The Potential Implications of Autonomy

Image Source: Lapham’s Quarterly

When people may ask “Why would people join Tezos for its vision”? — Arthur Breitman (Co-Founder of Tezos) gives a great statement here.

Arthur Breitman:

In Tezos, there is something which is also very new. People who are using the system can collectively decide to change its rules. It's kind of like having a social contract but like a real one that’s actually implemented, people can use and grow… It’s a way of organizing a society — without coercion.

In terms of autonomy — within the Tezos Commonwealth you can establish any organization without a leadership hierarchy as seen in traditional companies and actually start accepting payments without any approval required from a central authority/government. This is collectively referred to as a Digital Autonomous Organization (DAO) and they are often coined as one of the top use cases of blockchain technology.

A further inducement to adhere to in terms of autonomy — is that of the ongoing Tezos lawsuit assertations. The assertions made within the lawsuit anchor on Tezos having a “security offering” and/or is “centrally managed”. While there has been much work done by Alexander Liu on sifting through the ongoing discovery battle, let’s entertain how a community-centered treasury allocation would repudiate these assertions.

Autonomy in the community through an evolvable community-propelled governance platform can ascertain an argument against the lawsuit’s assertion that Tezos is a “security” or “centrally-managed”. A community-managed treasury argues against the notion by the plaintiffs that the Tezos Foundation runs and manages everything.

Additionally, when people participated in the Tezos fundraiser, the participants intended for the Tezos Foundation to be a transitory entity, and they intended to fully take charge of governance, including allocation of funds. The argument brought forth by the plaintiffs is that the people who donated funds to the fundraiser thought they were buying a “security” and that the Tezos Foundation would act as “big daddy” that takes care of everything.

There is a subtle legal claim in the lawsuit that iterates “what was in people’s minds during the two weeks of July 2017”? The lawsuit makes an allegation only about what happened during those 2 weeks; it does not say anything about any other time, such as today, about whether Tezos is or is not a security at present time. So, debunking this notion of what participants had in mind during the Tezos fundraiser can best be depicted as what people typically do in traditional markets — as “buying and kicking back” the way you purchase a stock in Apple, Inc. for instance.

The fact that community members have started Agora shows the community’s intent to manage themselves, and allow wide autonomy across many diverse community members. In this case, Tezos Commons and TQ Tezos have stood up Agora, but it is merely just an example. Many other community members are bound to stand up their own governance nexus and DAOs and self-manage.