The true test of any organizational paradigm or collective consensus building effort is this:
Does it make the whole more intelligent than the one, or less?
Do people get better when interacting with the system? Or worse?
It's really that simple, and that hard.
Come join us tomorrow at 8am Pacific, 5pm CET, 4pm GMT
@reserveprotocol governance standup where we discuss the newest developments and ongoing proposals to the future of DTFs and asset backed currencies.
https://t.co/OKgfUiSwNu
Aragon offers 2 new services:
1. Signer as a service
2. Permissions audits, advisory, and monitoring
Existing clients include: Spark, Taiko and a few new ones announcement coming soon ;)
Where I agree is that representative democracy has three inherent game theoretical weaknesses:
1.) Only stakeholders should vote or the marginal voter makes the desired worse. Voting is also divisive so less is more
2.) Representatives quickly become a parasitic caste that mostly revolves around itself.
3.) Representatives have no incentive to deal with real issues, because the get elected on representation. Hence a talking class
There's no mitigation here.
You need longer time horizon, tigher accountability feedback loops with real liabilities and finally much less participation from non stakeholders.
Decision makers must be affected by the outcomes of their decisions.
It's not rocket science
Quite refreshing to see business SaaS software engineering, likely the most pampered and jaded of professions, embrace the "virtues" of Taylorism.
I advise to introduce other punishing qualitative metrics next.
Lines of code per hour comes to mind.
It's also clear what's next.
Reduced hours were mostly introduced because they *increased output* and quality.
A huge car manufacturer switched to 32hr week once and found the offset from recalls avoided and repairs they didn't have to pay more than made up for the personell cost.
In my Harvard fellowship I study the views of AI accelerationists, safetyists and skeptics.
What I have come to realize is that both the Accelerationists and the Safetyists believe that we are creating an AI God.
The difference is that Accelerationists believe that it is the god of the New testament.
A god of loving kindness.
The Safetyists believe that it is the god of the Old testament.
The jealous one who told Abraham to kill his son, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and killed everybody in the flood.
The Skeptics think it's just a damn toaster with more knobs.
Weโre pleased to welcome Hazel Hu to ETHis 2026.
Hazel @withhazelhu is the Team Lead at @GCCofCommons, working on public goods funding and ecosystem development for the Ethereum community.
Her work spans public goods funding, ecosystem coordination, and real-world crypto adoption.
Looking forward to having her on stage in Munich.
July 2โ3 // Deutsches Museum