A key ingredient in a DAC is the dividend. Bitcoin doesn't have dividends it has tariffs. In this way a DAC is more company like. It should be distributed so that anyone can use its services and so it doesn't have a single point of failure.
Dividends may not be necessary. There are many brick-and-mortar corporations that don't pay dividends to shareholders but simply rely on an increase in share value to reward investors. Blockchains will probably be necessary to keep track of transactions. As for miners, POS seems to be replacing POW, but ideally a DAC would have some kind of mining that uses computing power to help the DAC in more ways than securing the network. If the DAC offers some kind of service, mining should be based on miners performing that service
With bitcoin, the transaction fee is given to the miners. I think of this as a tariff. I think this may actually be bitcoin's true Achilles' heel. The bottom of the bitcoin market is made up of true believers and people who think demand will go up. But mostly, people are incentivised to trade BTC like you would trade any commodity on an exchange. I had early warning on the news coming out of china, so I sold my BTC and bought back in at 450. This is risky. I'd rather just sit on my coins and enjoy demand going up. But what would be better is if I also received a dividend. If bitcoin had dividends, it could have a stabilising effect on the market. Risk averse people could just sit on their shares and collect dividends. To be a DAC, is to have a dividend. It gives a DAC life. The service creates value. Bitcoin is not a DAC. Its service is useful but not value producing. (I would argue that its efficiency is creating value for society, but that has to do with the technology.)
I'd love some feedback on this idea. Everyone feel free to shoot me down.
Dividends are one service that a DAC can provide, but DACs are also capable of offering so many other services as well. I'm not saying that dividends are bad, just that most good companies are able to re-invest in themselves, making their services better. A good DAC should do this too, perhaps through bounties for developers.
Ok, this is good. So a DAC can generate profits and direct those profits into investments rather than to investors. This was what I was looking for. There are some interesting things you might be able to do with that.
So, is Bitcoin a DAC? Might we say Bitcoin is a DAC that makes bad investments? And what about my stabilization argument? Does that hold water?
I'm not sure if Bitcoin is technically a DAC, but if it is, it does make poor investment choices. To be fair though, it wasn't designed to be any kind of corporation, it was designed to be a currency. As for your stabilization argument, dividends would stabilize the value of Bitcoin, but they would also increase the price beyond what it should be as a currency, since more people would hold their Bitcoins, which would reduce the effective supply