Actual Use for Blockchains

Since my post about My opinion on crypto, I have been thinking a lot about how to apply blockchain tech to a post-“web3”-clarity world. I am going to try and talk about one of them in this post.

Git DAOs A Git DAO would be one of the best ways to manage a decentralized project. It would allow for decentralized proposals, allocation of funds, and no central authority¹. I am not in marketing, so I am not going to say every project should be like that, but I can say that some big projects would benefit from it. Like in my first post about crypto, it would work a lot like how a game clan works—just without the staking or mandatory payouts.

The cool thing about “Code is Law” is that it allows you to be really flexible with every part of the project. For example, you could set up a DAO to pay contributors on a per-week or per-month basis, and that could be based on commit count or contribution to the project during that period. Everything is code; everything can be seen by the world. This offers a lot of transparency and accountability for the project and the people who are contributing to it.

While this is a great idea, and I love it, I can see some major issues. Like the pay scale. I don’t believe that all commits or PRs are the same. Some are more valuable than others. For example, a commit that fixes a critical bug might be worth more than a commit that adds a new feature. I also think a pure bug-bounty-like system would be too much for a project to maintain. A more nuanced approach would be needed. What that looks like is up for debate, and honestly, I have no idea what it would look like.

The goal on the user side² is to make it as simple and easy as GitHub is. I think it would be a cool idea to add special bounties for issues held in “limbo” with an address that people can add their own cryptocurrency to. This would allow for a more transparent system and direct funding for the specific issues people want to get fixed or added.

I would say that this won’t fix the issue the Linux Kernel has³. This is mainly because we are changing how funding works, not the funding model itself. Like in my other post, this is subject to human nature. I also don’t think the Linux Kernel could actually be funded in a way like this that would actually make a difference to the ones contributing to it. The sheer volume of commits and issues would make the funding less effective than it would be for a smaller project⁴.

I even think pay scales would turn projects into spawns for fast commits and slow innovation. I don’t think you can turn commits or any form of contribution into a simple or “fair” automated system.

Depending on who you are, the idea of being “tariff-resistant” (censorship-resistant) might be seen as a bad idea. Look at what we saw with the Linux Kernel removing Russian contributors to stay in alignment with US interests⁵. A blockchain-based DAO would basically make that impossible to do—and that is kind of the point. If you could just censor people, then the whole blockchain tech would be pointless.