Greg Bresnitz
Hey bud
Dan Gardner
Hey!
Been meaning to kick off our txt discourse
Greg Bresnitz
All good
Happy to start / get it going
Dan Gardner
Cool. Go for it. I’m sure once you throw something to me, I’ll have something back for you.
Greg Bresnitz
Was thinking about:
DAOs will never be fully decentralized or autonomous but the aspirational aspect is a good thing
Dan Gardner
Why is it a good thing?
Greg Bresnitz
Pushes us to be aspirational. Build in the light not the dark
And strive for something more equitable that’s on chain
Dan Gardner
2 more questions. How do you balance aspiration from getting in the way of being practical? Business is hard in itself, let alone adding more limitations to being successful.
And… Do you need the chain to be aspirational for equitable changes? Equity starts with intention, not technology.
Greg Bresnitz
Yes, you can say “We are transparent” then not do it
So agree: intention first, then execution on chain
Accountable to members
Building in the light
Greg Bresnitz
First question depends on what type of business you want to build
It’s like getting ESG from the start vs. adding it later
Or the type of business that will attract a certain type of talent
Talented people might only want to work for DAOs or a transparent on chain company
Dan Gardner
Is it clear the talent pool is better or even specific for DAOs vs. traditional businesses?
To the point of transparency, besides theoretically that it’s better. Why is it better? I can imagine that it holds accountability easier, but easier isn’t always better. What is transparency solving for?
Greg Bresnitz
Not sure if that’s a fair question regarding the talent pool as this is so new vs. historic. I think the better approach is what has worked in the past and where do companies fall over. What is a more fair equitable transparent way to run a company?
Dan Gardner
I would disagree it’s not a fair question. 2 quick analogies that come up often, 1) when selecting a tech platform, one of the criteria is engineering pool to service the platform long term. The smaller the pool, the bigger the risk. 2) When opening a new office in a new market, thinking about talent availability is incredibly important to the success of that office.
So if we are talking about risking a business decision on an aspirational approach that will limit talent, I think Is absolutely a fair question, because lack of talent will impact business success.
Greg Bresnitz
Sure—but this is not the case for Web3 – we have seen a flood of the best & brightest minds jumping into the space. I think the lack of geographical boundaries to find the best people is a bonus for DAOs—your second example does not really hold weight in a post-pandemic era. I think a lot of people saw a broken system that did not really work, that wanted them to explore a new way of organizing business. Couple of Key Factors 1) time vs. meritocracy-based as holdover from industrial revolution 2) widening income gap from lowest paid worker to C-level.
There are more than enough of a quorum of great minds, executors & financing to give Web3 / DAOs structure a shot. You can already see the vast number of different companies spun up (success notwithstanding + probably not that different from general startups).
As I have seen the space mature—people from different areas are getting into the game. There is a whole group of Web3 CGOs or marketers that have their own DAOs (ahem) because it’s time for our skills.
I also think there is a psychological trick to all this as well: you would never say I have a second job, wouldn’t fly. The mentality of joining DAOs or clubs is very different and allows for more freedom for people to dip their toe in the water.
Dan Gardner
It’s hard to disagree with any of this philosophically. And it seems undeniable there is considerable top talent that have pivoted their careers into this space and even more importantly young talent. That said, it would be interesting if there was some data to back up the actual talent pool and rate of growth (and if it has sped up or slowed down during this economic cycle). Only thing I’d push back is the Web3 CGOs/CMOs, I think we are far from seeing it professionalized at that level with success. I think there are more talkers than doers at the highest level of the space.
Greg Bresnitz
Can only speak from my own experience but the explosion of the space speaks to good CGOs / CMO practices (if in name only). Personally as CGO I have put together a number of high level partnerships that are similar to the pre-Web3 era and have a number of other examples (APE Fest, FWB Fest, Doodles SXSW, etc). Again, it is such early days that there are not going to be tons of examples but the level at which DAOs are playing in such a short time speaks to what DAOs can build, bring in, and incentivize. Still far from perfect but hard to ignore these accomplishments when some of these companies did not exist 18 months-2 years ago.
Good point on people leaving “Web2” epoch jobs and jumping in feet first—curious if people are flooding into the space as much as they were a year ago.
Greg Bresnitz
To push back, why wouldn’t transparency be a good thing?
Dan Gardner
I believe transparency is both good and bad. Good in that it holds accountability and makes alignment easier. But it would be naive to not recognize the challenges that come with that. It may prevent long term visioning bc often that takes creative thinking and risk-taking that is not often understood when you create an environment of potential non-productive criticism. And another example of where transparency is bad is that at times (not always) experience matters, experience gives context to the why, and without that context it makes certain difficult decisions to process.
Greg Bresnitz
This is where my first comment of it being aspirational comes in. Totally agree full transparency & voting will not move things forward (hard agree when it comes to areas of expertise); however, I do think there are more choices / votes that can go to a larger group of people then normally happens. This is a crucial way to make people feel a deeper ownership & connection to the DAO and org in general, which will lead to higher retention & lessen the loss of institutional knowledge. Being in DAO should force leaders to think—can we shine light on this? Should we practice a larger stakeholdership?
Also, I think a lot of companies make top-level decisions that they need to feed to employees. Imagine a world where the debate happened beforehand, people got to voice their opinion and have some sway in the direction. It is much easier for people to go along if they have a hand in it which is fundamental to DAO governance. Also, this might catch some blind spots leadership has and avoid messy cleanups of when decisions are presented vs agreed-upon.
Dan Gardner
I think we are sort of in agreement. And also we may need to agree to disagree (if that’s even possible to both do). Transparency has its advantages, but I still hold that, it’s not a given that it’s automatically better therefore you should strive for it. We both definitely agree, if transparency can be better, it’s unquestionable that it should be a goal.
Greg Bresnitz
We are in agreement here – I think it focuses on what level of transparency is needed / required / desired so it does not become harmful. I agree that not every decision should be a vote and there should be a level of expertise when it comes to certain decisions. This goes back (again) to my first statement that DAOs are aspirational and will never truly be decentralized and autonomous, but the fact they are striving towards it can push orgs to be more open about things that can drive a deeper bond.
Greg Bresnitz
What is the argument against it?
Dan Gardner
Argument against is business is difficult in general. And putting what potentially is a new limiter on ability makes what is harder even harder, when success requires solutioning not barriers. Now to be clear, I don’t think the merits of DAOs don’t have potential attributes to modernize ways to do business that reduce barriers. It could be incredible. But making arbitrary decisions by setting an aspirational North Star of what a DAO could be is too much on making a DAO successful vs. making a business successful. And that’s a big difference.
Greg Bresnitz
Agreement here—no one is coming out to say DAOs are the solution, but the fact of the matter is that most company structures don’t work at scale—there has to be weight that so many people have adopted a DAO-like structure in the past couple years. Business schools are always promoting new types of org charts and the speed and size of adoption needs to be noted. To your points, some are problematic and unrealistic but there are a number of aspects that are just better for the overall health of a company. This is why orgs will never fully be a DAO but there are elements (transparency, greater amount of voices, accountability, etc.) that are arguably a harder go at the start but creates a very different environment in the long run.
Dan Gardner
This is a good perspective and I think my final viewpoint is that I’m not fully convinced the aspiration should be the approach because I do believe it’s an arbitrary limiter on business. That said, I’m a huge believer that business in all aspects, equity, motivation, values and certainly structure should evolve and change to deliver the best results. And to be closed-minded is to limit in another way. The ethos of the DAOs allows us all to push new ideas forward that certainly can be incorporated in business in many ways. With a big BUT, which is where appropriate and where it can be additive. But just like all business decisions. The decision should be a means to the outcome. If DAO aspirations help that, even better.
And lastly, to that point, it’s good that there are businesses that aspire to change things. That’s not a bad thing. I’m looking forward to seeing a DAO finally have success in scale and equity to show the business world WHY it is better not WHY IT SHOULD be better.
Greg Bresnitz
All I’m asking for is a chance 🤨
Greg Bresnitz
It’s also governance—look at co-ops: community owner, contribution, transparency
Equally, most people are at their best when starting things—I believe DAOs allow for a more equitable set up structure in public transparent governance from the jump
Dan Gardner
Equity is great, I agree it is a motivator. But, there are non-blockchain and non-DAO ways to create equity. Also, equity isn’t the only way to reward and motivate contribution. One also important point, the promise of equity is also dangerous if not applied properly and can be more damaging. There are probably more failed startups that have meaningless equity in exchange for lower wages than successful ones where that trade off worked out. (And most recently with the crypto winter, has shown this to be somewhat true in plain sight to the public).
Greg Bresnitz
Equity is problematic in general but the fact that my shares vest automatically and are mine when I leave (and are equitable to my contribution) is infinitely better then a model where it’s a 20% vest over 5 years but if I leave ahead of time I have to buy my stocks—I did the work, give me what’s fair, regardless of worthless equity.
Dan Gardner
I will have to disagree with this. Vesting is just one form of equitable incentives. It has some negatives but it has some positives. Even in a community, if equity is granted and they don’t contribute to someone else’s level of contribution, that is also not equitable. Vesting is one mechanism that incentivizes longer term commitment. As I said earlier, there are other ways too: Bonuses. Higher pay. Flexibility. Etc. I’m not saying one way is worse than another. They all have strengths and weaknesses to creating positive outcomes in an equitable way. Nothing is perfect in terms of fairness. And that’s an unfortunate truth in terms of equity.
Greg Bresnitz
Agree on this—I do not think that automatic tokens are the answer because all you have to do is be first and then sit on it. Some middle ground of “mine to lose” where you have to contribute to keep them or redeem them is probably better. But I would feel much better that it’s on me to keep them vs what has been experienced in the past.
Greg Bresnitz
Have an idea on how to wrap it that goes back to my first comment
Dan—what structure would DAOs have to achieve in order for you to feel comfortable adopting that model for business? What should these be aspiring towards?
Dan Gardner
I think that chart is a helpful visual on what these differences look like.
Greg Bresnitz
Agree
Goal is to show that orgs are always evolving
and new structures have always been met with skepticism
Dan Gardner
Kid time, be back with thoughts shortly!
Greg Bresnitz
I think we got there—and def feel we are on the outer limits of agreeing but still there.
What’s next?
Greg Bresnitz
https://twitter.com/chaserchapman/status/1573026491327201280?s=46&t=24FSBKf183z3lkG7ozY66w