Most DAO‘s run on alternative Blockchains. Are there any DAO‘s on Bitcoin? Is it even possible to run a decentralized organization on Bitcoin/Lightning.
Most DAOs I've seen are simply discord chats where membership into the chat is based on ownership of some digital asset.
The DAO usually has a treasury of assets and members vote on proposals to make changes to the treasury.
The resulting action from a vote is governed by a smart contract. This removes the "principal agent problem" of relying on a CEO to carry out the wishes of "members".
A smart contract can only interact with assets that exist on the same chain as the contract itself. I.e. ETH DAO contracts can trade ERC20 tokens and NFTs on ETH only. If you want to trade Polygon assets, the DAO contract must be on Polygon, etc.
Bitcoin smart contracts only deal with BTC. There's no other assets to trade on L1. Sidechains and L2 networks that support tokens expose their own smart contracting language that can support DAOs
But ask yourself why DAOs matter. Is the Principal Agent Problem really worth paying gas fees every time you vote on a proposal? Seems corporations have worked fine for centuries without DAOs. What is the fundamental innovation here?
reply
Thanks, I think DAO‘s are an interesting concept. Yes, you are right that a cooperation is way more efficient. This is the same debate about whether everything has to be on a blockchain.
reply
Bisq runs as a DAO and they use a colored coin token on the bitcoin blockchain. https://bisq.wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization
reply
E.g. what we could do was sending Bitcoin to a "n out of 2n) signature address. And then invest the money via majority vote.
The disadventage would be that the invest side isn't decentralized (arguably it isn't either in the Eth ecosystem - people make foundations for this etc. It would also make it pretty hard for individuals to pull out their money early.
Finally there is the question why we would want DAOs on Bitcoin? What's the advantage of decentralization here? What's wrong with centralized stock markets and buying shares? Decentralization just for the sake of decentralization doesn't make any sense.
reply