Talk:The DAO (organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Law issues[edit]

Attorney wrote opinion piece on law issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B25C:590:CCA7:C03C:46EA:2373 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

American Banker article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B25C:590:3C3E:B7C2:6FB5:9F7A (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox logo size[edit]

Can someone please assist to reduce the infobox logo size? It looks too big to me and I dont know how to adjust that. Thanks.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

FixedJtbobwaysf (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard for article inclusion in the "Proposals" subsection[edit]

copy/pasted from my talk page, with both participants' consent Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Hi Jytdog. You removed some sourced content that I had added to The DAO (organization). I really think my addition was just article improvement, with sourced content. There are in the sources I'm reading a number of "Proposals" coming in to that new org that are non-ROI proposals. The one I added yesterday is just one, and that one re governance. Others I've seen include this example ([1]) that I read in this morning's news feed, and this one has to do with arbitration and mediation procedures for disputes, some of which might spill over into the various national legal systems, so it is also a non-ROI proposal. I don't know much about it, but Antonopolous is somewhat of a notable person in the digital currency space, and has written a popular book, so I'm guessing that too is not just some fly-by-night proposal.

Obviously, with something as new and rather radically different as these DAO organizations, all of this will develop more fully over time. I.e., we'll clearly know more in weeks and months.

But if there is a subsection on that page for "Proposals", and these sorts of non-ROI proposals are covered in reliable secondary source media, than I think they should be fair game to be added to that section in order to improve the article. Obviously, to avoid WP:UNDUE, any proposals should only go there with secondary source support, and statements about them should be measured and, in my view, reasonably brief.

Are you taking a position that that article subsection can only be about proposals to the DAO that provide ROI, as your comment might indicate? Or was it just something objectionable about that one particular source/statement I added yesterday?

Thanks for thinking on this with me. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

People are going to floating all kinds of thought balloons about what to do with it - it is the kind of venture that provokes thought experiments. I think it is important to separate concrete "whitelisted" funding proposals from kanoodling. So maybe in a separate section? Even then, in my view we should think about criteria or that section is going to fill up with ephemera.... do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, to both of your questions. I do think that low-level non-notable stuff could be a problem, so was using a "reliable secondary source" criteria in my head, in the absence of anything else. Yes, would love to see a consensus form for what is "in the article" vs. not. N2e (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
OK.. let's see what others think. The content that N2e added and I removed was:

In addition to proposed ventures, with projected Return On Investment (ROI) for the for-profit organization, proposals to modify the governance of The DAO are lining up. One proposal suggests a prediction-market-based Futarchy as a means to provide better governance from the community of token holders.[1]


  1. ^ del Castillo, Michael (2016-05-23). "The Father of Futarchy Has an Idea to Reshape DAO Governance". CoinDesk. Retrieved 2016-05-27.
Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that convo over here, Jytdog.

─────────────────────────I renamed the Talk page section to what the discussion is about.

The question is by what criteria we ought to include "proposals" to The DAO in the "Proposals" subsection of this article. I was thinking that the standard might be merely whether the proposal was noted/discussed in reliable secondary source media. Jytdog suggested it would perhaps be only when the proposal was "whitelisted" by the Curators of the dao. I can live with either approach.

I will note that since the "whitelist" is likely to be only in primary source documents, and possibly even hard to find sourced there (which might lead editors to try to [[WP:SYN}synthesize]] statements from material that might be gotten out of the DAO's blockchain contract code, that the "whitelist" alone criteria might not be a good one.

If others agree, then maybe a reliable source that also mentions a proposal has been whitelisted??? Or something else???

What do others think ought to be the criteria for inclusion in the "Proposals" subsection of the article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi N2e (talk · contribs), I see merits in both you and jytdog (talk · contribs) comments here. I think that we should include the whitelisted proposals for now (but in time what do we do if all the sudden they whitelist 20 projects?)...Also I think we can also include some projects that aren't yet whitelisted but have reliable secondary sources as well. I think this section is soon going to grow into a full wikipedia entry by itself, because if The DAO project disperses these funds it is going to generate a lot of notable almost funded projects, funded projects, successes, and flameouts. I think for now we might as well start adding content as long as it meets the secondary sources standard and then figure out how to deal with it when it gets unwieldy. I guess there are a decent amount of people coming here seeking info on this project, and as long as we present what is going on with NPOV its fine, it is almost like a breaking news article. I think if it becomes an advertising like section then we clamp down, but until that happens we can give it a little room to run...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

More sources[edit]

Adding some sources here as seen: these are obviously later than the earlier sources in the article, and are the first seen since the 28-day "Creation" phase completed approximately 12 hours ago, at 0900 UTC on 28 May 2016.

  • Newsweek, 28 May 2016 at 9am US EDT, which would be about four hours after the end of the "Creation phase".
  • IEEE Spectrum, an engineering/technical media publication, 28 May 2016. (also published four hours after the creation phase completed). N2e (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources on the post-exploit situation[edit]

Current status[edit]

Someone needs to update current status to show it was shut down. Markus451 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

From the sources I've run into the past few weeks, it seems that the DAO contract, while mostly emptied of 80% of its value after the hard fork, is somewhat slowly dealing with a set of remaining issues in getting all the money back to the folks who bought the value tokens; and it is not, therefore, completely dead. Just seems there are a bunch of moving parts where people are having to take manual actions to finish up the corner cases. N2e (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I also wonder if something living on the blockchain can ever 'shut down.' Isn't it somehow immortal in that way, as long as Ethereum is alive and as long as wikipedia servers are up, it sort of lives on in infamy forever? Maybe eventually they will return the ETH. But also what happens to the ETC, does that ETC associated to the DAO tokens live on, or will the hacker take all of that out? What if the next Microsoft of the blockchain comes out this spectacular flameout. Sure was interesting to watch. We had some spirited debates about content here on this talk page... makes me feel a little bit silly... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fringe Noticeboard[edit]

I have created a fringe noticeboard for Ethereum and also mentioned this article The DAO in it, as there are similar issues relating to assertions that WP:FRIND applies here. Please see the noticeboard here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ethereum. If I have tagged this page incorrectly with fringe at the top, please assist me with removing it. First time to do a Fringe noticeboard discussion. Also did a seperate RS noticeboard which also applies to this page as these two topics Ethereum and The DAO seem to be somewhat linked (at least in current events). Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

website url[edit]

@Greenrd: today you deleted the url for this article in this edit . Can you please suggest an alternative URL for this article, if this URL is incorrect? Was used before? To my understanding the url you deleted was associated with this former project (my understanding is the dao is dead now) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There were two websites listed in the template before, which was also incorrect - only one should be given. which now shows as the website, appears to be the correct website.--greenrd (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this thing still active, or what?[edit]

To someone unfamiliar with the subject, this article doesn't make clear whether the organisation it's describing is still active/ongoing or not. The article is mostly written in the past tense, suggesting the DAO no longer exists, but it doesn't mention anywhere when it was shut down or dissolved or whatever. That information should be added. Alternatively, if it is in fact still active, the article should be rewritten to reflect that. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of complex question. This was an autonomous organization that was instantiated in computer code, placed into something called a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain. The hack (exploit of that code) after 1 1/2 months rather immediately made the org unfit for its original purpose. Later changes to the Ethereum protocol code, called a hard fork, got nearly all of the money back for those who had funded the organization, but still left approx. 5% of the cases, "edge cases," to be cleaned up somewhat manually, which took several months more. Once the hard fork or edge case cleanup had occurred, the original purchasers of the value token that was part of The DAO were still required to manually take some action(s) to get their digital asset, Ether, back. As I understand the sources I've read, a year later, and there are still something like 5 or 10% of those who could get their Ether back out of the now hard-forked DAO withdrawl contracts.
So does the autonomous entity still live? Well, kind of. Until all the withdrawls have occurred, or the Ethereum blockchain dies, there is still contract code out there that can be executed, when called. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So should the article be past tense, as it seems to be, or not? If past tense, there should be an ending date. Gah4 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think from a technical sense as N2e points out it is still alive, but from a practical sense it is dead and should be referred to as past tense. Most exchanges stopped trading the tokens, and converted to ETH. I think we can call it dead for Wikipedia editing purposes. I have added one RS and another company announcement from Kraken, that trading of the token was De-listed late 2016. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC) I have today added the de-listing to the intro, and removed the update tag from the article (assuming the tag was for MOS to change article to past tense and find some RS to show the DAO is essentially dead). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Long-form journalism historical piece on The DAO, published by Bloomberg[edit]

This is the first of the long-form journalistic treatments of the hack of The DAO, and of The DAO in general. Given it has been a year since the autonomous org's contract was hacked, I suspect we'll see more articles coming. Should be a very good source for improving the article. N2e (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Whose bug was it?[edit]

According to the lead of the article, "users exploited a vulnerability in the DAO code to enable them to siphon off one third of The DAO's funds". But according to, "a hacker managed to drain a third of the amount raised due to a bug in Ethereum’s code." So, was the bug/vulnerability in Ethereum's code, or in DAO's? The first claim is unreferenced, the second is in a source whose reliability I cannot judge. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A bug in The DAO itself, a particular common Solidity idiom that turned out to be disastrous. 99bitcoins is a blog, and one that I've found unusably sloppy as a source even on that level - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have read it was a bug in solidity. I think I added some content on the Solidity article to that a couple of months ago Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Location of the money people put in[edit]

The article doesn't say. Where exactly is it? Article visitors would like to know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

goooood question ... is there any RS that details precisely how the money (ether) was returned? - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi David Gerard. But returned from where? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
well! the ether was in The DAO. Then they did ... something? with the Ethereum code, that did ... something? with transactions related to The DAO, such that they were ignored? or something? What I'm saying is that I'm completely unsure what precisely happened too :-) I wonder if there's a suitable academic source, I can't see a media RS covering it in this deep detail - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi David Gerard. Okay, so before it was ether or dao or ethereum, it was actual money on people's bank accounts, right? So, people bought Ethereum then Ethereum was exchanged for Dao units or something, right? So, who got the Ethereum coins or whatever? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
yes, that's right. Assuming they bought the Ether, and it wasn't just big Ether holders from the Ethereum launch sale - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So, someone sold their Ether coins to them, right? Who? The people selling the DAO? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
probably not - they would have obtained the Ether in the original Ethereum launch (a few months earlier), or bought Ether for conventional currency on a cryptocurrency exchange - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So, where is the actual money? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
spent on Ether, presumably - when the DAO was unwound, they would have given back everyone's Ether. (How precisely they did that is what I'm not clear on.) Nobody who spent dollars got those back, they would have got back ether they could then hold or sell - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
So, those ether numbers or coins or something are somewhere in some file somewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

=Section of current location of the investors' money[edit]

Can we start one that read something like "...As of February 2019, none of the investors has received any money back..."? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)