I find the ideas developed by this article fascinating. Especially the idea that the war <i>for</i> talent leads to a war <i>on</i> talent. The idea that decentralization is a way to commoditize leadership talent in particular really appeals to me.<p>But the conclusion seems wildly optimistic. Leadership and management isn't <i>that</i> easy to commoditize. Open source projects still need <i>some</i> management, and, insofar as they don't, it's because they're staffed by either volunteers or people who aren't strongly pressured to have their pay match the value of their work output.<p>I'm a fan of open-source, but I don't think it generalizes to other sectors. Certainly not to the point we could slap crypto on it and let companies manage themselves.
> But what if there was a way to really make the company disappear? Wouldn't this be attractive to the most talented employees?<p>Yes please. But a DAO is far from the only way. Some worker coops share similar features, like for example Coopaname where each employee has personal autonomy but a common structure employs everyone with a stable long-term contract (CDI).<p>> As such, DAOs run the risk of replicating or recreating many of the issues associated with conventional corporations.<p>This is a problem with any organizational structure as long as we don't change the material conditions (and incentives) throughout society. As long as you need to pay for rent and food the game is pitting everyone against one another for basic survival.<p>Overall, thanks for a good article. I'm just disappointed this fair critique serves as advertisement for crypto-speculation courses and training sessions about the future of real estate business. The author seems well aware of the problems with these domains ("Sustainability, Wellbeing, and Broader Impact") yet wants to sell us more of that poison.
I appreciate the thoughts here behind the idea, but this really seems pie in the sky. DAO and blockchain won’t replace corporations anytime soon until the legal system catches up here.