Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
11–20 of 56 posts
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Survival of the fittest "Darwin" project?
Only if they all were competing in the same market. Since they aren't, I like to think of it more as them competing for which one becomes the base meme. When people think of "dog" which variant do they imagine? Lab, husky, french bulldog, or something else? Which dog type "won" and created the strongest meme?
Doge?
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#13Let's say n developers create their own fork of a Darwin app and build features that the community deem equally important. How does the "default/selected version" as described in the document work? Somehow implement a merge capability?
Wonder how that affects the amount of token that the devs of each of those individual features get. Do the devs of the features even get anything at all in that case, or does the guy that put together the merged work get all of the tokens.
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#14Imo, thinking a plutocratic structure would ever bring forth power decentralisation is foolish to begin with. Voting with your wallet makes sense if everyone has the same amount, it doesn't make sense if over time resources get concentrated in the hands of the few which in turn use this power to concentrate power even more.
In reality, there's a lot of much simpler methods of governance that could be implemented for these projects. Starting with sortition, the formation of assemblies, working cohorts, etc (all through sortition). This would ensure a much more equitable access that wouldn't really take away from effectiveness (at least the sortition experiments done at town, city and country level haven't shown less quality in the public proposals that come out them).
But honestly, I don't think people in the crypto space truly want effective decentralized structures. I think the do "democratic washing" if you can put it in some way. There's a lot of incompatible ideas in the space.
So, a project like this looks to me to be trying to solve a problem they themselves have created out of stubbornness. If you want dynamic governance in the space then sortition is probably a much better way to go around things rather than "darwinian evolution".
Change should be commanded by users of the system and implemented by developers. Not spear headed by developers and adopted by the users. This second one leads to a lot of wasted effort.
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Survival of the fittest "Darwin" project?
Only if they all were competing in the same market. Since they aren't, I like to think of it more as them competing for which one becomes the base meme. When people think of "dog" which variant do they imagine? Lab, husky, french bulldog, or something else? Which dog type "won" and created the strongest meme?
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#16The issue is trust. What you're trying to do is to encode trust and incentives among human beings, and it's far easier to do that WITHOUT complicating it via code.
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they should switch to "Alfred" or "Wallace". e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
Alfred is a quite well-known macOS app (alfredapp.com)
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#18Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#19Web3 is dead. Please stop.
Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps
#20Web3 is dead. Please stop.