DAO is considered to be the most effective and important coordination tool for companies and other organizations today.inside first part In this article, we discussed many of the benefits we see in 2021, but as with any innovation, people worry about what this might mean in the future.
One of the concerns that will arise in 2021 is taxation: Does the DAO have enough responsibility to educate its members about the taxes they may have to pay? If not, 2022 may bring them very unpleasant surprises.
At present, the prospects for taxation of the DAO in the United States are still unclear. For small investors, this may become a dangerous scenario.
People are very worried about the accumulated tax liability of thousands of dollars and the dangerous gray area of legality. According to reports, many users did not know that their tokens were taxable when they received tokens from DAO in 2021.
What if the price of the token drops sharply? Members may still be required to pay taxes based on the fair market value at the time of receipt.
Another major concern in 2021 is whether decision-making through code execution is really a good idea for future work and complex decisions.
Some people describe scenarios where smart contracts completely replace the decisions that were handled by managers in the past. This can eliminate some human error in decision-making and turn the process into a more democratic way to coordinate within the enterprise, but to many people, pre-determined inputs can also sound dangerous and untimely.
Do smart contracts do more harm than good to workers? Or can they create a more balanced workspace and consider more humane considerations? This is a challenge that DAO technology may face.
What DAO ignores
However, one of the most interesting methods about DAO technology that is still missing is production This year, it was written by Grace (Rebecca) Rachmany and published on CoinDesk.
The founders of the DAO leadership pointed out that not all decisions in the DAO are as democratic as they sound, because some organizations-not investment-centric-“people affected by decisions” are not “people who make decisions.”
Some people think that the cost of tokens is a major feature of DAO, because it can show that stakeholders care about the project. But what if the project no longer focuses on investment, but finds better ways to achieve useful and successful decision-making, so as to have an impact on large communities and survive the crisis?
DAO represents a commitment to challenge the previous organizational model, which means that they can also have a higher impact on society: Can DAO technology achieve goals that the United Nations cannot achieve? Rachmany suggests that technicians should see a bigger picture.
“DAO technology provides only voting and fund allocation mechanisms,” she wrote, adding, “DAO technology should be applied to areas that we have not yet resolved, where everyone’s interests are threatened, so everyone should have a Say.”
Rachmany pointed out that “DAO provides the potential to organize collective intelligence to solve complex problems and manage shared resources.” However, “due to their short-sighted attention to the blockchain’s’on-chain’ governance, DAO technicians have not been able to solve the problems faced by society. The problem creates compelling technology.”
Rachmany believes that it is a failure to concentrate this potential in a small circle. The ironic reality that fuels these movements is “feeling that almost all democratic processes in today’s society have been broken.”
She believes that it’s time for well-designed systems that can “produce better meaning” and see the gaps in the DAO’s decision-making process so far, organizational accountability, and lack of solutions to contain “less ( Or no) capital investment”, etc.
Will new technologies fail society, or can they satisfy Complex global challenges?