The DAO was a very extraordinary event that occurred under very unique and unrepeatable circumstances.
1. Ethereum had just launched. There was a sense of everything being in beta.
2. The Ethereum stakeholder set was very small, so obtaining consensus for such a controversial hard fork was much easier to accomplish than it would be today.
3. The economy on Ethereum was very small, so
a) a hard fork was far less disruptive than it would be today.
b) an undermining of Ethereum's commitment to neutrality/immutability jeapardized far fewer decentralized application projects than it would today.
4. Smart contracts were completely new, so there was a sense that people could be forgiven for their mistakes.
5. The Ethereum Foundation had promoted the idea of a DAO on their website, and several Ethereum founders had promoted the specific DAO that ended up being hacked. These facts made the DAO appear to be more than a completely third party app.
Ethereum is very different today than it was in 2016, and a DAO-like mishap would never lead to a hard fork again.
Blockchains are just a tool to maintain social consensus. We do not serve them. The community can modify them as necessary and there's nothing wrong with that.
Code isnt law, and shouldnt be. Law is law and it works very well.
People always come first. If the majority decide to do something it should happen. Anyone can participate. Honestly its bizzare that “but dao fork” still comes up years later, its not a complex event.
Anyway, sounds like an interesting experiment for reddit. Im not sure if this is great timing or terrible timing for the announcement given the gme/wsb noise.
Also mark cuban was posting his rarible account, which showed hes been using aave and sushi, seems like we might start seeing some bigger tech names joining in defi.
It means the next time there’s some slight to a powerful government they are going to demand edits and there won’t be the defense of ‘this is how it works and we can’t control it’.
The only thing a blockchain represents is trust and by editing or changing the rules they demonstrate untrustworthiness.
So the purpose is to run an Ethereum application at scale to advance crypto development. At first I was wondering why not build their points system on their single platform, but Eth use is the goal not any aspect of the community points.
Makes sense I guess, but what I'd really like to know about is the development of points algorithms that are a good proxy for subjective quality regardless of the storage tech--like PageRank for 'interesting and significant' within a topic area.
Doing that kind of stuff defeats the whole purpose of cryptocurrencies, IMO.