Replacing everything

SAFE is already a distributed automated cooperative.

To the end user it may seem as simple as a gossip search engine like FaceBook, but it’s a complete revolution.

All the things the DACO model looks set to eliminate and replace:

  1. Internet

  2. Fiat currency

  3. Top down economic systems like capitalism and socialism

  4. Outdated organizations, roles and claims including: the state, the corporation, the bank, the school,
    the media, the board member, the executive, the manager, the supervisor, the stock holder.

Imagine a world free of countries and corporations.


100% with you on this man


I think John Lennon would have said this, except that it don’t rhyme so good. :wink:


I think John Lennon is a good reference: a lot of imagination and beyond that mostly talk.

PS: SAFE won’t replace anything and technology never causes a revolution - practice does.

1 Like

Edison was a master of imagination and practice. A day came when his tech lit up the night.


Um, how do DACOs stop entrepreneurs and their programmer partners from cutting out the code that keeps them from making a **** truckload of money and thus making a ****ton of money? It’s not like even a noticable amount of the population would care if a DAC made someone a quatillionaire as long as the services provided where still dirt cheap and awesome. It seems like the DAC model just means less hands to split the pie with to me.

Not the DAC corporate model- that is sh-t, reminds me of Micorsoft’s new ploy below. Under the DACO where the human cooperative is half the radical difference, the outside but dwindling money changers would have to hack their way into sabotaging an automated cooperative where income and contribution are much better aligned. But hacking is a much taller order of course. It really is a radically different model as minamalistic and slimmed down as could be imagined. For instance, the incentives would be such as it would really be possible to elevate good ideas without the cult of personality through anonymous mechanisms etc.

I think part of your proposal stumbles in this light: Why doesn’t Microsoft simply hack the open/free software movement to make a boat load of money that no one will notice or care about? Its trying to co-opt it to an extent but it really looks like MS’s whole business model (on its critical consumer side) is becoming a DRM centralization scam. It couldn’t get us to use its cloud services so it wants to sublet our own hardware back to us in exchange for a ‘free’ PRISM enhanced OS and a DRM scam with some gloss about open software. So there you have the typical MIS rung based one way info assymetry set up trying to distribute itself by consolizing end user hardware. Its trash.


I’m not sure if he is a good example for what we are trying to achieve with SAFE Net - look up some of his dubious business practises and how he treated Tesla . .

[quote=“Warren, post:7, topic:5237”]
[/quote] ?



Oh yes in many ways Edison is not at all a good example. But still admire the practice aspect of his character a willingness to fail over and over. An ability to keep his disabilities with reading from holding him back. Trouble with reading if I am not mistaken but still could do higher math. But his exploitative actions are legendary and not to be emmulated.

“Consolizing”- I guess its the idea of encroachment. Turning your PC into something more like a game console. You happen to use their operating system and that entitles them to help themselves to your data and restrict certain functions of your machine while its running. Government may have a gun to their head, because they strongly said they would resist this stuff not long ago.

1 Like

I will grant you that the DACO “mafia” (in the sense of the term “paypal mafia”) won’t be able to take Airbnb sized cuts from the… contracted workers (?), let alone put people through a technocratic sweatshop ala Amazon, at least not in the long term. However, I don’t see people, outside of the straunchest of socialists, getting in an uproar about people who create software that gives value to a billion people being worth billions. People seem to want to reward people who (want to) give them value, as the success of services like kickstarter and patreon would suggest. As such, I still see the entrepreneurs and programmers becoming billionaires under the DACO marketplace by keeping the money-making part of the code closed source, and covering lower profit per transaction with greater scale.

As for the Microsoft case, well Microsoft is terrible and I hope they crush and burn. I’m a linux guy though, so perhaps I’m a little biased.

It was Tesla’s tech. Edison stole it and sold it to everyone because Tesla wanted to give it to people for free. Let’s be sure the same thing doesn’t happen again here. We could all be having free wireless electricity by now if we had stuck with Tesla.

Also decentralization doesn’t get rid of managers or corporations or any of that. It just means you’ll be making money off creativity from art or app production instead. Not to mention not everyone would be comfortable taking orders from a program nor is everyone familiar with all the tech, or have access to it. So we’re still going to have your run of the mill busineses that employ regular human beings for a good long time. SAFE is only applicable to those with a device, that know how to use it and that are comfortable doing so.


@Blindsite2k Point on Edison and I thought of Tesla but it was in response to Artiscience on the conjunction of practice, imagination and tech that actually does revolutionize the world itself . Tesla was a stronger example but he got victimized and by Edison no less. So I used Edison and his light bulb.

Your point about the old crap doesn’t just go away over night… I’d argue that it should and we need to work to make it happen. I just don’t think the corporate world or top down systems work for us anymore. Maybe it something in the human heart or human psychology that has evolved but we are progressing and its away from less autonomy and toward having much more of it and having a safer, less coercive world. Progress is never in the other direction.

If its not a computationally intractable problem humans shouldn’t be working on it- much better that they be on the dole which implies at least a quasi state structure. To do otherwise will quite possible be to keep a huge number of people in tyrannical toil without anything like a remotely acceptable justification. There is no such thing as a phony sense of contribution, if a machine can do it better a human shouldn’t be doing it and that holds even from a gross product stand point.

Think of how odious and stupid the corporate system actually is. Think of the Coke vending machine. Put a dollar in and get a diabetes inducing high fructose corn syrup ‘soft drink’ out the bottom. Go around the back and the same machine has a place to put a dollar called “executive bonus and option” and another incredibly stupid option called stock purchase. Put a dollar in the stock purchase slot and the machine pumps out quarters for you endlessly as it hollows out the product, business and society on the other side. Put it in the exec slot and the stealing is even more aggressive. The cooperative gets rid of all of that nonsense. Think of the customer owned credit union. There is no conflict of interest there and a billion people are presently members of cooperatives.

@neverending_manga Imagine that you and a group of close friends start a firm (organization now) and imagine that you determine it will always be privately held. At some point you find that you’ve attracted 90 other spectacularly unique and talented individuals to join you and you work elbow to elbow or elbow to elbow in virtual space with these people who turn out to be your best friends, really closer than family. You’d give all you own for any of them. Not surprisingly you all become spectacularly rich. Before you know it, your friends have brought in an equal number of passionate super quality people and before you know it the firm is really growing, but that is beside the point for you. As it grew it was always a labor of love between equals.

Now it so happens that you yourself are an exceedingly rare individual. You would do this stuff even if you had to go broke to do it. You’d literally pay to do it and would still consider it a great bargain to do it for free. But it turns out society is willing to make you very very well off for doing it and naturally you convert much of that money into a raft for other people like yourself so you can engage in the sheer joy of the work together.

Although you happen to be the one in a billion mythic person that doesn’t really exist in in the real world that is a true visionary, a technical genius, a truly ethical person and a person of action and a sound business person all rolled into one you are also very mature and are far too aware to expect that constellation of traits in other people. In practice despite your virtue there are still people in your cooperative that can do certain things with more creativity and efficiency than you can but there are probably five percent of people in your group who for whatever reason cannot operate at the higher level or are no onger able to operate there, but they are fine in the organization because you know statistics wan’t allow you to part company with that 5% category and they are at least compatible people and the devil you know- so no sweat.

Your group also happens to be a structurally conflict free, totally flat entity. There is no cult of personality here. You use all the latest tools like iCEO and Watson Debator and narrow AI constructs (like a complicated phone tree) of the DACO to make sure there is no hierarchy, its simply not needed. There is no cult of personality either. No one has to attach their name to good ideas or credit monger or push others out. Ideas can be blind debated first or maybe the origin of certain ideas is never revealed. You also don’t have the overhead your firm can literally run out of phones on SAFE net if need be but you do have some face to face meeting space and some plant facilities. But there is no telling people when to come and go. Your compatriots are up in the middle of the night with fits of creativity, the problem is with getting them to step away fron the work they love but they are free to do so at anytime and have the means to do so. There are no issues of absenteeism and chronic sickness or turn over.

Your organization doesn’t owe any money to anyone. You’ve cut the cord on every bill possible. Your cooperative isn’t dependent on outside investments. You don’t fund pensions with outside investments, although many if not all of your people are well enough off not to worry about it. No firm will ever be able to buy you out and you don’t have any kind of stock shares to be traded on a ponzi stock exchange. If the organization were to be liquidate its assets would go to living members or to charity, but there is none of the nonsense about share to power relations that convert money to power in a corporation or stocks. Every voice is heard and its all strength of ideas.

The charter of your cooperative is the firmware for the DACO and its a conflict of interest free, friction free design, amendable if need by by the members. There is no silly hierarchy of supervisors, managers, executives board members because there are no parasites to pay off. No, your coop takes money and power out of that useless system.

1 Like

Well, let´s say your example graphically showed how tech does NOT revolutionize the world by itself. And yes, your Edison example does prove (better than many other) how adoption depends on people, not on tech. That´s why talk about stuff being “set to eliminate and replace” is as relevant as Lennons “imagine” (btw. the song of a multi-millionaire who pretended to dream of a world with “no posessions”).

I don´t see how SAFE is going to replace anything from circlejerking about the superiority of a piece of software that doesn´t even exist. That was what I was trying to say.

SAFE is one example of a movement but if it works it will be a very powerful example with a clear way forward and it can be the scaffold to build a new world on.

Microsoft has just announced in its EULA that it will be capturing people’s passwords and using those passwords against people (its consumer customers and possibly others) searching through their private (encrypted files,) looking for evidence against them on their own machines. In the US it looks like they are promising to violate people’s constitutional rights with illegal search and seizure and acting like their their EULA actually has people waive their constitutional rights. They will capture your passwords and give it to other people to use against you. And if I am not mistaken they just promoted their main lawyer Brad Smith to President. SAFE is revolutionary.

Edison simply made the first desirable light bulb but the result was a tech that did light up the world

Cold fusion, replicators, all awesome techmology, but as a matter of fact they don’t work atm so I guess instead of predicting the coming of the saviour it’s more productive to stick with what we’ve got: an unfinished piece of software and an uncertain future. A bit of humbleness is obligatory If people are supposed to take SAFE serious. This kind of superiority talk at not even alpha status is the best way to deter potentially interested users. You claim that journalists don’t cover large parts of decentralized technology because they are all sponsored - I can assure you that many don’t deal with stories because of deluded postings like the OP.

SAFE is not revolutionary. It can be, maybe it isn’t . Only future will tell.

1 Like

Tesla said about him: “If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once, with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search…
I was almost a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” —New York Times, October 19, 1931 (the day after Edison died)


And again, you are just showing your lack of vision.
@Warren is focused to what we can achieve, while you are stuck at what we have.

If you cant even dream about it, what is the point of supporting a project you have no expectations.

It is a mistake to ask to lower the dreams to “realistic heights” to achieve it.
Dreamers must dream high, and the doers job is to build latters to it.
Only the bold will conquer the world, and those are the risk takers who have the vision to achieve it.


At least you don’t call a different mindset trolling like @anon81773980 , lol.

As for my lack of vision: I wouldn’t comment this way if SAFE was already released. I’m a researcher, to me it’s unreliable to refer to a nonexistent product as if it already existed. If you look close to literally every crypto community you will find this type of posts and people will tell you how this is going to change the world. Of course, in all cases people claim
it’s different than with the “others”, that it’s the only “real” game changer, and critics lack of vision, lol. I prefer a bit less drama and a bit more humbleness with regard to how things usually work out: evolution instead of elimination, adopting instead of disrupting and yes I prefer this when there is something that can change the game, not before. I strongly believe decentralized technologies will have an impact on future technologies. SAFE may well be one factor if developers manage to release a stable version. Before that happens, talking about how great, revolutionary and disruptive it is going to be, appears to me like unboxing videos on YouTube without the product.


Oh okay, so you’re not saying that there’ll be a “founder doesn’t become a billionaire” set of code in the DACO program. Okay then, carry on.

@neverending_manga Its possible that a bunch of people become billionaires in a phenomenally successful organization of this sort. It might have worked out better for Tesla and the rest of us if such a thing were available during his time. But the point isn’t the money or the ownership. These are generally distractions they shouldnt be central. The point is the contribution and capacity to make a difference with a clear conscience.

I remember a comment from W. where he ambled on about wanting to elevate the value of capital. This was his group wanting more power over people through money. They lament the loss of shoe shine boys and want more mothers in prostitution, literally.

Whereas the cooperative digital or not is about de-escalting the value of capital. Linus Torvalds was once asked why he didn’t cash in on Linux. He essentially said I come from a place where money hasn’t been intentionally made into an issue through denying it to people (W. above). He was saying we haven’t been pimped out over money so we arent like people who were starved during our childhoods and denied our base needs so as adults our humanity isn’t compromised by paranoia and obsession over where the next meal will come from. It almost like understanding that if everyone has enough money there is very little need to tax.

And this is very telling about where we are now. Hard right elitest William F Buckley whined in the 70s about the middle class, he felt it made things unstable for the useless rich. He literally wanted to impoverish people to enhance the power of the rich in order to stabilize the position of the rich. He was not alone. You see as income inequity increases according to their design, as above the need to tax goes up, but they want taxes that further impoverish, not taxes that correct distribution hence bs like 911 and austerity and the new entitled J. Bush (the one with the hereditary right to be king) saying American aren’t working long enough hours (when we work the most in the indusrltrialized world) implying that we are slackers because he wants to instill more fear in the horse he is trying to beat.

This is about permanently freeing the horse from fools.