DAO Governance Framework project: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
''Main page:'' [[DAO Governance Framework|''DAO Governance Framework'']] | ''Main page:'' [[DAO Governance Framework|''DAO Governance Framework'']] | ||
??should include links to: | |||
== DGF | Cultural things (such as constitutions and settled laws, agreed upon ways of doing things, [[Author Style Guide|design philosophy]], [[Transcendental Values|values statements]], [[Contributors Guide|contributors' guide]]); up-to-date Marketing/Advertisements; fixed Code (!!!), Fixed Plan, Theory, Formulas | ||
== DGF solves DAO problems == | |||
''Main page:'' ''[[DGF Fixes Blockchain]]'' | ''Main page:'' ''[[DGF Fixes Blockchain]]'' | ||
??should include links to anything relatively dynamic, abstract, ideas, such as: | |||
evolving goals/plans for the project; roadmap; | |||
arguments/discussions for and against ideas | |||
== Applications == | == Applications == | ||
''Main page:'' ''[[DGF Fixes Blockchain|DGF Applications]]'' | ''Main page:'' ''[[DGF Fixes Blockchain|DGF Applications]]'' | ||
* [[DeSciPub|Decentralized scientific societies]] (deSci publishing initiative) | |||
* [[PoR consensus|Blockchain consensus algorithm]] | |||
* [[Stable coins]] | |||
* [[Oracles]] | |||
* FinTech | |||
** REP markets | |||
*** ForEx | |||
*** Commodities (tokenization) | |||
*** Equities (ICOs) | |||
*** Options | |||
** [[Decentralized underwriting]] | |||
** [[Generalized chit fund banking]] | |||
* Gig Jobs | |||
** Code Review DAO | |||
** Ride Sharing/Delivery | |||
** | |||
??should include links to what’s working, especially IRL or outside the platforms associated projects, such as functioning DAOs] | |||
= Codebase = | |||
= See Also = | = See Also = | ||
* philosophical motivations | * philosophical motivations | ||
* sociological justifications | |||
* legal analyses | |||
* theoretical economics and game theory arguments | * theoretical economics and game theory arguments | ||
* mathematical formulas for tokenomics | * mathematical formulas for tokenomics | ||
* | * engineering philosophy | ||
* | * design plan/roadmap | ||
* software specs | |||
* code audits | |||
* marketing | * marketing | ||
** recruitment | ** recruitment | ||
| Line 32: | Line 62: | ||
** data storage | ** data storage | ||
** deSci community | ** deSci community | ||
Please sign pages you edit, so we can recognize and attempt to reward any surviving contributions. Pseudonymous identities are supported to protect members’ privacy. Trolling and graffiti with valuable criticism which eventually results in platform improvement will be rewarded. Doxing of any type will be punished with loss of REP. The proper way to encourage healthy communication is filtering content. I kind of want to encourage graffiti and trolling. We could recognize (maybe even reward) the most affecting posts as contributions to the defensive structure we build. They contribute to our immune system, making us stronger so we can better anticipate new attacks. Quiet angry enemies can be much more damaging in the long run. And those who are expressing their disagreement—even from the outside—can have beneficial consequences to the analysis. They can’t be rewarded too, much. The edge figures must remain on the edge until they contribute to the improvement of the core, not just the defensive walls. So the reward should not be as great as those who actually solve problems that trolls complain about. But complaining is an echo of a positive contribution—maybe a pre-echo—and so makes a positive contribution. Spam is less rewarded (usually punished, actually by DDoS fees) than clever graffiti. But we also don’t want the criticism culture to metastasize.) This means we need to employ some of the trolls that can be tamed somewhat… reward the monsters at the edge who fight the monsters further away from the edge. | Please sign pages you edit, so we can recognize and attempt to reward any surviving contributions. Pseudonymous identities are supported to protect members’ privacy. Trolling and graffiti with valuable criticism which eventually results in platform improvement will be rewarded. Doxing of any type will be punished with loss of REP. The proper way to encourage healthy communication is filtering content. I kind of want to encourage graffiti and trolling. We could recognize (maybe even reward) the most affecting posts as contributions to the defensive structure we build. They contribute to our immune system, making us stronger so we can better anticipate new attacks. Quiet angry enemies can be much more damaging in the long run. And those who are expressing their disagreement—even from the outside—can have beneficial consequences to the analysis. They can’t be rewarded too, much. The edge figures must remain on the edge until they contribute to the improvement of the core, not just the defensive walls. So the reward should not be as great as those who actually solve problems that trolls complain about. But complaining is an echo of a positive contribution—maybe a pre-echo—and so makes a positive contribution. Spam is less rewarded (usually punished, actually by DDoS fees) than clever graffiti. But we also don’t want the criticism culture to metastasize.) This means we need to employ some of the trolls that can be tamed somewhat… reward the monsters at the edge who fight the monsters further away from the edge. | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 28 February 2023
This is the root page for the DAO Governance Framework project. The goal of the DGF project is to make and provide tools for individuals to engage with their communities and for communities to organize in pursuit of their values.
DAO Governance Framework
Main page: DAO Governance Framework
??should include links to:
Cultural things (such as constitutions and settled laws, agreed upon ways of doing things, design philosophy, values statements, contributors' guide); up-to-date Marketing/Advertisements; fixed Code (!!!), Fixed Plan, Theory, Formulas
DGF solves DAO problems
Main page: DGF Fixes Blockchain
??should include links to anything relatively dynamic, abstract, ideas, such as:
evolving goals/plans for the project; roadmap;
arguments/discussions for and against ideas
Applications
Main page: DGF Applications
- Decentralized scientific societies (deSci publishing initiative)
- Blockchain consensus algorithm
- Stable coins
- Oracles
- FinTech
- REP markets
- ForEx
- Commodities (tokenization)
- Equities (ICOs)
- Options
- Decentralized underwriting
- Generalized chit fund banking
- REP markets
- Gig Jobs
- Code Review DAO
- Ride Sharing/Delivery
??should include links to what’s working, especially IRL or outside the platforms associated projects, such as functioning DAOs]
Codebase
See Also
- philosophical motivations
- sociological justifications
- legal analyses
- theoretical economics and game theory arguments
- mathematical formulas for tokenomics
- engineering philosophy
- design plan/roadmap
- software specs
- code audits
- marketing
- recruitment
- advertisement of products
- art repo
- download the latest software
- UIs
- affiliated projects
- data storage
- deSci community
Please sign pages you edit, so we can recognize and attempt to reward any surviving contributions. Pseudonymous identities are supported to protect members’ privacy. Trolling and graffiti with valuable criticism which eventually results in platform improvement will be rewarded. Doxing of any type will be punished with loss of REP. The proper way to encourage healthy communication is filtering content. I kind of want to encourage graffiti and trolling. We could recognize (maybe even reward) the most affecting posts as contributions to the defensive structure we build. They contribute to our immune system, making us stronger so we can better anticipate new attacks. Quiet angry enemies can be much more damaging in the long run. And those who are expressing their disagreement—even from the outside—can have beneficial consequences to the analysis. They can’t be rewarded too, much. The edge figures must remain on the edge until they contribute to the improvement of the core, not just the defensive walls. So the reward should not be as great as those who actually solve problems that trolls complain about. But complaining is an echo of a positive contribution—maybe a pre-echo—and so makes a positive contribution. Spam is less rewarded (usually punished, actually by DDoS fees) than clever graffiti. But we also don’t want the criticism culture to metastasize.) This means we need to employ some of the trolls that can be tamed somewhat… reward the monsters at the edge who fight the monsters further away from the edge.