Yes we understand this. We have our senior partners and legal team working on this already. It’s ambiguous and a new legal innovation that there is no counter-party to a smart contract/contract.
If MakerDao is headquartered in San Francisco, then California law may override and have jurisdiction as to the formation of a legally binding contract even if there is no official counterparty. Otherwise, our HQ is Hong Kong. I am not a lawyer and will let the lawyers advise.
It’s not a waste of time to join this forum and chat/perform discovery, MakerDao is an interesting project.
One question, who owns the rights to the marketing/creative/strategy work created? the DAO? a San Francisco legal entity? or nobody?
re: rights ownership, I think a natural home for those would be the Dai Foundation, purely in their capacity as a neutral steward of Dai and Maker-related IP. Someone from the Dai Foundation may want to chime in just to say if that is in fact possible.
Maker foundation is in dissolution phase but Dai Foundation is very much not. You can take a look at the Dai Foundation announcement and the much more recent LexMaker 1 recording, which contains a good amount of info including a presentation deck about the Dai Foundation and its function.
Obviously the devil is in the details and exact processes are still to be worked out, but if there is a creation of IP that is important to the Maker Protocol, then Dai Foundation certainly should be the right owner of the final deliverable.
Heads up that only the last one can even be answered. The DAO is not a legal entity, we have no register of members, there’s no way to identify anyone who doesn’t offer it, and there’s no address. I don’t think anyone has >25% of Maker, though.
Maker is free to reject both. Just because another proposal was worse doesn’t mean anything. There will eventually be a proposal that suits our needs, is priced correctly and includes a competent team - it’s just a matter of getting there.
Thanks for the comments @Al_Leong_Amazix_CMO . To be honest, I didn’t engage more because I made up my mind. But I am curious now. it’s becoming increasingly clear that the team is not a right fit for MakerDAO (ranging from the fact that this is a DAO to how the community perceives the proposal), but is there a reason why you are still spending more time on it?
Is it to convince the community? Or are you just trying to learn more about MakerDAO?
I’m working through the DAO process to its natural conclusion. And you are obviously welcome to your own opinion as all DAO members are. I didn’t know you have influence or controlled over 51% of the votes. Perhaps you should have made that clear earlier on.
In my opinion, It seems a bit expensive and something not needed at this moment for the DAO and DAI as a product, maybe next year when priorities, products, and Core units are well defined and tested in their reach and mandates.
One of the topics we’d discuss is strategy and strategic marketing communications.
And, “strategic communications” takes a whole new turn in a DAO.
One issue I see right now is in the marketing materials published to the public (and anyone, including competitors can join the DAO, buy being a coinholder, and voting… an assumption I’ve made–buy their way into votes). The language in Maker’s states it wants to “dominate” the market. Now, if Binance (BUSD) and your other competitors and saw that, they could act, not act or ignore this mandate. Strategy is not well-constructed in a public/open way for several reason. Actions against competitors can be seen by the competitors and they can take pre-emptive action… (in this case, by buying MKR tokens and affecting the proposals and votes).
How does MakerDao deal with this disadvantage of publicly voting on strategy where this is seen by potentially competitors? Or is the DAO altruistic in nature, as imagined by the founders vision, mission as espoused one of the videos (“to do public good”)? Or does MakerDao really want to dominate, and arguably take out its competitors? Now, if MakerDao is altruistic, must it therefore act, behave and communicate in this way to honor and abide by its founding constitution?
Typically, in non-militaristic societies, collaboration and alliances outperform conflict (GDP, wealth creation because of network effects, and game-theory costs associated with conflict). Is the vision of MakerDao to be combative, collaborative or a hybrid? Or does it not have this mandate? If lets say Binance were knowing that your strategy is to dominate, and thus to dominate them. CZ, a tactic he may use is to implant an agent in MakerDao, or ‘buy’ their way in to get enough votes to affect MakerDao’s success as a defensive or aggressive attack posture. They have billions. Does MakerDao have a solution for this to avoid voting for dissolution or demise, from an hostile competitive enemy? (e.g., hostile takeover)? This is part of strategic management. Has Maker thought about these tactics and issues given it is publicly promoting domination of others (bigger, more well-funded stablecoin organizations)?
And, do you know, now, in the past, or in the future, Binance won’t buy up $500 million MKR and control the DAO, and then dump the coin immediately once self-destruct proposals and decisions are passed? It may be costly for them, but war is costly for survival.
Thus is seems clear that strategy formation with a competitive approach through a publicly accessible DAO for the world to see, is not necessarily to Maker’s strategic advantage, or perhaps even its constitutional mission (“to do public good”).
Would really like to know your opinions and thoughts.
Sigh, I was gonna stop commenting but since you asked I guess I can share that you vote with Maker (MKR) not DAI. So how much DAI we have is irrelevant
Al’s original question was “Thanks. How much DAI do you hold?” but I guess after my comment, he realized that reveals their lack of research on MakerDAO and changed the question to “Thanks. How much DAI or MKR do you hold?”
Do you think editing such question will somehow give more legitimacy or something…