←back to thread

226 points cloudfudge | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[] No.41881857[source]
It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully.

For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.

Also, I remember in the news that a non-profit or limited-profit company in the IT industry, founded for the public good, is going to be turned into a for-profit. The board actually fired the person behind this plan, but that person came back and fired the board members.

replies(6): >>41882450 #>>41883179 #>>41883240 #>>41883384 #>>41883413 #>>41887617 #
__MatrixMan__ ◴[] No.41882450[source]
The FAQ has:

> Is this a crypto thing?

>> No.

I realize that crypto is a bad word for some people, but I think that the above answer has a corollary:

> Does it have a single point of control that will attract corruption if enough of us start using it?

>> Yes

Certainly plenty of poorly designed crypto things also have that point of control, but a well designed crypto thing at least has a shot at resilience.

replies(5): >>41882504 #>>41882792 #>>41883252 #>>41883259 #>>41883338 #
PoignardAzur ◴[] No.41883252[source]
> Does it have a single point of control that will attract corruption if enough of us start using it?

By opposition to crypto, which attracts distributed corruption when enough people use the project?

I'm being glib, but complaining that a project not using crypto makes it inherently unsafe is pretty rich.

replies(1): >>41884002 #
__MatrixMan__ ◴[] No.41884002[source]
It's not really a complaint about the project itself. I'm actually considering paying the $100 to be a member because I think they're attempting to address an important problem and I want to see how it goes and it would probably be more fun to do so as an owner.

But you've got to admit that its a peculiar rhetorical choice to explain at the landing page that your strategy doesn't involve coupling ownership/control of the platform with the ability to control tokens on a blockchain somewhere, without using the same space to explain what it does do instead.

replies(2): >>41885293 #>>41886175 #
lifeformed ◴[] No.41885293[source]
It does the normal thing instead: using a legal system to define and enforce ownership and control.
replies(1): >>41886260 #
1. ZoomZoomZoom ◴[] No.41886260[source]
There's no "legal system", there's a huge bunch of local legal systems, most of them slightly broken in various ways.