There’s a new type of organisation on the block (see what I did there). It’s called a DAO, or Decentralised Autonomous Organisation. These are organisations that are not run by an executive team, but where decisions are made by voting through an automated system on blockchains. It makes voting (theoretically) transparent and secure, with power resting directly in the hands of its communities. DAOs have been hailed as a new model of organising, promising to disrupt traditional organisational forms and make work and ownership fairer. More on that later, but let’s go back to first principles…

What’s a blockchain?

A blockchain is a decentralised ledger that exists across a network – a database that isn’t stored centrally on one server, but in multiple locations. Crypto currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum run on blockchains, which provide security because the blockchain can’t be changed in retrospect. This is because the ledger is the same across lots of nodes in the network and all of them would have to be changed at once. New transactions are added to the blockchain in sequence, containing information from all the previous blocks. There’s a summary here and a video here for those who want a more comprehensive explanation of blockchains.

Crypto coins

Crypto currencies are tokens that operate on the blockchain and operate a bit like a cross between a national currency and a company share, depending on the type of coin. There are various kinds of tokens with various functions. The main function of Bitcoin is to operate as a secure currency. These can be traded on cryptocurrency exchange systems much like standard exchange systems (e.g. converting British pounds to US dollars). But coins can have governance functions as well. Tokens can be used to vote on updates to the crypto code for that coin. Some can even be used for voting on the rules of the organisation or directional decisions. Crypto currencies are attractive because they are a move away from centralised banks, and represent considerable investment opportunties.

But crypto is also extremely volatile. It is responsive both to the global economy and the crypto world’s own internal economics. For example, the post-Covid recession has strongly impacted crypto currencies, with the value of most currencies dropping as a consequence. The recent crash of Luna, a crypto company whose value hit the roof in 2022 and then fell to zero shortly afterwards, caused a large drop in value throughout the crypto network. The Luna crash caused many currencies, including Bitcoin, to fall to a third of their value or less as confidence in the crypto markets plummeted.

DAOs

I’ve given this introduction to crypto because it’s important to understand how the technology makes a new type of organisation possible – and also the limitations imposed by blockchain technology.

The main breakthrough here is that now anyone can make their own DAO with its own native token. Originally, the governance mechanisms had to be bespoke coded for each organisation. But now, DAO builder platforms like Aragon and DAOstack have automated the process with presets that can be applied to any DAO, and which generate a native token specifically for that organisation. So instead of a crypto currency, what you have is essentially a share. Coins are ‘minted’ in the starting process and then can be offered to the public through an Initial Coin Offering (ICO), when the founders must convince investors that their product is going to be worth something, and that they should invest by buying their tokens. Token value goes up and down as on the classic stock market. Native tokens can be converted into fiat (“real” money, as far as money can be considered real anymore) or other, more widespread tokens such as Ethereum or Bitcoin. This is done through currency trading platforms – decentralised exchanges (DEXes).

Tokens are also used for governance and give members voting rights. And this is the main feature that differentiates DAO membership from ordinary shareholding. In theory, the voting model can help all stakeholders to have a say in what the organisation does, rather than being controlled by the Chief Executive team.

A decentralised revolution?

Voting is the keystone of DAO governance. Anyone who owns tokens can put forward a proposal, whether that’s a concrete change to the code or a more general project proposal. Project proposals are a bit like funding tenders, which give an outline of the project offer, rationale, hopefully timescale and milestones, and of course cost. The proposal is then voted on by the community. In theory, work in DAOs is self-directed, flexible, open to all, and the whole system is meant to be both democratic and meritocratic as the best ideas rise to the top through the voting system. But is it all it’s cracked up to be?

A few key challenges

A major challenge in DAO governance is engagement. People only have a certain amount of time and energy to give to voting on proposals, and they may not feel qualified to vote on everything. They may abstain from voting, and many proposals that are otherwise good ideas may not get enough backing to pass. This can lead to stagnation.

Another issue is the link between voting power and wealth. DAOs often operate on a one-token-one-vote basis, and can stake as many tokens as they have on a proposal. Those with a larger stake have more power over what happens in the company. This can undermine the decentralisation of the company by creating plutarchies, where large scale tokenholders can become de facto leaders of DAOs. Other DAOs have tried to solve problems in voting inequalities by reproducing a one-person-one-vote system by creating a single governance token. But this too can be exploited by creating multiple wallets. After all, in the crypto world, wallets are anonymous, so anyone could just make new wallets and buy their way into more voting power. Various other methods are used to try to create more equality in voting, but with variable success, and sometimes byzantine complexity

Another big problem can be coordination. Traditional organisations have management and leadership processes that are not always enacted particularly well in DAOs. Voting is sometimes conflated with coordination, so that accountabilities and responsibilities are not defined properly, projects funded by the community can miss milestones or not deliver at all, and individuals can be vulnerable to lawsuits because they are not protected by a legally recognised organisation. Chaos can ensue.

Careers in DAOs

So what could a career in DAOs look like? It’s hard to say, because there are so many DAOs and they all seem to work differently. Many, but not all, are tech (specifically crypto) companies, following in the footsteps of Ethereum. The jobs available include crypto software development (naturally), but many other kinds exist as well. Some DAOs are trying to bring the principles of decentralisation to other sectors, for example developing technology to make music and the arts industry fairer by rewarding artists directly using special tokens to represent stakes in creative works. Or producing music technology. Or investing in land conservation and local projects. The jobs are sometimes not far from those we can see in traditional organisations; marketing, research, publicity and so on all still need to happen in addition to the tech development jobs.

Some DAOs hire people on a contract or freelance basis to work on project proposals that have passed through the voting cycle. Others post “bounties”; priced jobs that people can bid for. Or you can go and do a job and then start a proposal to be paid for that job – risky but potentially great for self-starters. Other decentralised organisations have– not quite employees, but people who work regularly and their salary is determined by the community. So there is a range of career available in DAOs, from relatively secure to definitely insecure. What remains throughout, however, is that DAOs are not legally recognised companies, and working in them is classified as freelance. You also need a crypto wallet to be paid in native tokens (though some do the conversion first and pay in fiat).

DAOs are sometimes hailed as “the future of work”. (Remember when they said that about the gig economy?) But there are still big challenges to the idealism and apparent equality of decentralised work. Aside from potential voting inequalities, another challenge to the DAO model’s openness and democracy is that it often requires a level of technical literacy and knowledge that is not available to most of the population. Even just knowing about DAOs at all requires a level of engagement with crypto that people usually don’t have. That’s why I look at claims about DAOs as the future of work with some scepticism; the knowledge-barrier to entry is quite high. You have to know quite a bit about cryptocurrencies, technical terms, start a wallet, understand voting, and navigate the different kinds of communication software that DAOs use to interact (which are many and confusing)… So the target demographic can be limited to people within the tech industry who have the means to support themselves if things go wrong. DAO communities can exist in a bubble, in that respect. Crypto is also very volatile, so it’s not a good idea to put too much money into one token. Lots of DAOs fail or fizzle out, though, and some are schemes to harvest investment capital and disappear. So it’s worth doing some homework!

There could be a lot of potential in DAOs, though. It can be good for people who enjoy crafting their own careers, or it could be a new model of entrepreneurship. The field is wide open, which is why it has caused such a stir. Decentralised and unregulated, it’s a bit of a wild frontier. It wil be interesting to see how DAOs evolve over the next few years.

Today I have been assisting Janet Adams in her keynote speech on AI and ethics at the London FinTECHTalents Festival, in a rare meshing of disparate parts of my life: careers, technology and tai chi, which I have been practising for 7 years. What an opportunity!

Tai chi (or taiji) is an ancient martial art practised in China, based on slow movement. Tai chi formed the foundations of Kung fu, which we can now see taught in martial arts schools and projected on the silver screen. You may have seen tai chi practised in the park as a type of exercise. It is a sequence of movements, usually lasting about 30-40 minutes, performed slowly and smoothly, building strength, coordination, and energy. Qi gong is another aspect of this art, though with less movement. There are a number of different sequences (and confusingly, a variety of styles of tai chi and qi gong) but the relevant one here is the 7 Principles Qi Gong practice, taught by Jason Chan, which Janet has applied to her future vision for artificial intelligence.

The 7 Principles are (with their Chinese transliterated terms):

Alignment (Jeing)

Sincerity (Tsing)

Love (Oiy)

Trust in life (Tsun)

Wholesome discipline (Gai)

Stillness (Deng)

Universal wisdom (Wai)

As Janet delivered her speech, I demonstrated each of the Qi Gong movements that corresponded to each of the applications.

Janet has skilfully woven these principles with research and business practice to create a new way forward with financial technologies, calling upon banks to become more aligned with their purpose and with the laws of the land; cultivate stillness and implement technologies with wisdom; and to uphold principles that respect the trust of their stakeholders. Janet provided a voice for a gentler, more harmonious “future self” of today’s banking industry – an essential voice at a time when many hold a deep mistrust of banks and their motivations. It would be wonderful if instead of seeing banks as a necessary evil, they could be part of a more collaborative future.

Other highlights have included a panel on automation, where participants Ganna Pogrebna, Lou Smith, and Christian Paun discussed the future of work. They are more or less in agreement that while many jobs will disappear, not enough attention is being given to what jobs will be created from automation and what skills will be necessary in the future. Transferable skills in particular, they say, will be highly desirable, as well as thinking in terms of algorithms rather than coding; that is, understanding how systems work. Face-to-face roles and roles that require empathy -that is, distinctively human skills – also seem relatively immune. (Can a machine teach tai chi? Answers on a USB stick.)

I see a great applicability of the 7 Principles here. Humans are best positioned to decide what is aligned with their core values, which is critical to organisational harmony. No matter how well trained, can a machine arrive at the same answer through pure logic? Passion, sincerity, and love can motivate people to break their own barriers and do the extraordinary. Moments of inspiration and dedication create lasting change.

But my intention isn’t to set up another binary opposition. I hope that human and technology can complement each other, instead of competing. In terms of raw computing power, we will lose, so why not play to our strengths? And indeed that is what the panellists have suggested we do.

Last year I held a seminar for trainee careers advisers on how the internet works – starting from the hardware and networking processes, running through to things like advertising and analytics. But as I got more into prepping for the session, I realised just how much of it I had to look up myself, and how little I knew about the internet. I’ve never studied computers beyond school age, but my father is a programmer, and I’ve hung out with enough programmer friends that I could blag my way through a little bit of most things tech related. So I found it extremely disturbing that I didn’t know how most of the systems I use EVERY DAY function beneath the surface. I started thinking about how knowing how online systems work should be at the heart of education; what is education if not to prepare us for life, and for work? And the digital “world” is so omnipresent that it’s hard even to conceptualise what it is. It has become a structure around which society is based, not just a tool.

One of the complaints I’ve heard from many teachers is that the DfES revises the curriculum too infrequently to keep up to date with the changes that the internet and digital tools are undergoing (here’s a link to the briefing paper from the House of Commons Library on the school curriculum, 2018. TL:DR: it can take a year and a half even just for the changes to be implemented – and that’s after discussions and consultations have happened and decisions have been made. It needs to be MUCH quicker if we’re ever going to keep up with changing technology.) Worse, teachers are also suggesting that the changes made to change ICT to Computing actually do this less, not more, focusing on hard skills like coding. (And by the way, while I think it’s great to teach kids to code, there’s no guarantee that those jobs won’t be automated in twenty years.).

But even if it were being taught, the internet isn’t one thing that one organisation designed. It’s something that grew out of lots of little and big things that many people designed, and everything is connected up – not just visibly through links between sites (as the name “internet” suggests) but also disturbingly invisibly through the ways that third parties are connecting to sites we visit via ads and cookies.

(A single site you visit could have connections with several other sites embedded into the page, and each one can put a cookie on your computer, by which they can gather various kinds of information about what you do. This in turn gets sold to a multitude of other companies to help them personalise advertising and sell you more products, so you have no idea where your information will actually end up.. This is why the crackdown on third-party cookies matters quite a lot, though some sites are terrible at allowing you to opt-out effectively. It won’t stop you from having a digital footprint, though, and it’s probably a bit late for those of us who have been using the internet for decades; I think Google probably knows when I’m likely to visit the bathroom by now.)

So the whole thing is ridiculously complex, probably in ways that will never be entirely knowable by an average user. We’ve only skimmed the top-level of complexity with the recent press coverage of social media and election outcomes. And how would anyone begin to document the little ways in which people and companies have worked out how to exploit the quirks and features of the web, or predict how things built for one purpose will be co-opted for something else? Organisations have got around gambling laws, for example, by allowing users to gamble with “skins” (in-game upgrades and bonuses) in CS:GO (Counter Strike: Global Offensive), which can be translated into real money because people are willing to pay for them. Couchsurfing.com was started to be a hookup site and then became one of the most popular sites for crashing in people’s spare rooms (who knew people would take it so literally??), leading to Airbnb’s monetisation of the same activity.

In spite of the magnitude of the task, my point is that I think that young people ought to be taught about how the internet works in more detail than simply telling them about digital safety and their digital footprint. Often this is what it boils down to: don’t embarrass yourself because it’s there forever and an employer might see it, don’t sext, and don’t talk to strangers. But there’s so much more to the internet, not just in terms of knowing that sites are funded by advertising revenue, but that information sites can be slanted; that social media information can be leveraged to influence political outcomes; that social media shows you what you want to see; that large organisations can collect an enormous amount of data about every one of us even when you change your settings. This applies equally to opportunities; people aren’t necessarily aware of how to present themselves positively online in ways that can benefit their careers.

The International Centre for Guidance Studies at Derby University (iCeGS) has been working on the 7 Cs of Digital Career Literacy, which describes the processes of Changing, Communicating, Connecting, Creating, Curating, Collecting, and Critiquing to be necessary parts of successful career management online. I would add to this that one of the crucial skills of online careers activity is to join up one’s digital presence to form a complete narrative that is consistent with your career goals. Unfortunately JUOPTFACN is not a helpful acronym. Linkedin profiles can lead to blogs which can lead to facebook professional pages which can lead to work samples which can lead back to all of the above. Anything not fitting into your career goals can certainly go there – but perhaps framed as “what else I’m doing”. (Maybe it’s a bit cynical to tailor everything about you online towards your career, I don’t know. Maybe it’s also a bit sad that it’s probably better not to write Star Wars fan fiction under your own name, or whatever. At least for now.)

It would be foolish to imagine that school aged young people are entirely unaware of this. One of them recently said, quite rightly, “If someone really wants to find you online, they will.” Smart cookie. Their overall comfort with technology use is undoubtedly greater than previous generations, but I don’t buy this “millennials are digital natives just because they have grown up in a world that has always had digital technology” rhetoric. Here’s an article by Paul Kirschner and Pecro de Bruyckere that talks about why that’s not true (sorry about the paywall). They may be learning how to use the hardware easily, but the technical skill to use a laptop or a tablet is very different from having the critical skills to know when the text they are reading is tailored to manipulate. Most of us don’t have much awareness about what’s happening underneath the systems that we use every day; why should we expect young people to?

In a way this is also a case for integrating different subjects in the curriculum. Media studies (as far as I can tell) does encourage critical readings of news and media, which is a step in the right direction. But what if a core subject like English were to include critical readings of internet material? Some of my greatest feelings of unease with how young people are educated in this country stem from the abstract quality of a lot of their acquired knowledge. Their constant connectivity and the systems that they are using every day are not just tools. To the everyday user, apps and websites are interfaces, yes, but they are also one-way mirrors with vast subterranean depths. They reflect us on their surfaces, but a whole host of beings stare back without revealing themselves. The least we could do is to acknowledge how complex things are online.