This is a segment of the 0xresearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.
Centralized companies are like mini dictatorships.
They are not perfect, but their business model has worked well on the basis of economic efficiency.
Companies lower the transaction costs, which is why they exist at all, argued the Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase in 1937.
Are centralized DAOS companies? Yes and no.
Daos is centralized in the sense that there are typical figureheads or a series of actors who contain disproportionate power to influence changes. Yet Daos are not entirely like centralized traditional companies, because even the founders of Daos cannot break with their fingers and penetrate a proposal.
Here is a perfect example. Last Thursday, Aave Labs announced ‘Horizon’, a permitted copy of the AAVE V3 Codebase with which ‘qualified’ settings could use tokenized money market funds to use the liquidity of the Stablecoin.
Despite the plans of the proposal to share income with the DAO (at an annual rate of 50% in the first year, 30% in the second and 15% in the third), the mention of a potential horizon token almost Unanimous Negative Feedback from DAO members, including an initiative of the Chan (ACI) founder Marc Zeller.
The complaint in a nutshell: If Aave Labs is planning to use a technology to create new things, give that value to a token holders instead of a new token of which a laborator will hold a large bag.
The strong recoil has encouraged a leadership of a laboratory to gracefully accept the consensus of the community. It left the possibility of a horizon topping, although it continues with the Horizon product.
Aave Labs probably expected such a response. If a horizon was launched, 15% were even promised to be assigned to the DAO, but that root was unable to prevent the fear of token dilution.
Source: Aave Governance
There is a striking parallel between the recoil to the Horizon announcement of Aave and the unveiling of Uniswap Labs from his Unichain L2.
Remember that when Unichain was announced last October by the Uniswap Foundation, Uniswap Dao was overwhelmed and felt outside the decision -making process behind such an integral launch.
Jay Yu, president of Stanford Blockchain Club and a Uniswap representative, argued that the announcement left ‘Dao representatives in the dark’.
Although Unichain continued with the launch (in contrast to Horizon), the consequences are to catch up.
In response to the poor market performance of Live after a month (Unichain has only ~ $ 9 million in TVL), Uniswap Foundation suggested two weeks ago to spend $ 45 million on Uni -Tokens from the DAO Treasury to stimulate activities.
But if Unichain is definitely a “lab” product, it is a big no -no immersing in the dao’s treasury to finance that product.
Uniswap DAO representative GFX labs also points out that most uniswap V4 hooks (such as Flaunch and Bunni) do not effectively allow the DAO to earn money from V4 activity via a reimbursement switch, because of the use of a “no-op”, hooks the core contracting logic of V4.
“Although this could mean that Uniswap Labs and DAO lose a strategy for generating income, Uniswap can always choose to turn on the Protocol reimbursement switch on Polish without hooks,” Rostyslav Bortman, co-founder of Hookrank.io, told Blockworks.
“Yet the most popular Hook teams work in close collaboration with Uniswap Foundation, and we don’t see Bunni or Flaunch eliminating the logic of ‘Protocol Fee’ in their hooks. Hopefully most Hook teams will follow this example.”
In the case of both Aave and Uniswap, you have centralized leadership teams that you absolutely have to worn as startups – that is, and launch quickly to survive and succeed.
Nevertheless, DAO leadership is burdened by the decentralized standards of Dao Governance, which limits the agility and maneuverability that requires a startup.
To get something done, a DAO must behave in certain ways:
- The DAO must place a request for comment (RFC) to invite community discussion
- After a reasonable level of discussion, the DAO starts an early temperature control
- If the DAO has problems with the proposal, the discussion inevitably flows into the anarchy of Crypto Twitter
- The DAO ultimately takes a final vote to complete the proposal
That entire process brings transaction costs instead of down, so do we really want Daos? Away the ethical benefits of decentralization against the burden of transaction costs?
