Partnered With:

The problem caused by the dissolution of PandaDAO: efficiency or decentralization, who is more important?

Read this article in 10 Minutes

"The governance time is too long, the development time is too little, and the price is too loud. Too tired, all refunded." PandaDAO's dissolution declaration.

Original title: "Behind the PandaDAO Dissolution Proposal: Is Efficiency and Democracy the Only Choice?" "

Original author: Jessy, Chain Catcher

On September 19th, PandaDAO released the "Community Refund and Dissolution Proposal" on Snapshot. Voting on the proposal started at 12 am on September 20th and ended at 12 am on September 24th. Up to now, according to the number of voting votes, more than 80% of the community members have supported the proposal. Although it has not yet reached the deadline for voting, it can be predicted that this proposal was hatched by People DAO, raised 1900ETH, and was once the largest proposal on Dework. The DAO organization will eventually be disbanded in less than a year.

According to what the core member "panda" said on Twitter, the disbandment proposal was put forward because the conflict between the core development team and community members could not be resolved, and the management problem could not be resolved. A lot of time is spent on community governance and communication, leaving too little time for project development. In order to better concentrate on the project, it was decided to dissolve the DAO.

PandaDAO is actually a decentralized data development organization. Less than a year after its launch, it developed a programmable data reference platform Pansight, developed the NFT AMM DEX protocol, and completed the NFT collection A mutual fragmentation protocol for ERC20.

Compared to most interest group DAOs on the market and DAOs that have not yet passed the economic model, PandaDAO is already a very mature and successful DAO organization. And such a DAO finally chose to disband because of governance issues, which also reflects the common problems existing in current DAO organizations

First of all, the efficiency of decision-making is low. Panda, a core member, recalled, "In the past, the voting process was very inefficient. The whole community was either voting or on the way to vote. It was impossible to work." Later found The inefficiency of voting in detail, Panda DAO changed this style of behavior and chose to vote only on some major public decisions.

However, the opinions among the members are not unified, and the opinions of the core members are contrary to those of the public, which intensifies the contradictions. There was a proposal in the community that PandaDAO could issue its own NFT, but in the end this proposal was rejected by core members. Panda explained the core team’s considerations on Twitter in this way: “If you can’t guarantee investors after the NFT is issued, the community will make money, but the credibility of the community will be questioned. At that time, I always believed that the reputation and credibility of the community were greater than The short-term profit-making benefits of the community.”

Perhaps the gap between the core team and the community has existed since then. The community could not understand why the core team could unilaterally reject some proposals, and the opinions of the two parties were divided.

Similar situations are not uncommon. PandaDAO once had a proposal to exchange ETH in the treasury for stable coins to mine UST in the Terra ecosystem. It was rejected by peopleDAO members. The reason for the multi-signature veto at that time was that the core team did not disclose the risks of UST and other stablecoins to the community, and there was no corresponding risk control management proposal.

Looking back, it was a very correct decision. If the voice of the community had been heeded at that time, PandaDAO’s treasury funds would have been wiped out in Luna’s plunge as much as possible. But at that time, core members failed to listen to the opinions of the public, which caused a lot of complaints in the community.

This is actually a common problem in DAO, is it a "smart brain" to make decisions or listen to the voice of the "majority". In today's corporate organizational structure, decisions are made by "elites". The emergence of DAO is to use this kind of decentralized organization to realize power empowerment to everyone who owns "Token".

Although this decentralized organizational form is used, the contradiction remains unchanged. Panda is actually very aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the two decision-making methods of being arbitrary and fully listening to the voice of the community. He once gave an example that Alibaba Cloud was not favored within Alibaba at the beginning. It was the arbitrary promotion of Ma Yun and Wang Jian that prevented the project from dying. But if there is a similar major turning point in the DAO system, it will definitely need community voting to decide, in a sense, the majority decides the minority. "Members have no way to understand what we are doing, or if they really veto this thing, they can only implement it according to the community's decision." Panda has anticipation and perception of all contradictions, he once said He is ready to bear any consequences.

The dissolution is exactly the result he needs to bear in the end. "The governance time is too long, the development time is too little, and the price is too loud. I am too tired, and I will refund them all." Such a disbandment declaration revealed many grievances and helplessness of the team members.

Ding Hui, a domestic practitioner who has participated in several DAO projects, told reporters that seeing PandaDAO's disbandment declaration made her feel very distressed. He believes that the problem of pandaDAO is also a common problem in many DAOs at present, that is, the relationship between core members and community members is still a relationship between operators and consumers. In a virtuous circle of DAO, everyone should be an operator, and community members should not only put forward proposals and votes, but also participate in the execution of the project.

But in fact, we can see that the developers of PandaDAO actually spent a lot of time listening and coordinating the opinions of community members to meet their needs. The core member "panda" is called "panda" to the outside world. It can be seen that he is the core of PandaDAO and also bears the pressure derived from many people's expectations for PandaDAO.

This situation seems to be a stage that the development of DAO must go through. Perhaps when the DAO organization changes from generation to generation, we can see the emergence of a relatively "perfect" DAO that can solve this series of problems.

< p>

"What People Want, What Pandas Build", what people need, Panda will create. This was once the belief and mission engraved in the bones of PandaDAO.

But in the end, it seemed that "people" ruined PandaDAO. Under the bear market, the voices in the community demanding refunds became louder and louder. PandaDAO decided to listen to the voices of "people" for the last time.