Criticisms of the DGF project: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* Nothing is perfect | * Nothing is perfect | ||
* Financialization is bad It degrades the fundamental human impulse to help without expectation of reward. Under this system, everything is tied to a measured value, then accounted for and rewarded according to whatever system is currently in place, even though that system is necessarily flawed. | * Financialization is bad It degrades the fundamental human impulse to help without expectation of reward. Under this system, everything is tied to a measured value, then accounted for and rewarded according to whatever system is currently in place, even though that system is necessarily flawed. | ||
* | |||
· | · | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
=== Technical Criticisms === | === Technical Criticisms === | ||
* Blockchain tech is bad | |||
== SGF == | |||
* '''Greater communication between scientists can lead to bad outcomes.''' Science needs independent validations of a theory to prevent bias. So a platform where they can communicate immediately, without careful consideration beforehand can ultimately harm science. Kevin Zollman, e.g., in discussing the social epistemology of science argues that before a scientist's colleagues' results are validated, the scientist being aware of their claims is likely to prejudice the scientist. Related is how scientific results have a statistical problem, that many measurements historical record converge to the most accurate current result from a biased direction (e.g., because the scientists are probably self-censoring themselves, and not reporting results that are too far at variance with the other results). | |||
* | |||
==== ==== | ==== ==== | ||
Revision as of 10:29, 28 February 2023
This page collects arguments against the goals and the implementation of the DAO Governance Framework project and their responses.
Fundamental Criticisms
- Nothing is perfect
- Financialization is bad It degrades the fundamental human impulse to help without expectation of reward. Under this system, everything is tied to a measured value, then accounted for and rewarded according to whatever system is currently in place, even though that system is necessarily flawed.
·
Technical Criticisms
- Blockchain tech is bad
SGF
- Greater communication between scientists can lead to bad outcomes. Science needs independent validations of a theory to prevent bias. So a platform where they can communicate immediately, without careful consideration beforehand can ultimately harm science. Kevin Zollman, e.g., in discussing the social epistemology of science argues that before a scientist's colleagues' results are validated, the scientist being aware of their claims is likely to prejudice the scientist. Related is how scientific results have a statistical problem, that many measurements historical record converge to the most accurate current result from a biased direction (e.g., because the scientists are probably self-censoring themselves, and not reporting results that are too far at variance with the other results).