury hotels, but mostly on hostels, low to mid cost hotels and the housing market (that is: people who do have the financial ressources to buy a house, certainly not those at the top).

Different issue: Those businesses do not run on technology, but on a social net - and they heavily invested to turn it into this network that people now use. AirBNB wasn´t a much needed service, there were other services as well. They had a hard time to get started over years(!), financing their work out of the pockets of their families. They paid professional photographers to take better shots of homes offered on their platform. They nearly went bankrupt shortly before they received Venture Capitalist money and they raised more 1,500,000,000 $ only in one of their private-funding rounds.

Today, large cost of AirBNB are spent for service and support & lawyers. Certainly a self-enforcing platform could cut legal cost necessary to ensure profits, but you cannot easily cut the cost for the support and control of quality when money is involved. Hospitality-club.org, the predecessor of Couchsurfing, ran on volunteers and one reason why that worked out is because no money was involved. As soon as people pay for services things get complicated. I recently used AirBNB and found the place in a miserable state. The kitchen was dirty, the bed was damaged and the whole place smelled like cigarette smoke. The host didn´t agree on our criticism. Following the (self-enforced) conditions we would have received 1/3 of our deposited money for staying there only several hours. Fortunately AirBNB had their employees looking at our case, communicating with the host and me several time via phone, organizing us an alternative place to stay and in the end we received all our funds back. That´s one of the reasons why people use the service (even though there are cases that do not work out perfect as it did with us). A program couldn´t have judged easily who´s right and who´s wrong in this situation. Most likely it would have left me with losing my money and giving me the opportunity to give the host a shitty rating. Yes, in this case most people prefer to pay a bit more and lower the risk of getting ripped.

That´s not saying it´s not possible to create a decentralized sharing platform, that´s absolutely possible. But it won´t come from “imagine”, it will come when people are willing to make massive risk investments for this kind of services. Sometimes comments here sound as if this services will come by itself. I hardly see anyone who is willing to write a substantial concept for that. I hardly see anyone saying: I´m willing to invest 1000$ for this idea. If SAFE is delivered in ~3month then now is the perfect time to start working.

btw. I´d be interested in creating a carsharing (not Uber style) app and can assist with concept and graphic design.

I’m not entirely on the side of believing that automation can handle everything (in the foreseeable future), but big data backed up by strong algorithms has me thinking that you could see management reduced to a programmer or two that you may or may not be able to outsource on the relative cheap, plus the founder/CEO. The strides in AI thanks to big data are pretty sci-fi to me. I mean, real time voice translators, talking to AI programs, and more are real things now.

2 Likes

I think this is largely exaggerated. The economy sucks, but aside from the third world, most of us are doing pretty damn fine, compared to our ancestors.

Moreover you failed to address my arguement…

The system could be better, but DAO’s have significant shortcomings that will cause them the be blinded by “bias of mission” Missions are meant to be picked up and put down. That is what successful companies do. DAO’s are not going to be smart enough to stop doing what they are doing and start doing something entirely different. They will do what they are programmed to do.

In some cases this will be fine. There are tons of boring repetitive jobs that can be handled that way … (Vending machines perhaps) But anything that requires strategy, marketing, litigation etc. isn’t going to be well managed by a DAO. Anything that is a market the grows and evolves isn’t going to be well managed by a DAO.

Bitcoin is in large part failing because it cannot find a strategy forward to deal with problems that need to be dealt with. Strong leaders are needed, but leadership is against the ethic of the community and is thus rejected. Every DAO is going to run into simular situations in the long run. What works now may not work when the market is 10 times its current size - and the different stakeholders may have different opinions on how to move forward, thus preventing consensus…

I think the leadership is just fine, and Bitcoin isn’t failing. But it depends on your definition of “failing”.
There are problems, but it’s open source and it can fork if necessary.

Right, but the whole purpose of a DAO as advocates proclaim is to remove centralized leadership –

A fork is replacing one DAO with another. and it is only done via strong centralized leadership that is corruptible, susceptible to lobbying and cow-towing to special interests of one flavor or another.

The idea that DAO’s eliminate the need for leadership is wrong. Bitcoin is the most prominent DAO in the world right now and is really the only case study we have to look at… Organizations need to change and adapt, and DAO’s tend to only do what they are programmed to do…

Well there’s no centralized leadership, that’s been accomplished. Now there is no quick decision making. Not entirely unexpected… But may not be bad. I’d rather go through several failures than try my luck to end up with a dictator.
Sure, in terms of cryptocurrencies my cost of switching is much lower than with my local government, but still.

Ironically in case of Bitcoin (the project), they didn’t have time to completely program the statute/governance, it was too late (to change and not be accused that you’re changing governance to suit your agenda).
But that is probably never possible, unless you have AI (and then results are unpredictable, just like with humans.

I think many people are jumping on the DAO bandwagon without thinking things all the way through…

In most businesses you need bold and decisive leadership to steer your business in the direction that the market requires. Doing what you have always done rarely is sustainable in the long term…

If bitcoin doesn’t scale and in order to make changes they resort to things like transaction spamming and censorship deviding their support base, some alternative is going to come along that will scale and will leave it in the dust. The same goes for any and every business run for a DAO. It is nearly impossible to think of all of the contingencies that a business will run into over the course of any given week, let alone a business lifetime. If you have to come to decentralized consensus on every issue, you are not going to be competitive against alternative IBM version which can fix the problem here and now.

I fear that SAFE is going to run into the same issues when they tie creator compensation into the protocols. That is hard to undo once you have done it. You will need consensus of those gaming the system in order to prevent the system from being gamed… I think the DAO ought to be kept as simple as possible (Storage and retrieval) and additional layers could be built atop that that would provide compensation if it paid to provide compensation.

It reminds me of how the first cars looked like horse wagons, without the horse. The first DAOs will look similar to ordinary organizations, without the leadership. Successful DAOs need new and different structures. And hierarchical control is often useful for some things, even in distributed systems. The role of leadership in ordinary organizations will be needed in many DAOs but the humans will be replaced by artificial intelligence and automatic algorithms.

Some people may be frightened by automation replacing humans, even for white-collar tasks. But people no doubt thought like that during the industrial revolution too. During the industrial revolution many of those working in agriculture could gradually move into industry jobs. The difference this time is that enough new jobs for humans will unlikely be created. This time things like a basic income will likely be needed during the transition into the money-less society (there will be only such things as a free lunch).

2 Likes

How does a DAO decide to do something other than what it was setup to do? How does it know when to dump C++ and switch to Rust? How does it build consensus for such a thing? How would it even know such a thing was on the radar to be considered?

Everybody seems to want to disagree because they want to keep faith, but fail to address the core point.

Anything you build as a DAO will have to compete with a guy who can say “We aren’t doing it this way anymore, we are doing it that way” and any DAO that comes to a conclusion like that must do it through some Rube Goldberg design process that will never be as efficient or as innovative as a bold leader…

How could a landline phone in the 50s upload photos to the cloud? It couldn’t. Similarly, the first DAOs will be very primitive compared to later iterations. The DAO management will become smarter than human management. And I doubt AGI will use C++ or Rust when developing software (at one zillion lines per second).

I am talking about the here and now. If you put your company in a DAO, you are choosing primitive management. There are a few reasons why that is wise. (If you don’t want the leader to mysteriously disappear at the whim of the NSA or the DEA for example) But in most cases and for most things it isn’t a mature technology and it is going to be a foolhardy business decision.

Over time, it is possible that AI will come along that is worthy of running DAO’s but that isn’t now. And even when they come along, they still are going to make decisions for reasons and those reasons are going to have to hurt some and help others… They are still going to to have to weigh options and prefer certain inputs over others… I can make a DAO that favors shareholders over customers or employees or vice versa – There is always going to be a formula be it from a man or a machine.

Yes, I was attempting a Kurzweilian prediction. Today it may be hybrid forms of DAOs that will be the most successful, with human leadership and input in key areas. Just a guess. It will be very interesting to follow the development of DAOs.

[quote=“jreighley, post:48, topic:5321, full:true”]I fear that SAFE is going to run into the same issues when they tie creator compensation into the protocols. That is hard to undo once you have done it. You will need consensus of those gaming the system in order to prevent the system from being gamed… I think the DAO ought to be kept as simple as possible (Storage and retrieval) and additional layers could be built atop that that would provide compensation if it paid to provide compensation.
[/quote]

Off-topic a bit, but I find the idea of paying core/app devs with your company’s self-made currency to create code/programs/websites for you to be ingenious as long as the implementation is good. It’s the paying of content uploaders as a core feature that sounds problematic to me. That’s just asking for the safenet to be filled with the same click-baity nonsense that floods the old internet.

Agreed entirely…

No problem at all with rewarding hard drive space/ bandwidth / CPU time… “how much” needs to be carefully thought out.

I think rewarding Apps isn’t too dangerous…

Rewarding artists and content creators gets a lot more hairy. I would much rather see alternative tokens that could be used to fund and support these ventures…

Using a DAO is necessary in SAFE’s case because it is going to need to be decentralized with no point of control that can be intimidated or seized… But building to much complexity or too many layers in such a DAO could very well be it’s downfall. It is very hard to amend once people are earning money, even if that money is not well spent, because you will need the consensus of those benefiting unfairly in order to move back to what is fair.

1 Like

@jreighley a jury is smarter than your single golden plantation owner who claimes he did all the work on the plantation. An intelligent kid with Google may out diagnose a seasoned physcian without similar tech, not every time but some of the time. That kid with IBMs latest tool might beat the non intuitive physcian regularly. A couple mediocre chess players working with a mid grade chess program routinely beat grand masters in mixed matches.

What you can’t seem to understand is these systems don’t have to be more efficient or effective to win or be more resilient. We are in the age of network and search its not all about the blind stupid fragile market. Corporations fail in the most important way:

hypothtically

Sanders: you mean a tax break for yourself on other people’s money?

Trump: You’re on thin ice.

Sanders: No I don’t think so, even the IRS calls your supposed money "unearned’ and when you don’t pay taxes so that we can try to give back some of the money you took it becomes theft. But we both know based on your actual contribution that none of it is yours and you and people like you owe it back to the people you took it from with interest.

And so @jreighly your position is like saying the slaves could never run the plantation, never without the vital contribution of the plantation ower. But fruit grows on trees, and we don’t have to wear cotton and the plantation would run better without the drunken sadistic self important clown getting in the way. Intelligent people can come together in humility and do better than a world run by Paris Hilton, In such a world people live dignified lives where they aren’t pitted against machines and each other for the amusement of Kochs and Bushes.

1 Like

That is a total misrepresentation of my position.

My position is that the plantation needs hard decisions made and no matter what class is in charge, somebody will have to emerge to bully the minority into going along with an unpopular decision. Managers manage not because they have some throne that they where granted by devine right or heritage. Managers exist because if hard decisions are not made plantations lose money. A slave could run the plantations, but he would still have to make sure the work gets done – In short he would have to become the boss. Then you would despise him as much as you despised the last guy.

So if you put no clown in charge either a new clown will emerge or the enterprise will fail. It doesn’t matter what form or structure you build, leaders lead or organizations fail.

Running a business is mostly picking between two poisons. If you don’t bite one bullet or another You will get killed by both. Biting either one is going to irk one stakeholder or another, be it customers, employees, investors, or vendors. if you try to make everyone happy you will succeed at going broke.

Do you have any business experience at all @warren? Have you ever managed a company? Have you ever fired somebody? You seem to be in some sort of philosophical fantasyland that ignores the reality. You can argue that reality isn’t real. But when my customers co-ops fail because of lack of leadership. (I see it quite often) Real people hit real unemployment lines, and companies run by more aggressive leader usually wind up taking up their slack left by the collapsing business.

1 Like

Hard decisions in an automated world. Yah right. More and more psycopathic decisions have to made to chase dollars and chase one’s own tail. More and more criminality has to come to be admired and encouraged.

The strong leader nonsense is what people use to justfy bad behavior. Strong people don’t structure their lives on chasing money or trying to control others.

A Boomer who can’t or won’t see out of the box he’s made for himself.

Every dollar spent on something could have been spent on something else. You can buy a machine to make one employee’s job easier but the other guy will be irked because he has to work just as hard as ever per piece but will have more demand because the guy in front of him is more productive. Every choice has benefits and costs.

It doesn’t matter how automated the world is. That will always be the case.

Every choice is based on a set of predictions that may or may not be right.

You can call names and hurl insults, but you still seem absolutely ignorant of the real world. And you fail to address the real issues that I bring up.

Every choice helps some and hurts some. If choices are not made your company will be less competitive than the company down the road that makes choices.

You seem to assume that leadership exists to be tyrants. They don’t. They exist to lead to progress… Leaders don’t exist because we really want to pay some guy a bunch of money – They exist because without them decisions that need to be made in a timely and decisive manner don’t get made because it is no fun to make decisions. Somebody is always pissed no matter which path is chosen. It takes diplomacy, negotiation, and good relations to lead an organization. In most cases if you are a tyrannical jerk you will fail.

How is buying this machine over that a “psychopathic decision”? Or planting this crop over that? Most decisions are not evil no matter how they are decided. The coin is in the air… It will hit the ground way before you can hold a committee meeting and come to unanimous consent on weather to call heads or tails.

3 Likes

I think there is a wisdom of a crowd, a wisdom in a jury that can be used to make timely decisions on the toughest things without the distraction of force of personality. I think contant inquiry is stronger than a persinality or ego making decisions and having to justify them. If this strong leader type were the best decider judges could replace juries. They generally can’t. We can move to the ant models.

Have you ever served on a jury?

I have. And strong personalities pushed for conviction and other strong personalities lead the arguement for acquittal. In the end one arguement won out, because one leader’s arguement won over the other. The jury went along with the leader that was most effective at pleading the case… In most cases Juries wouldn’t work without leaders either.

7-4 Okay, then lets tell the judge we’re hung.

2 Likes