How does one start a DAC

[que23]

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

If it's true that BTC would stabilize, then this would be a good thing. If you wanted to use Bitcoin as a bank, you could. If you wanted to use Bitcoin as a currency, then you could. With a more stabilized price, BTC could act more like prepaid debit cards--money in, money out--and you wanted have to worry so much about keeping BTC for over time.

[phoenix]

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

[que23]

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?

[phoenix]

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.

[que23]

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.

[luckybit]

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.

The level of risk is very different for our community compared to brick and mortar. I don't think there is any way to even compare the two. Also I don't think we should adopt the weaknesses of that system into our own. We can pay dividends and at rates impossible with brick and mortar because we don't the same overhead and costs to have a CEO to pay, or the corruption. I believe it is corruption of people at the top of the hierarchy who rely on schemes which pay no dividends to shareholders to keep more profit to themselves.

There are some instances where dividends may have to be withheld for sake of profitability of the business but this should be voted on by shareholders, like with cryptocurrency mining businesses which need reinvestment so I don't mean to imply that dividends must be paid all the time but only wish to imply that 1 year in cryptocurrency time is like 5 or 10 years in brick and mortar time. I think for DACs dividends are a preferred option because eventually DACs will be run by autonomous agents.

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

I agree miners wont be needed in the future if POS can work better.

[bytemaster]

1) P2P Network
2) Set of Valid Transaction Types
3) Consensus Forming Algorithm (Mining, Ripple, Proof-of-Stake)
4) GUI
5) Community

[phoenix]

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

[que23]

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.

[evisu1]

I'm trying to understand what one needs, technically, to go from "idea" to DAC. It seems like a lot missing. What are the basic-building blocks / infrastructure services that are needed ? 

Must all DAC's have have miners and blockchains? Suppose a single server and its domain name are controlled by votes from 10,000 shareholders using an existing cryptocurrency as a basis. Is this not to be considered a DAC just because the filesystem and web server are not distributed ?

Thanks !