Ask Pat Anything

Hey Genesis,

As time as gone on the list of persons DMing me Qs surrounding DAOstack, the Genesis DAO, my thoughts on proposals, etc. has grown to a somewhat unwieldy size.

Moving forward I’ll be redirecting Qs and questioners to this thread and periodically updating it with answers. Please note that the intent is not to devalue any individual conversation or relationship; only to make public and transparent the answers so both myself and future persons can reference this thread and its answers in posterity (unless, of course, certain questions are private in nature – then DM works). My hope is that this will help scale information gaps across the DAO Ecosystem as a whole.

Cheers!

3 Likes

Hmmm… nothing posted for over 6 months…

Did naming the monster make it die?

I shared this link with folks but nobody took me up on the offer.

Heya… I have a question.
A few weeks back, a proposal was passed to change how Genesis moderation worked. There are a few things to do in the proposal and I’d like to know who can provide assistance on meeting the outputs.

From the proposal:

This proposal is for the SPECIFIC concrete actions to be taken:

  1. Educational: Genesis DAO communication channel moderators will describe the possible states a participant may have in each communication platform (banned, read-only, suspended for X time, etc.)
  2. Historical: Genesis DAO will release the names, offenses, and current state of all parties currently banned, muted, shadowbanned or otherwise “moderated” from being 100% able to fully participate in any official Genesis DAO conversation channel (e.g. Telegram, Disqus, DAOTalk.org if there is local moderation)
  3. Current Transition: Genesis DAO moderators will provide for a community vote for each of these current offenders to be fully or partially reinstated, unbanned, unmuted or otherwise unfettered from participation based on the specifics of their offenses.
  4. Future-Facing: Genesis DAO will put out a call for proposals for an ongoing permanent community-based moderation system

I’m particularly interested in items 1 and 2 right now. Who can help with this?

Impolite as it may be to answer a question with a question I would like to ask:
Who are the Genesis DAO communication channel moderators?
What would @IvanThinking o if the moderators do not comply with the particulars of this propposal?

I would reframe as “What would the Genesis community do if the moderators do not comply with a proposal that passed […and had specific actions defined]?”

If I was you and I wrote that propposal and the DAO passed it - as it did - and after some time nothing happened I would conclude that perhaps the proposal was disfunctional in terms of it’s “asks”. I would then proppose the repeal it with a more functional propposal.

That completely defeats the “Decentralized” aspect of a DAO though.

“Feel free to make and vote and PASS proposals and if anyone in a critical path decides they DON’T like the proposal after it passes then it will be ignored”

Why not then the opposite:

“Feel free to make and vote and REJECT proposals and if anyone in the critical path decides they DO like the proposal they can just implement it anyway”

Which is similar to:
“Feel free to do whatever you like. It won’t really matter because those in the critical path will just do as they please”

ergo, DAO is DOA.

I’m not prepared yet to conclude anything from the silence, hence my initial question. I’ll wait for positive proof.

Perhaps it is indeed premature to conclude that the proposal us being ignored;)

I’m flying most of today, but the short answer here is: Genesis (Alpha) doesn’t control comms channels (DAOtalk, Disqus, etc.) — DAOstack currently does. However, decentralized moderation and related decision rights definitely need to be built out, and I have a long post re: long term comms strat around this (check my history? On mobile in airport atm).

Hope that clears up any misconceptions.

Who in DAOstack can answer items 1 and 2 of the proposal?

"Chase after money and security
and your heart will never unclench.
Care about people’s approval
and you become their prisoner.
Do your work then step back.
The only path to serenity.

Lao Tsu

@patdaostack So here I am… 7 days later… really hoping your “AMA” is a legit offer to help people in Genesis. A signalling proposal was passed with 4 statements. 2 of them can be answered regardless of who controls the channels. I’m starting to get the idea that you don’t actually want to answer my question, but I’m not sure why.

How about this… if you don’t know who at DAOstack can answer my question, do you know someone who I can ask who does know?

A few things:

1/ I’ve been running DAOstack’s ETHdenver presence, and this fell off my radar given the travel and what have you.

2/ With respect, Ivan, that is not information DAOstack publishes, nor should be expected to publish as it’s generally of a private nature. But in regards to moderation, a principle of escalation tends to be used: people are given a public verbal warning or two, and then usually spoken to in private, then temporarily removed from chat. In instances where a DAOstack moderator is being threatened or harassed, or a user is engaging in fraudulent or illegal behavior, folks are typically removed permanently. But to be frank: your question/proposal is not going to be answered, and Genesis does not have control of the referenced channels (which I’ve already explained).

3/ I don’t like being spoken to like I’m a help desk, and I’m really getting these vibes from you. Please tone it down.

2 Likes

Sorry Pat. Considering Livia and Kate are gone… I truly, honestly don’t know anyone else “insider” or “official” enough to answer much of anything… so I’m taking advantage of you: Pat “last man standing(?)” and the “AMA” = “ask me anything” nature of the thread (perhaps in error). I’m more than happy to bother any other living human if you can point me to them.

So… the proposal is DOA according to you. This is interesting!

For the record of anyone reading this:

  1. Nobody made a peep when it was proposed (official, unofficial, in public or in private to me, the proposer)
  2. Nobody voted against it. At all. Edit: But it did get 10 “yes” votes. TEN.
  3. I wonder, does this mean that nobody in a position to know it was DOA
    a) gave a shit?
    b) thought it would pass?
    c) felt that telling this to the community through normal channels and starting a conversation would be a good idea?

I mean, think about it from the eyes of the community… proposal is made… proposal passes with no dissent (or discussion) of any form… nothing happens… Then community is told “yeah, we just aren’t gonna do that”. It’s not a great look.

The experiment continues!

To be honest, if any of the other DAOs passed a proposal demanding DAOstack (a private company) turn over sensitive personal data from its managed communications platforms, I suspect it would be met with a similar non-response. It’s not something that makes a ton of sense, and it sort of highlights an ongoing issue with Genesis Alpha: it was a sandbox experiment, a platform user with decision rights over its budget; not a platform operator with corresponding decision rights over the platform. The future will ideally be more decentralized in this regard, but Genesis Alpha is not an exceptionalist user (platform decision rights are no more or less enforced within it than any other user).

That being said, if the community passed a proposal to build a community-run interface, complete with a decentralized moderation module, this wouldn’t be an issue at all as the community would control it. And this is the point I want to emphasize: decentralizing Alchemy does not come from passing a signal proposal, it comes from a real technical implementation. Until then: these comms channels are a moderated service that DAOstack provides, but by no means the place where users must communicate.

I would try @ezra_w and @eric.arsenault in the future as they will be admins following myself – I’m leaving the DAOstack team at the end of the month.

Cheers!

Just for the sake of this dialogue… instead of completely ignoring the proposal, all anyone would have had to do is type your specific, short statement, along with “hey, this proposal has a critical flaw -” and there could have been an interesting discussion with appropriate expectations set. I believe that’s the purpose of a sandbox… to push and pull and break and surprise and fail and try and…

TBH I never thought this proposal would pass. I thought it would create dialogue, since there has been very little of that on the telegram channel or DAOTalk forum. I expected through dialogue to come to some understanding and agreement of what the community wanted or what was possible with the technology. Instead, the damned thing passed.

It’s great to highlight these disconnects… the average user has no clue (should they?) that the communications part of the DAO they patronize is completely disconnected from the actual DAO. It gets to a key idea - “what is a DAO, technically?”

Is it just a set of smart contracts attached to wallets?
Does it also include parts of the platform that “hosts” it (I don’t know if host is the right word)?
What sovereignty does it have over the myriad communication channels that exist, if any, and is that a problem (I’d wager that the answer today is none, and that seems like a bad thing)?

Today we think of a DAO as a connected system, the package, the heart AND the lungs AND the skin. It looks like that is incorrect, however.

Good luck in your next adventures. Thanks for the names of folks to reach out to.