As I know many projects have faced some problems using DAOs, and we don’t consider this system to be perfect because the actions of some users can contradict the interests of the rest, like in any society. When some users have a high enough share of the project’s tokens, they can make a convenient offer that plays in their own interest only and the ones who are against will lose with their opinions. Seems like it contradicts the idea of DeFi at all.
I know that one person can create a massive number of wallets, and without incurring any losses, make a profit at the expense of other users or what’s wrong destroy the project. That’s not democratic at all. But still I’m glad this solution was once introduced. The idea of DAOs focusing on serving all members of the community and addressing the challenges via manual intervention by managing everything through smart contracts is great. I believe it has the enormous potential to revolutionize how organizations work if the system is developed.
Well there is one more or less successful example of DAO in Yearn Finance. At least the one that I know. They have special committees that hire professionals engaged in improving the protocol, and users can vote for the election or removal of members of these committees. Committees prepare updates to the protocol, which are further submitted to the DAO, and this system ensures that users will choose thoughtful decisions and reject disadvantageous ones. To my mind it looks fair and optimistic. But maybe that’s the only side I know? Do you think we can see the prosperous DAO future in the creation of such professional committees? Or there can be other ways to improve the situation? Maybe you have some examples of such projects idk.
That’s the topic I’m getting obsessed about because I wanted to become a DAO member and small investor but as I researched this I found it useless to become one if I do not have a good share of project’s tokens.