The following is an update on the WG.
The four calls as outlined in this proposal were hosted.
Notes were taken here
Calls were hosted here
Chat
For a taste of the notes: different models were explored, such as the “For Product” model:
The For Product model:
Fund: Pay with $ to own future Product at cost.
→
→
The DAO sells future Products to buy Property required for that production.
←
You receive that Product after a delay, at the real costs of that production.
Work: Pay with promises to own future Property without debt.
→
↓ The DAO “sells” that Property for future work commitments.
←:page_with_curl:
A worker’s past debt is extinguished as work is completed.
Own: Own Property to own future Product at cost.
Profit: Pay with $ to own surplus Product at a price above cost.
Fork: This re-localizes control to reduce Tyranny of the Majority.
→
Subgroups must be allowed to secede when Property is realistically divisible.
Ultimately proceeding with this use case will require one of a few directions:
1/ Acquiring the land itself and running it as a DAO
There are extensive issues here dealing with property mgmt and legal uncertainty.
2/ Partnering with a local, preestablished agency or org
An example here would be a group of farmers in South Africa who can pool funds for investment spending and risk mgmt.
Both of these options will require extensive business development and funding efforts. A strong grant option was identified in the Horizon 2020 grants.
Next Steps
Moving forward with this will require identifying 1/ land to utilize as a DAO or 2/ a specific org to partner with and develop a DAO. DAOstack is likely too nascent a technology to facilitate this type of complex physical use case, but it is my hope that this gets picked up in the coming years. Due to bandwidth issues this group will not be moving forward with a particular use case.