Interesting conversation, but it looks like you missed my point on that last one, given your response.

I can certainly understand your perspective, given the info and ideas you've mentioned. Only time will tell whose correct

That makes sense, an exchange would be more vulnerable. I could even see a DAO getting tricked with a bad smart contract. Its not really possible to be "hacked" though as you have an opportunity to read the code before accepting a contract. Transactions can't happen without consent. Most of the time somebody gets hold of the keys to dao member wallets through "social engineering".

Transfers between chains are a point of vulnerability for sure. Something I think DAOs can eventually solve.

I would maybe disagree that token price dynamics are problematic. Ultimately a currency is meant to be an ubiquitous unit of value, enabling people to trade with each other in ways direct bartering doesn't.

Its actually advantageous to be able to create new currencies when there are issues with the existing one. In a perfect system the currency rarely pools for long in one place, instead circulating to facilitate the maximum number of transactions.

When one currency becomes too expensive, or its control too centralized, then we can just create a new currency and begin doing business in it instead. Your new network can grow to become more valuable than the old one, giving you first holder advantage.

Ultimately its all about decentralization. The entire movement is a reaction to the percived corruption and unfairness in the current system. The dollar and stock market are very centralized, and even the data they report comes from "trusted" central authorities. Theres ample evidence of fraud at the highest levels. Not to mention the Fed's ability to print more currency at their own discretion.

Blockchains (except privacy chains like Monero) make financial transactions fair and transparent. The rules are written in code (essentially pure logic)for everybody to see. Most chains cannot be changed without a vote.

The music industry is a good analog for what's happening in finance. Music was dominated by record companies, who used their size to force new artists into disadvantageous contracts, and forced people to pay an increasingly exorbitant price for something that had almost no cost to produce.

Some bold coders created programs that allowed people to share music directly with each other, cutting out the middleman.

The music industry attacked every way they could, but each company they sank caused an even more decentralized system to take its place, until irritated coders created programs that don't make them any money at all, rendering music a public service for anybody with enough knowhow.

I would argue peer to peer networks have an ability to spread without the aid of the "network effect". Word of mouth is sufficient. People are motivated to foster community online and share information.

There are even free online tools now that allow you to create your own social media platforms, with custom rules, backed by your choice of blockchain for security.

We might end up with a lot of small custom platforms full of people who share some ideal or interest. Many with opportunities for members to earn currency of some sort.

I'm a bit skeptical of the 90% number still, but with the number of institutional investors these days it makes sense. In fiat currency I suspect the number is worse.

Daos are not getting "hacked" exactly as that would require the underlying blockchain to be compromised. In the cases I've studied, an outside agent has managed to obtain the private keys to the wallets of those with the most shares. Its a bit like getting the banking info for all the executives in a company. Its a big risk when the DAO only has a few members.

Newer daos are typically using "weighted shares" that lose value when you accrue too many. This helps prevent one dao member from gaining control. DAO shares are a type of smart contract, that can function however you code it to.

There are some DAOs with huge amounts of money. There are investment groups like the LAO and Diamond Bank. MetaCartel seems big, a collection of freelance coders and designers. There are hundreds more in all different fields, still figuring things out.

Its true blockchains don't communicate well with each other yet, but its possible to move value around between them. Its somewhat like exchanging currency through different banks, to do business in another country. A DAO could vote to move/trade the value of its treasury to another blockchain if it became advantageous to do so.

As for prefering to be paid in fiat. That makes sense. Dollars are easy to spend still. I see crypto as more of a stock at this point. An investment based on the belief that the tech will replace existing systems. If you believe that your companies management is good, and that it will survive and prosper, then those shares might be a better investment than a cryptocurrency you're skeptical of.

The "Gini coefficient" isn't really relevant. DAOs are not beholden to the person holding the most mining/staking power in the dao treasury's ecosystem. At most they would be affected by the underlying blockchain in a similar way to how companies react to fluctuations in the price of a dollar.

I'm not sure where your getting "90%". There are dozens of different blockchains and currencies...Are you suggesting most of every crypto is controlled by a single entity?

Even if that were true, the coefficient is not a reason to condemn crypto, as people can always create new blockchains and currencies to avoid being trapped by a chain thats grown too centralized. That freedom is a main reason why web3 is an upgrade to existing fiat systems.

Companies have an archaic, top-down, authoritarian structure modeled on the military. They are not fun to work for, do not care about their employees or customers, and can only focus on short term profits.

Daos are flexible, have no leadership costs, and are typically focused around an ideology. Its like freelancing, except you have guaranteed work. You have a say in how the companies profits are spent and invested.