Not part of the team but imho:
- For small groups holographic consensus or even representative democracy are not essential (and the time/effort to benefit ratio could be small) as attention is focused on few important issues and personal connections between members of the project lead to high levels of participation. Matan mentioned in his AMA a reasonable number of actors “from 100 to 200 people” for DAOstack to really become necessary. This seems like a reference to the Dunbar number: this is how many people we can actively maintain a relationship with. After that point organizations (and societies) need vertical hierarchy to ensure flow of decisions and information, which is probably why direct democracy/horizontal decision making works has historically worked best in small tribes/communes/kibbutzes. DAOstack in general and holographic consensus in particular are proposed solutions to this scalability problem.
- When governance is still in the experimental phase, using the stack could offer more flexibility and less costly then having the decision making process defined by national legal framework or shareholder agreements. It also allows all stakeholders to take part of the decision making process by introducing weighted votes by reputation.