OPRR Flash Depth Activities

Search Extension

DAO Talk: From Sushi to EOS, from People to Sequoia

0xTodd

21-12-10 11:23

Read this article in 17 Minutes

AI summary

View the summary

Original title: "DAO Miscellaneous: From Sushi to EOS, from People to Sequoia"

Original author: @0xTodd, Partner of Nothing Research

I actually thought about this title for a long time - I couldn't think of a particularly suitable one, so it turned into a miscellaneous talk.

Four things this week made me think about a lot of new things about DAO.

First, Sushiswap. AG and Rekt's articles revealed the real reason why the second chef 0xMaki left Sushi. He was kicked out of the management by the interest group represented by CTO Joseph through a carefully planned vote.

Then there is EOS, as the promoter of the DPoS public chain. The BP nodes, who could no longer bear it, finally voted to freeze all the tokens of the inactive parent company block.one.

There is also Musk who published a meme: When the memory was only 4KB, people were sent to the moon, but it caused $People Holder to go crazy.

Finally, there is Sequoia, who changed their Twitter profile to: Willing to help the legendary DAO grow, and LFG. Unfortunately, it was changed back the next day.

All four things happened this week, which made me have some new ideas about DAO.

**The fact that makes me a little pessimistic is that:**The current DAO is a small circle game, and it is still highly linked to money. There are still many people who mistake community for DAO, although it is also very important.

(Of course, the above four do not represent the final form of DAO, and I am still optimistic about the future of DAO)

Let’s talk about Sushi first

As a DeFi enlightenment project for many people, it has always been considered a model of community projects.

Rekt's original article lists many facts about the Sushi interest group embezzling funds and pocketing rewards, such as the BitDAO incident, and how "carefully planned" this vote was, so I won't go into details.

I have no intention of reversing Maki's case or standing in line. However, the first chef left a complete mess to Maki, with massive inflation and falling coin prices. Basically, it was a fork of Uni, and there was not much difference between it and the kimchi swap or mooncake swap.

However, during Maki's tenure, from the performance point of view, Sushi first joined the AC family bucket, and then completed multi-chain deployment and IDO platform, while binding almost all DeFi 2.0 projects. Sushi not only did not fall behind, but its TVL at its peak even exceeded Curve and Uni, and it was the uncrowned king for a while.

Such a person saved Sushi from danger and led Sushi to the peak of glory - but was easily kicked out of the management by a vote. I don't know what the core conflict between Maki and Joseph is, but intuitively, such a person should not be kicked out.

If you think that DAO - or emphasize "today's DAO", is a more advanced management model, then it should not have very low-level and counterintuitive things.

Regarding the dismissal of the CEO, you can't see any posts or any votes in the forum. They directly kicked Maki out through the developer chat, and then pretended that Maki resigned voluntarily.

But the fact has already happened, which shows the unreasonableness of Sushi's DAO, or that it is not a DAO, it is a fake DAO, or that the small circle of developer interest groups is a DAO that fights for its own interests.

EOS seems to be the exact opposite

This time, most BPs did what everyone supported - freezing Block.one, the parent company of EOS development that BM once led. Many BPs thought it was "inaction", so they froze the EOS balance of block.one.

This is a very gratifying thing for many people, as it is the power given to every EOS BP by the EOS blockchain.

However, this actually overlooks another fact. Block.one obtained 150,000 BTC through EOS fundraising. 150,000 BTC, what does that mean? This is more than the amount that Mentougou has to pay in compensation. This once made B1 the largest Bitcoin holder in history (not counting Satoshi Nakamoto).

Even if the community (BPs) can freeze the unlocked EOS of Block.one, they cannot take back the development funds that theoretically belong to the community. Sorry, this has become the right given to Block.one by the BTC blockchain.

If 10% of the 150,000 BTC is used to create an ecological fund - just like other L1s have done, EOS will be many times more prosperous than it is today.

What is the problem behind this? DAO is beyond reach.

Let’s look at the third story, $People

Whether it is the vague teasing of the Coinbase wallet or the vague hints of Musk, all of this hopes to tell you that people is the next shib. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t care.

If you divide $people into pre-auction vs. post-auction, you will find that the two are clearly distinguished.

In the first half, I think the feeling of DAO is full;

But in the second half, I can’t see any existence of DAO, unless you think that shouting is DAO.

People is really a perfect DAO before the auction.

In my mind, DAO is a tool. Based on this tool, many people can work together to do something big, such as raising funds to buy a constitution.

Then using PEOPLE Token, this DAO clearly determines how much property rights each person will have. In addition, the fund custodian ensures the safety of the funds through multi-signature.

And the person in charge of the auction also used his wisdom and did not force the increase in the auction, thus preserving this huge asset. At this time, even if the leading few people wanted to share more money, I would support them. However, a few people were upright and did not take advantage of a penny more.

Highly perfect DAO: completely voluntary, highly trustless, and completely practical.

Practical orientation is very important.

When you create an organization, you must have a purpose, and DAO can help you solve this problem very well.

If your DAO is that everyone is sending PEOPLE vs SHIB, PEOPLE vs BTC, or telling you that it will be listed on Coinbase, or will be promoted by Elon Musk, I will never recognize it as a DAO.

(Of course, I am not Lang Xianping, if you send me people, I will definitely take it, and I will thank you)

This is what I am very worried about. I am not a meme hater, on the contrary, I particularly like memes. Friends who follow me on Twitter know that I send me memes crazily every day.

But for meme tokens, if you assume that the final way to monetize is to sell to the next person who takes over, and the reason for the next person to take over is that he thinks there will be more people who will take over for him, rather than that the DAO has any purpose or mission. ——I actually have doubts whether this token and this DAO are fake and not legit.

Finally, Sequoia

Of course, I am very pleased to see Sequoia pay attention to DAO or crypto, after all, it is also a leader among old money.

However, I am not excited.

Many of the companies invested by Sequoia are great companies, but the DAO invested by Sequoia is probably not a good DAO.

Does DAO need investment? Maybe it is necessary, depending on what your purpose is in forming this DAO.

But if you, as an entrepreneur, have obtained investment from Sequoia, it may prove that you, the founder, are already in a relatively strong state, or that the development team has achieved considerable milestones, which inherently means that a small circle has been formed.

A small circle centered around a certain founder, or a small circle centered around a development team.

And small circles are the natural enemies of DAO.

If you want to get investment from Sequoia, you may be suitable for a company. It doesn't matter. I don't see anything wrong with doing DeFi in the form of a company. Uniswap or DYDX, projects that are about to replace CEX, are products made by companies, not DAOs.

I am only result-oriented: as long as you guarantee the decentralization of assets and business logic, I care about your organizational structure but not "that much".

But when Sequoia (or other investment institutions) invests in a DAO, the DAO needs to report to them, and then the community. Sequoia also needs to report to its LP, and LP ultimately needs to report to capital. This is a fake DAO.

Of course, I would be happy to see if the executives, investment managers, or interns in Sequoia are willing to become members of the DAO and give full play to its light and heat.

This is the side I prefer to see, rather than a short stay to promote the meme-like slogan "Help more legendary DAOs" in the introduction.