Criticisms of the DGF project: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(merging Jonathan's question on meritocracy) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page collects arguments against the goals and the implementation of the [[DAO Governance Framework project]] and their responses. | This page collects arguments against the goals and the implementation of the [[DAO Governance Framework project]] and their responses. | ||
== General Criticisms == | |||
=== Fundamental Criticisms === | === Fundamental Criticisms === | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
* Blockchain tech is bad | * Blockchain tech is bad | ||
** Environment | ** Environment | ||
*** PoW uses the amount of energy of Czechoslovakia and it's entirely wasted except for the minor benefit of decentralized consensus | *** Bitcoin's PoW uses the amount of energy of Czechoslovakia and it's entirely wasted except for the minor benefit of decentralized consensus of a mostly useless currency. | ||
** Redundancy of decentralized systems is orders of magnitude less efficient than centralized databases, independent of PoW. | |||
*** Slower than centralized databases | |||
*** More expensive | |||
** Centralized interfaces are unregulated and untrustworthy (e.g., Mount Gox, FTX) | |||
** | |||
* P2P tech is for criminals | * P2P tech is for criminals | ||
** File sharing is theft: e.g., music and movies | ** File sharing is theft: e.g., music and movies | ||
** Bitcoin | ** Bitcoin has only ever been practically used for money laundering, internet drug sales, and sex trafficking in the last 14 years. | ||
= | === Downsides of meritocracy === | ||
Meritocracy without cultivating gratitude and humility is corrosive over time. Though we want somewhat of a class structure, we don't want the gap to be large enough for the the top and bottom to dissociate. This is built in computationally with hyper-inflationary reputation, but this must also be managed emotionally. | Meritocracy without cultivating gratitude and humility is corrosive over time. Though we want somewhat of a class structure, we don't want the gap to be large enough for the the top and bottom to dissociate. This is built in computationally with hyper-inflationary reputation, but this must also be managed emotionally. | ||
=== Downsides to transparency === | |||
* Threat to privacy | |||
* | |||
=== Downsides of globalism === | |||
* Threat to local community | |||
== SGF Criticisms == | == SGF Criticisms == | ||
* '''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). | * '''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 06:07, 4 March 2023
This page collects arguments against the goals and the implementation of the DAO Governance Framework project and their responses.
General Criticisms
Fundamental Criticisms
- Nothing is perfect
- Law of Unintended Consequences
- Chesterton's Fence
- 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
- Environment
- Bitcoin's PoW uses the amount of energy of Czechoslovakia and it's entirely wasted except for the minor benefit of decentralized consensus of a mostly useless currency.
- Redundancy of decentralized systems is orders of magnitude less efficient than centralized databases, independent of PoW.
- Slower than centralized databases
- More expensive
- Centralized interfaces are unregulated and untrustworthy (e.g., Mount Gox, FTX)
- Environment
- P2P tech is for criminals
- File sharing is theft: e.g., music and movies
- Bitcoin has only ever been practically used for money laundering, internet drug sales, and sex trafficking in the last 14 years.
Downsides of meritocracy
Meritocracy without cultivating gratitude and humility is corrosive over time. Though we want somewhat of a class structure, we don't want the gap to be large enough for the the top and bottom to dissociate. This is built in computationally with hyper-inflationary reputation, but this must also be managed emotionally.
Downsides to transparency
- Threat to privacy
Downsides of globalism
- Threat to local community
SGF Criticisms
- 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).