The thirteenth meeting
Attendees: Cent, Josh Tan, Ken Ng, Hugo-Bordet, Primavera, Joni Pirovich, Alex Poon, Andrei (dOrg), Connor Spelliscy, Daniel, Dennison Bertram, Eugene Leventhal, Hugo-Bordet, Isaac P, Ivan Fartunov, Ken Ng, Lance Davis, Marc Dangeard, Matthew Summer, Shawn Cheng, Tomicah Tillemann, Vikram Aditya
Agenda
Breakout discussion
- Interested in things that bridge to local public management projects
- Interested in starting small, maybe with a LAO
- Having an organization that backs the values of DAOs
Updates
- Business and development ops team:
- Rolling out clear understanding of what membership means in DAOstar
- Making commitments to at least one of two things:
- Adopting a standard, or
- Or actively participate in authoring a working standard
- Strike team
- Front end UI
Discussion: Regulatory Interoperability
Question: Can DAOs have a regulatory superpower?
Yes, the ability to have records and transparency is possible. In order to unlock this superpower will require a UI for regulators to DAOs.We also need to see improvements in DAO governance models beyond token holding.
DAOs do spend a lot of time over whether what they are doing will be okay or cause problems later. A lot of energy goes into trying to be compliant with regulation. Seeking regulatory clarity.
On better DAO governance: complying with certain regulations — regulators often impose certain governance layers. This can prevent innovation, which is important for DAOs.
In what way can DAOs modularize their smart contract surface to compliy with different regulatory features
Discussion of DAO Model Law
There is only so much that regulators can imagine and require; you need to understand the technology in order to understand the possibilities.
The DAOModel Law is a broad set of suggestions of necessary requirements, but don’t have the technological solutions. We need a standard for this.
May be an interesting precendent here with Airbnb. When they started they where illlegal in every part of the world. To deal with this they created five APIs for regulators to tap into. They stated that they would make an API for you, but there was a large waitlist, so they ended up using the 5 APIs. It is possible to steer the regulators towards solutions that solve their problems and keep things simple for the operators.
It is important to demonstrate to the regulators that this is easier for them, and that they don’t have to worry about the auditing complexities that come along with centralized institutions.
There is also the matter of getting the regulators to adopt this. Is there any lobbying effort and in what jurisdiction? In the short term we need this, but on the long term, DAOs are on a colision course with governments given the transnational nature of DAOs — is there any discussion of getting counturies and governments to comport into DAOs.
No lobbying for DAO Model Law yet, yet some interest. Salient for regulators now though.
In australia, there is discussion of CBDCs, topic discusses privacy and more active governance of CBDC holders. DAOs not discussed, but could be some parallels and resonances.
Democracy is a technology like any form of governance. Broad scholoarship that the UI of governance needs a major upgrade. Int he aftermath of FTX, we need to show regulators that there is something that is successfull in meeting the needs of DAOs today, and being able to demostrate better governance then this will show the way for governments.
Having conversations with frameworks to take results of this standard and implement this on their own side.
Should we move fast and ship something to regulators or move slower and working with regulators along the way.
In some experiences, working with regulators who are understand the technology is very beneficial. Possible to move fast and not move in the right direction.
Regardless of approach, we need to be aligned on what