As we enter the building phase of Foundry, it might be good to take a step back and clarify what the objectives of DAO governance and Foundry specifically are.
DAO’s are held to be orgs that should not suffer from the frictions of normal organizations and therefore yield higher returns of whatever type is desired by their operators. This is still extremely far from proven to be the case outside of DAOs like Ethereum and Bitcoin at a chain level. On chain DAOs governed by token holder also differ significantly from the multi-constituency systems of Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum for instance has Miners, Developers, Node operators and Users as various constituencies that must be won over for a change to occur. Currently Ethereum has enough community cohesion for one of these constituencies (the Developers) to make the majority of the decisions. Token owned DAOs however haven’t yet been proven equally robust and anti-fragile.
So what do profit driven token operated DAOs wish to accomplish? As the description states, at least a profit is desirable, but is that enough? We might want to extend the profit motive to include profit both now and in the future. We might also want to extend the means of making the profit to include a certain set of outcomes the DAO wants to accomplish. Apple for instance is a company that directs its profit making activities to include the future and be focused on consumer computing products.
So let’s say for the purposes of this thread that Foundry wishes to; make a profit both now and in the future and intends to do so by building free-speech and free-trade platforms that would not be easy to pursue for traditional entities.
If we narrow our goal to this and then become exact about what that would look like, we can have a coherent conversation about how to accomplish it.
I will reply to this post as I flesh out the various aspects to this problem that I can see.