RnDAO is a digital swarm focused on the future of work. We operate as a research-led venture studio and composable product ecosystem. We partner with and build modular collaboration-tech tools. We enable communities and teams to organise and work together beautifully.
Love me some tasty Collabberries! Well played Milena! A lot of need for this in startups and such 👌 And overall very interesting results from this Research Fellowship, well done RnDAO 🙏
First time hearing someone being able to see where a technical caveman like myself might fit into this space and possibly provide some value to the group. Thank you very much for sharing your time and work everyone, peace
Great presentation and I enjoyed the enthusiasm, all information as it relates to the system is valuable, even for someone like myself who doesn't have the financial wherewithal to contribute, it helps me understand what investors are looking for and what they're trying to accomplish and what sort of time-line they're looking towards success. Thank you very much for sharing your time and work Max, peace
Thank you very much for sharing your time and work, Eric, I really like the visuals provided, and there was a lot of information contained in the presentation, great job. I'm curious about the lack of referencing block chain as a way of securing the governance policies/constitution once established, peace
False premise: 1) people are not objects; 2) distributed ethnography unknown known "is" denial of services by known design to achieve known sustained discrimination and deprivation outcomes; 3) 3 Eagles and 3×7 Ravens PhD or Masters students - method falacy - study Foucault and look at current global "outcomes" 2010-2023 a la Stanford, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford et al 4) on emergence and creativity "capture" the known unknown: the main reason of existence of digital platforms and "research AI" is to harvest creativity and divergent ideas and thoughts at point of emergence by "exploiting their subjects by renaming them objects equated as things - among other internet of things" and extinguishing concept of "beings" to enable claiming ownership of beings (to the Immaterial Rights and Physical Persons and their environments - which is core concept of modern slavery... Foundational problems means "you can not build learning scaffolds" to build more and the same, at ever escalting pace in wrong direction...
I see familiarities with Michael Levin and his teams work at Tufts University, really interesting subject matter, thank you for sharing your time and work. Peace
Your group might want to send out a set reminder notification prior to releasing a podcast it may help with audience participation. Joshua, I'm wondering if you are aware of the work of Jamie Joyce and her team, in using digital tools to help during negotiations. Her project is called The Society Library, you may find their work can add value to your work.
@ 52:20ish, the question regarding energy gradient of virtue versus sin with the comment that it appears sin is more costly, Putin!!, have to consider the entire gradient. If you have a local high gradient but overall low versus a local medium overall medium, it is going to flow medium until it can bust over to low. That is to say if the immediate cost of sin appears less despite long term possibly being more, peeps still gonna sin. After all, they may not think they’re gonna make it to the long term; alternately they could be thinking next adjacent too and figure they’ll find another least resistant path at the sinfully arrived next adjacent possible. - those words of Dave’s “… at the moment…” matter here.
44:00ish having decisions via doctors proposing ideas and if no one in the other functional areas objects within 48 hrs you can do it anyway - look into the Navy with Composite Warfare Construct and Command by Negation.
Not all Strategic to Tactical situations are going to be fractal. You’re going to have problems if you treat them as such. I would argue that a common characteristic with Complicated systems and Complex ones is that trying to optimize one part can be detrimental to the whole. In that, applying “micro-fixes” and “next best things” in Tactical situations can be detrimental to the Operational situation and therefore wreck the Strategic.
Paraphrasing 14:00ish, “Unknown unknowables bring risk but the unknown knowns are real danger…” sounds like Michael Lewis and “the L6.” See his third season of podcast.
Thank you for sharing this material I'm enjoying watching the podcasts, when I first saw the P2P reference I was thinking this had something to do with private 2 public projects that have been talked about for the last 20 years, this was a really nice surprise to find that it in fact represents peer 2 peer coordination, very relevant and valuable information in today's world.
The fact that Russia is using old military tactics is the reason that they'll fail. DAO's are very effective in such a wide theater of operations. Great advice about understanding that all of us have unique skills and understanding of the world we live in and using all the tools in the toolbox is really important to get balanced output. Peace
Oh wow, I wrote my dissertation on integrating the VSM into a virtual organisation and filtering all the systems! This is great. Your guide was amazingly helpful too Jon. Spent a while trying to work out how to fit it into a DAO but came up blank as to the strict autonomous implications they hold.
"How can virtual organisations create emergence by integrating the Viable System Model" Sure you studying it? It isn't perfect definitely want to go deeper into it during master @@marilynyoh7951
I am working on this topic from a tourism management perspective. How will VSM & Token Economy influence the future of tourism destination management. This was helpful, thanks for your thoughts.
Humanistic vs. Mechanistic approaches to Compensation, around 42:00. Curiously Mechanistic [algo and AI mediated] are most immediately applicable to the extrinsic types of motivational structures.
Main point here seems to be that the crucial benefit of DAOs is that it enables us to truly eliminate the need for intermediate powers in collective commitment building (including commitment to use resources supposedly shared under the DAO, but really controlled by intermediates). Instead, we can have software-enforced, direct, binding, collective commitments from individual commitments. That introduces a problem that interests me: How do you decide when to commit collectively? What process does the software need to enforce? When do you globally commit from individual commits? i.e. would you employ majority, supermajority, unanimity? Clearly, different problems require different levels of agreement. But how do we decide what is appropriate for a given problem? The intuition is that you could apply the process recursively (we decide collectively about how we're going to decide collectively). But there's a great degree of power in that meta-decision, because it decides whether a minority or the majority gets to dominate the decision. So a minority will lean closer to requiring unanimity, so they can block the thing they don't want, whereas the majority benefits from choosing that a simple majority-vote suffices, so they cannot be stopped by the minority. The best solution that I've seen so far in practice is not to get in this meta-level decision game in advance, as it obviously invites infinite regress. It's usually better to go through a number of rounds of 'acceptance' voting. If a majority accepts a potential collective decision, check with the non-accepting people what needs to be changed about the decision in order to make it more acceptable. Iteratively applying this process usually leads to increased acceptance. The combination of accommodating to the (heavy-weight) needs of the few and the observation that you're part of an increasingly small minority holding up something that matters to many usually works pretty well to get total acceptance. We reach relatively high degree of happiness with the outcome, while not blocking collective action indefinitely. This still leaves one to deal with abstention. In my view, anyone eligible should be able to partake in any round. But each round is a fixed window of time. It's a necessity of decentralised systems where halting is not an option that at some point you're going to have to ignore lagging actors. This leaves you vulnerable to denial of service of course, but I'll leave that for a follow up if anybody engages with this unexpectedly lengthy post... Thanks for the inspirational wave :)
