Rolling out the pages from the realm of politics, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) could ferret out that elusive harmony between efficiency and decentralization. Notwithstanding the different staging ground, DAOs, somewhat akin to how political organizations elect representatives and carry out long-term plans, could align discordant community interests while aiming for joint objectives. This might prick the balloon of excitement for proponents of DAOs as novel modes of organizing, and drawing from the politics’ playbook, a domain marked by rampant dysfunction, might seem far-fetched.
Notwithstanding their distinctive edge over traditional organizational models, DAOs frequently find themselves grappling with hurdles similar to ones pervading conventional establishment: finding consensus while retaining efficiency. A complex interplay of flawed governance and lackluster communication often underpins these issues. Diving deeper into the nitty-gritty, there are issues linked to skewed participation. Given everyone’s ability to propose, long-term objectives can often get diluted.
On similar lines, the speckled communication canvas within DAOs frequently triggers turbulence, stalls vital decisions, and exposes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, unregulated proposal influx often creates a decision-making quagmire, aggravated by ineffective filtration systems. Token holders, though given the independence to pitch ideas, might lack the required expertise. This, coupled with lackluster voting involvement, might facilitate proposal passage with scant majority concurrence, potentially subverting the roadmap.
However, borrowing a leaf from political party books could help DAOs circumnavigate these problem areas. Like voters electing representatives, DAO community could elect individuals to steer the project, with an option for replacement, should these “protocol politicians” drift from the project’s goals. Along with putting a barrier to the nefarious acts of bad actors, this could also curb the wave of rage-quitters.
Transparency in communication, as shown by the backlash in the wake of Arbitrum’s initial DAO vote, is indispensable. Clear communication about forthcoming plans, akin to robust election campaigns, could mitigate community uproar. Adopting strategies similar to demographics and preference-based decision-making, employed by political parties, could fine-tune the DAO’s narrative. While not an ideal emulation from politics, certain checks on power centralization and bias avoidance need to be grafted onto the system.
Panel-beating this frame, DAOs, due to public recording of decisions, and decentralized and location-agnostic nature, have already proved their worth over traditional parties. The potential to pool globally diverse viewpoints and swiftly adapting over bureaucratic red-tapes provides fresh air into the efficacy debate. It’s about tweaking the hardware of DAOs, harnessing the best bits from politics, and mapping a smoother discourse.
Source: Coindesk
