Top-down organizations (corporations, states, and international institutions) tend to dominate and use military-style governance with decisions made by a small group or single person and implementation conducted by lower levels with limited influence. This is seen as efficient but often ignores reality and leads to suboptimal decisions.
In an ideal scenario, a CEO has accurate information and makes the best decision, but in reality, inefficiencies in information flow, competition, and other social factors affect decision quality. The cost of this decision-making is the discrepancy between reality and the model used to make decisions.
On the other hand, DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are growing in number and are becoming more effective in organizing without the need for a top-down management structure. They are run by their members and governed by computer program rules, using blockchain technology to incentivize contributions and minimize risk.
DAOs are autonomous, meaning they are free from human governance, but members can alter the code and make decisions through voting.
Every member holds governance tokens, and contributions can be rewarded, encouraging members to share information and knowledge. DAOs benefit from low-cost decision-making infrastructure and aligning goals with members, who are motivated by incentives and the value of the organization. The technology records digital interactions and encourages uninterrupted information flow for better decision-making.
Despite being technically possible, creating a digital agora for thousands of people as a high-quality deliberation tool is difficult due to the impact of a single user being limited. Direct democracy also raises questions about the desirability of equality and aggregating opinions into collective wisdom.
Deliberation is intended to broaden the pool of information and ideas, evaluate the quality of arguments, and, ultimately, lead to a decision on the best solution Many contemporary examples, on the other hand, point to other manifestations of a phenomenon known as collective wisdom - the exceptional problem-solving and decision-making capacity observed in groups under certain conditions - even in the absence of significant deliberation.
The live voting process allows for adjustments and motivates users and representatives to express their views.
Fact-checking is undervalued work and there's no recognition for discovering mistakes. Proposals in Cryptopolis are reviewed by a group of elected moderators. AI and human oversight are combined to efficiently fact-check and structure discussions. Users can raise red flags, while AI independently searches for inaccuracies. These red flags are combined and given to human moderators for evaluation. Moderators are chosen and dismissed by community voting, and those who mark errors and review flagged material are rewarded in Pangea tokens.
