it was not my intention to mislead anyone and i think this needs some clarification.
2 Likes
Fact remains that DAO with a fluctuating membership cannot âownâ a licence. There is nothing controversial about this. It is just not how owning anything works. Crying that the DAO does not âownâ the licence is like crying that you donât like the taste of the colour blue.
But there are ways to ensure that the token holders are the ones who benefit from the licence, and have control over who is allowed to fork the code. Those are the relevant parts of âownershipâ here, since the licence is just a delayed open source licence anyway.
âOwningâ a house for a year, and being able to live in it free for a year (and being able to remove all trespassers/grant access to whoever you want during that year) are functionally equivalent. This is basic property theory. That may not align with some unarticulated idealist notion of âdecentralisationâ, but it does have the benefit of being true. The main effort should therefore be in figuring out what is the optimal way that the important functions of ownership are held by the DAO.
The only change I see in the issues in this discussion is that the specific form that this optimisation will take might be slightly different. But since most of the other options would have been sub-optimal anyway - things like incorporating the DAO, and there is clearly no appetite for that - I really donât see what has changed.
the governance should have the minimal ability to lift the license at any time and convert it to a GPL or equivalent.
2 Likes
So, since AAVE has already decided on the licensing, has the code been released to the public yet?
2 Likes
could be trust, incorporated with known community member owning the IP. could have been anything, and should have been discussed before vote.
issue here is company coming after fact telling IP was always meant to be held by them.
you said yourself, ââshould the AAVE community find some way to integrate into the legal systemâ, then my answer is yes.â" :
âaave communityâ =/= aave company
being owner and being grantee is not same, you can say its true but its not.
who ensure you sell/give the house back in a year ? legal contract ? => yes its âthe sameâ, if point is to trust the current owner to give away at the end of the year, then its not the same.
its not âbasic property theoryâ its hobbesian view of property, thinking otherwise is not anarchist or decentralization maxi, its betting on social convention and smaller groups of power (legal daos, trusts, large community member added reputation) instead of blindly believing power in place is best one to organise the redistribution of said power.
and this is what we deal with here, a need for trust, trust of the âbig manâ, trust a central point who can (as seen in thread) change what vote is about. once narrative spin, others will come to rationalize (as you are doing) narrative spin and dismiss critics.
a need for trust can be avoided if we wanted to.
company could help create a community trust who owns the IP and give management right to the dao, in the spirit of decentralization and being closer to what the vote was about.
Who said there was no appetite to incorporate DAO/ a proxy of DAO ? sure we can find 10 known (doxxed) trusted community member/ AAVE holder, form an entity who could own the IP for a year. There is appetite if opportunity is offered (which is what we were discussing before @stani rugpulled the licence).
Is there actual appetite of company to release IP ? that is another question, either vote was a scam or we can find better ways to decentralize ownership closest to dao without having to trust single entity.))
idea :
Incorporate a LAO (theLAO)
name it : IPDAO
member stake 100 AAVE to join (+KYC)
if there is legal issue, then AAVE is sold to cover legal cost (or a loan is taken against it using the protocol)
if not, at the end of the year, IPDAO is disolved, everyone get back AAVE, claim a POAP and licence is MIT
@neptune @Emilio be proud of me ser, im now an idea contributooooor)))
this is so easy to do⌠why am i one thinking of it and not the legal web3 galaxy brain of this thread and of the aave company⌠go figureâŚ)
The vote was only on what licence should the code be under. It is clear that the discussion veered off to âwhat form should the community take if they are to be capable of holding legal rightsâ, but like I said in my first post, that is a far more difficult and complex question, and not the one that was being voted on. Iâll freely admit, the fact that the discussion went that way was partly my fault as I answered this (interesting) question without making it clear that it wasnât strictly speaking the issue being voted on:
Since the discussion had veered off in that direction, and there was evident confusion about this, it was obviously right that a founder should come and say something about it.
What I would suggest to anyone vexed by this question is submitting a new proposal on it so that it can be brought to the communityâs attention properly and be fully discussed and debated. What form should the DAO take, and whether it should have custody over assets like IP, are questions so broad and far-reaching that they cannot be decided as an afterthought to a simple vote on the kind of licence the code is under, especially as the specific form the DAO would take could have enormous implications for regulatory compliance and create real financial penalties for holders in certain jurisdictions.
Since the licence form does not require a decision on this Iâm sure a lot of AAVE holders are completely indifferent to the licence question, but would have much to say about whether the DAO should itself be incorporated in some way. Itâs therefore good governance to submit it under a separate proposal and debate it out in the open. AAVE governance should live up to a higher standard than the âInfrastructureâ Bill.
To be clear, not talking about incorporating DAO
am talking about creating multisig with known community member using theLAO only to temporary own the IP.
Multisig with known community member already created by aave company to offset legal risks (aave guardian) so is a working recipe)))
donât understand why aave company cant temporary hold market keys but can temporary own protocol IPâŚ?
2 Likes