Welcome to the SuperBenefit Lexicon! This is your guide to the language and key concepts we use to explore decentralized organizations (DAOs), Web3 governance, and social impact.
Think of this as our shared dictionary, constantly evolving to reflect our growing understanding of these complex fields.
What You’ll Find Here
This lexicon provides:
Clear Definitions: Concise explanations of the terms and concepts we use in our work.
Contextual Understanding: Insights into how these terms are applied within the SuperBenefit network and the broader Web3 ecosystem.
Connections to Our Thinking: Links to related notes and resources within our knowledge garden, helping you see how these concepts fit into our overall framework.
How to Use the Lexicon
Browse the terms below to deepen your understanding of the language of DAOs, Web3, and social impact. Use the links to explore related concepts and discover new connections.
Actions are occurrences or processes initiated by individuals or systems that result in a change or impact on a given situation, environment, or system.
Actions represent the bridge between intention and realization in any system. They transform abstract goals, decisions, and plans into tangible outcomes that advance an organization’s purpose. In decentralized contexts, actions gain additional significance as they operate without centralized control, instead being guided by shared agreements, protocols, and autonomous decision-making.
Within the DAO ecosystem, actions serve as the fundamental units of productivity and change, whether executed by individuals, teams, or automated processes. These discrete operations collectively create the movement, transformation, and flow of resources, information, and value that animate organizational systems. Understanding how actions are initiated, coordinated, and evaluated provides insight into how decentralized networks maintain coherence while enabling autonomy.
Uses of “Actions”
Actions in Organization and Systems Design
In the context of organization and systems design, actions are the measurable processes or events through which resources are created, exchanged, or transformed, driving the flow of value within the system.
Organizations can be understood as networks of coordinated actions that allow disparate individuals to work together toward shared purposes. How these actions are structured, permitted, and recorded determines an organization’s effectiveness, adaptability, and alignment with its goals. In traditional organizations, actions typically flow from top-down direction, while decentralized systems develop mechanisms for autonomous action within agreed frameworks.
Actions in DAOs and Web3
In decentralized autonomous organizations, actions manifest through multiple mechanisms:
On-chain actions: Transactions, votes, and interactions with smart contracts that are cryptographically verified and permanently recorded on the blockchain
Coordination actions: Communications, decisions, and agreements that coordinate activity across autonomous teams or cell-working-group
Contributory actions: Tasks and deliverables created by community members that advance the DAO’s purpose
Governance actions: Processes like proposals, voting, and delegation that shape the direction and rules of the organization
What distinguishes actions in DAOs is their permissionless nature combined with transparent accountability. As noted in Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness, the ability for participants to take autonomous action without prior approval—while still being accountable to the network—is fundamental to generating decentralized intelligence.
Actions in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, actions focus on creating measurable positive change in communities, environments, or systems. These actions balance the need for immediate intervention with long-term transformation, often incorporating:
Mutual aid actions: Direct support and resource sharing within communities
Capacity building actions: Activities that strengthen community resilience and capabilities
Advocacy actions: Efforts to transform structures and policies that create or perpetuate harm
Regenerative actions: Interventions that restore and enhance social and ecological systems
The Reimagining Power initiative specifically examines how web3 technologies can enable more equitable, community-driven action by redistributing power and resources to those most affected by social challenges.
Related Concepts
Actions connect to numerous other concepts in the knowledge base:
Tasks: Structured units of work that organize action toward specific deliverables
Decisions: Choice-making processes that determine which actions to take
Execution: The process of carrying actions to completion
Evaluation: Assessment of actions and their outcomes
Agreements: Shared understandings that guide and constrain actions
Permissions: Rights that enable or limit certain types of actions
Resources: Assets transformed or deployed through actions
Together, these concepts form an interconnected framework for understanding how purposeful activity emerges, operates, and evolves within decentralized systems.
Agents are autonomous individuals, entities, or systems that act or make decisions on behalf of themselves or others, exercising agency to influence outcomes through their actions and interactions within networks, organizations, and coordination systems.
Agents form the fundamental building blocks of all social and technological systems. They possess varying degrees of autonomy, capabilities, and authority to act, make decisions, and affect their environment. Whether human participants, autonomous teams, or computational systems, agents operate based on their incentives, knowledge, and the constraints or permissions granted to them within their operational context.
In decentralized systems like DAOs, the relationship between agents and governance structures is bidirectional: governance frameworks define the parameters within which agents can act, while agents collectively shape and evolve these governance structures through their participation. This dynamic interplay between individual agents and collective systems enables both bottom-up emergence and purposeful coordination, allowing complex networks to develop adaptive, resilient behavior without requiring centralized control.
Uses of “Agents”
Agents in Systems Design
In systems and organizational design, agents represent the basic units of action and decision-making that enable collective behavior to emerge. All systems—from companies to cities to online platforms—can be understood as networks of agents interacting according to explicit or implicit rules. How these agents are incentivized, constrained, and coordinated fundamentally shapes system outcomes and characteristics.
The Anticapture framework describes agents as decision-making entities that control resources and participate in networks. It distinguishes between individual agents controlling private resources and networks of agents governing shared resources, highlighting how agent relationships determine whether systems become extractive or regenerative.
Agents in DAOs and Web3
In cell-working-group) that participate in network governance and operations. These agents interact through transparent protocols and operate with varying levels of autonomy while remaining aligned with collective purpose.
As described in DAOs aren’t things… they are flows, DAOs function as “purpose-aligned networks of small autonomous teams” where these agent-teams self-organize around opportunities while maintaining coherence within the broader network. These agents exercise their agency through mechanisms like submitting proposals, contributing to projects, participating in governance, and allocating resources.
The effectiveness of DAOs depends on creating conditions where individual agents can act autonomously while remaining aligned with collective goals—what Building DAOs as scalable networks describes as “DAOs as network intelligence that flows,” where resources and attention naturally orient toward the highest-value opportunities through distributed agent decisions rather than centralized direction.
AI Agents
AI agents represent a rapidly evolving category of computational agents that can perform tasks, process information, and make decisions with increasing levels of sophistication and autonomy. Unlike traditional software, AI agents can learn, adapt, and operate in environments with uncertainty, making them powerful tools for extending human capabilities and addressing complex challenges.
Decentralized AI Agents
Decentralized AI agents operate on infrastructure that distributes ownership, control, and benefits across communities rather than concentrating them within corporate entities. These agents leverage several key technologies and approaches:
Trustless Execution Environments allow AI agents to operate with cryptographic verification of their behavior, ensuring they follow their intended programming without requiring trust in a central operator
Self-Custody enables communities to maintain control over their AI agents, including the data they use and generate
Open-Source Models make underlying AI capabilities accessible for inspection, modification, and improvement by the communities they serve
Distributed Compute uses decentralized infrastructure to run AI workloads without dependence on centralized cloud providers
Community Governance places decision-making about agent capabilities, limitations, and deployment under democratic control
These characteristics create AI systems that are more resilient to capture and aligned with community values rather than extractive business models.
Centralized Web2 AI Agents
In contrast, centralized Web2 AI agents typically operate within closed ecosystems controlled by large technology companies. They are characterized by:
Cloud Dependence: Reliance on proprietary infrastructure operated by major technology providers
Subscription/Rent Models: Requiring ongoing payment for access rather than community ownership
Centralized Permissions: Authority over agent capabilities and access concentrated in corporate decision-makers
Proprietary Systems: Closed architectures that limit interoperability and community modification
Data Extraction: Business models that often monetize user data and interactions
These systems offer convenience but create dependencies and power imbalances that can work against community autonomy and resilience.
Community-Owned Agents for Collective Action
Communities can leverage decentralized AI agents to enhance their collective capabilities and resilience in several ways:
Knowledge Commons Management: Agents can help organize, synthesize, and make accessible the collective knowledge of a community through technologies like semiotic bridging, which translates between different knowledge systems and cultural contexts
Threat Detection and Response: Community-owned AI systems can monitor for cyber threats or hostile AI actions while maintaining privacy and local control
Complex Coordination: Agents can help manage coordination challenges that would otherwise overwhelm human capacity, such as resource allocation across large networks or tracking impact across multiple initiatives
Capability Extension: By automating routine tasks and augmenting decision-making, agents can extend what communities can accomplish with limited resources
Sovereignty Preservation: Using decentralized AI infrastructure helps communities maintain self-determination rather than becoming dependent on external systems
This approach represents a fundamentally different relationship with technology—one where communities own and govern the tools that serve them rather than being served by (and potentially captured by) tools owned by others.
Related Concepts
Actions: The processes or events initiated by agents that result in change
Roles: Defined responsibilities that structure how agents participate in systems
Permissions: Controls that determine what actions agents can take
Autonomy: The capacity of agents to operate independently
Delegation: The process of transferring authority between agents
Decisions: The choices agents make that determine outcomes
Agreements are formalized understandings or commitments between parties that establish shared expectations, terms, and parameters for interaction, resource allocation, and collective action, creating a foundation for coordination and accountability.
Agreements serve as the connective tissue in any coordination system, enabling diverse entities to align their actions without requiring centralized control. They transform implicit assumptions into explicit commitments that can be referenced, revised, and relied upon. In decentralized systems, agreements take on particular importance as they replace traditional command structures with consent-based protocols that respect the autonomy of participants while ensuring coherent collective action.
The form of agreements can vary widely - from informal social norms to detailed smart contracts with automated enforcement. Regardless of their form, effective agreements balance clarity and flexibility, providing enough structure to enable confident action while allowing for adaptation as contexts change. In web3 and DAO contexts, agreements often exist across multiple layers simultaneously: as social commitments, governance protocols, and executable code.
Uses of “Agreements”
Agreements in DAO Primitives Framework
In the DAO Primitives Framework, agreements are considered one of three foundational organizational primitives alongside entities/groups and networks. They represent the commitments within and between entities that allow for coordination across different scales. The framework identifies several key types of agreements that form the basis of decentralized coordination:
Purpose agreements: Shared commitments to the “why” of a collective effort
Practice agreements: How a group operates, makes decisions, and governs itself
Progress agreements: How work is tracked, evaluated, and communicated
Within this framework, specific organizational structures like Cells, Roles, and Tasks are implementations of different types of agreements. The Cell state pattern demonstrates how agreements can be documented to provide both internal coherence for team collaboration and external transparency for network coordination.
Agreements in Governance Systems
In governance contexts, agreements establish the rules, processes, and boundaries for collective decision-making. These can include:
Decision protocols: Methods for reaching collective decisions such as consent-based or consensus-based processes
Policies: Formalized rules and guidelines that establish parameters for decision-making
Permission systems: Frameworks defining who can take which actions in what contexts
Delegation frameworks: Rules for transferring decision-making authority between parties
As described in Governance for better futures, effective governance agreements must balance structure with emergence, enabling both consistency and adaptation as circumstances evolve.
Agreements in Web3 and Blockchain Systems
In web3 contexts, agreements often take the form of technical protocols and smart contracts that automate enforcement and verification. These include:
Smart contracts: Self-executing agreements with terms directly written into code
Protocol parameters: Rules governing how decentralized systems operate
Token agreements: Rights and responsibilities associated with token ownership
Digital signatures: Cryptographic verification of consent to specific terms
These technical implementations allow agreements to function across trustless environments by removing the need for third-party enforcement. However, they must still be complemented by social agreements that address aspects too complex or nuanced for code alone.
Agreements in Community Coordination
At the community level, agreements establish shared norms, values, and practices that enable large groups to collaborate effectively. These often include:
Codes of conduct: Expectations for behavior and interaction
Cultural norms: Implicit agreements about values and priorities
Reputation systems: Social agreements about how contribution is recognized
Resource allocation: Processes for making decisions about shared resources
The success of initiatives like Community Governance depends on creating agreements that stakeholders find legitimate, accessible, and aligned with their needs and values.
Related Concepts
Consent: A decision-making principle where proposals proceed when no participant raises substantial objections
Consensus: A decision-making approach requiring active agreement from all participants
Policies: Formalized rules and guidelines that establish parameters for decision-making
Roles: Defined sets of responsibilities and authorities within a system
Protocols: Standardized sets of rules that govern interactions in decentralized systems
Permissions: Specific rights or access controls granted to participants
Resources: Assets that agreements often manage access to and use of
Practices: Established methods guided by agreements but enacted through regular activity
References and Resources
Cell State Pattern - Demonstrates how agreements are documented and maintained
DAO Primitives Framework - Provides context for agreements as foundational organizational primitives
Governance for better futures - Explores governance agreements in complex systems
A blockchain is a type of distributed database system for managing information that can reduce the need for central authorities or trusted intermediaries to oversee interactions and make sure the network rules are being followed. This enables participants to engage in peer-to-peer data and value transfers, and potentially, to contribute to the design, functioning, and management of the network – i.e. to build networks based on multi-stakeholder governance. Blockchains are a subset of distributed ledger technologies (DLT)—ie. all blockchains are distributed ledgers, but not all distributed ledgers are blockchains.
In a blockchain network, identical copies of a database are stored on multiple computers, resulting in a single, shared ledger that records the history of interactions and asset ownership in the network, and maintains the rules governing interactions. This distributed structure leads to a lot of discussion about the extent and value of decentralization, but beware the hype: decentralization could refer to many different things, like the distribution of hardware, software, or decision-making power. Distributed computing power is not the same as distributed political power.
In a blockchain, data is arranged into “blocks” that are “chained” together using advanced cryptography, hence the name blockchain and the nickname “crypto”. It is extremely difficult to secretly modify or delete records once they are added to the chain, so blockchains are often said to be “immutable” or tamper-evident (as in, everyone knows if anyone tries to tamper with the record). This means users can have high confidence in the integrity of the shared data.
Cryptocurrencies
As well as managing information, blockchains can issue their own “cryptocurrencies” (eg. bitcoin on the Bitcoin network, or ether on the Ethereum network) that enable peer-to-peer value transfers and are used to reward participants for helping maintain the blockchain ledger. To maintain agreement about the “true” state of the shared ledger without a centralized authority, blockchains use a “consensus mechanism” that combines cryptography with game-theoretic incentives (eg. payments or penalties paid in cryptocurrencies) in ways that maximize confidence in the integrity of the ledger.
Blockchains can be public or private, permissioned or permissionless. In permissioned chains (often used by corporate entities), access and functionality are strictly controlled. In public networks like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Polygon or Solana, anyone with an internet connection can participate, in principle.
New societal governance mechanisms?
Information management is a critical part of modern societies. Since blockchains enable a wider degree of participation in the design and management of computer networks (relative to typical modern systems), and since cryptocurrencies can be programed to incentivize specific kinds of cooperative behavior, blockchain networks expand the scope to build sophisticated, large scale networks outside of traditional structures. For example, they make it possible to build transnational networks that are difficult, though not impossible, for governments to control, because states tend to assert regulatory authority via centralized bureaucracies or trusted intermediaries.
A group of individuals bound together by shared purpose, values, interests, practices, or place, who develop relationships and social structures to support collective action and mutual benefit.
Communities exist in many forms - from place-based neighborhoods, towns, and bioregions to interest-based associations, professional networks, and digital collectives. Regardless of their form, thriving communities are characterized by meaningful relationships, shared identity, and participatory processes that enable collective decision-making, resource stewardship, and mutual care.
Throughout history, communities have been fundamental to human flourishing, providing the social infrastructure through which people meet their needs, resolve conflicts, transmit knowledge across generations, and develop cultural practices. While community organizing has traditionally been rooted in physical place, digital tools and networks have expanded the possibilities for community formation and coordination across geographical boundaries.
Uses of “Community”
In the context of DAO networks and decentralized systems, “community” takes on several distinct but interconnected meanings, each highlighting different aspects of how groups organize, govern, and create value together.
Community as Identity and Culture
Communities establish shared identities, norms, and cultural practices that guide behavior and decision-making. This cultural layer provides the social infrastructure necessary for decentralized coordination.
In DAO to DAO cooperation, strong community identity is highlighted as a critical facilitator of cooperation: “these communities have a strong sense of identity and individuals who have deep relationships with one another - these are really important facilitators of cooperation.”
Community in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, communities are both beneficiaries and active participants in designing and implementing solutions. Reimagining Power emphasizes the importance of community-driven approaches that transfer power and resources to those directly affected by social challenges.
Community involvement ensures that solutions are contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, and aligned with local needs and priorities. Web3 technologies can enhance this by enabling more direct community participation in decision-making and resource allocation through mechanisms like participatory grantmaking and community-owned funding pools.
Community in Web3
In the context of web3 and DAOs, a community is more than just a collection of users or stakeholders. It represents an active, engaged network of participants who contribute to, govern, and derive value from decentralized systems. Communities in this context are characterized by their agency, self-organization capabilities, and collective intelligence. They exist across multiple scales - from small collaborative teams to large constituency networks - and can evolve through different phases of development and engagement.
Unlike traditional user bases or audiences, web3 communities exercise direct influence over governance, resource allocation, and strategic direction through decentralized decision-making mechanisms. This fundamentally shifts power dynamics from centralized entities to distributed networks of stakeholders, enabling more equitable, transparent, and resilient systems.
Community as Network Coordinator
Communities can function as coordination mechanisms for autonomous teams and resource flows. In this context, a community provides the shared context, values, and communication channels necessary for decentralized entities to align their actions without centralized control.
The DAO Primitives framework describes how “purpose-aligned networks of small autonomous teams” can coordinate effectively through community-level agreements and shared infrastructure, creating systems that “outperform traditional organizations” while directing “performance towards building a better and more sustainable world.”
Community as Governance Constituency
In community-governance, “community” refers to the broad base of stakeholders who participate in governing a network’s overarching purpose and direction. This constituency-scale governance operates through deliberative mechanisms like conviction voting and makes long-term decisions about network direction and treasury allocation.
As described in Building DAOs as scalable networks, community governance “safeguards the purpose of the network” and includes a diverse set of stakeholders: “Cell contributors, founders, partners (sponsors, funders etc), as well as others that have a stake in the purpose of the network but may not be contributing directly to its operations.”
Community in Group Development
During the early Conversation Phase of group development, community serves as the foundation for exploration and idea generation. This phase is characterized by “open exploration and idea generation” where “all perspectives are valued” to establish a shared vision and understanding.
The community at this stage focuses on relationship building, creating trust and rapport among members that will be essential for effective collaboration in later stages of development.
Coordination refers to the processes, mechanisms, and systems that enable diverse agents to align their actions effectively toward shared goals without requiring centralized control, creating coherent collective behavior while preserving individual autonomy.
Coordination represents one of the fundamental challenges of human organization - how to enable multiple autonomous actors to work together effectively without sacrificing their independence or requiring hierarchical command structures. Unlike traditional management approaches that rely on authority and control, effective coordination in decentralized systems emerges from shared purpose, transparent communication, and mutual adjustment based on available information.
In web3 and DAO contexts, coordination takes on particular importance as these systems explicitly aim to distribute agency and decision-making while maintaining collective effectiveness. This creates the need for coordination mechanisms that can operate across different scales and contexts, from small collaborative teams to global networks of thousands. When successful, these mechanisms enable what Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power describes as “collective intelligence” - systems that can sense opportunities, allocate resources, and adapt to changing conditions more effectively than any individual agent could achieve alone.
Uses of “Coordination”
Coordination Through Protocols and Primitives
In web3 contexts, coordination often relies on protocols - standardized systems of rules and procedures that enable predictable interactions between autonomous agents. These protocols may be implemented through social agreements, technical mechanisms like smart contracts, or combinations of both.
As described in DAOs - From fractal primitives to network scale., effective protocols enable coordination to scale by providing “primitives” - foundational building blocks that can be combined and recombined to address different coordination needs. This modular approach allows coordination mechanisms to evolve and adapt while maintaining interoperability across the network.
Coordination in Multi-Stakeholder Systems
Complex challenges often require coordination across diverse stakeholders with different perspectives, interests, and capabilities. Effective multi-stakeholder coordination balances the need for inclusive participation with the capacity for decisive action through what Governance for better futures - Meta-governance describes as “systems of systems” approaches.
In these contexts, coordination mechanisms must address power imbalances, information asymmetries, and differing incentives to create conditions where all relevant perspectives can contribute effectively. This often involves what the article calls “liquid democracies” that enable flexible representation and participation based on context and expertise rather than rigid structures.
Coordination Through Shared State
Transparent documentation of agreements, progress, and context serves as a critical coordination mechanism in decentralized systems. By making relevant information accessible to all participants, shared state documentation enables independent decision-making that naturally aligns with collective aims without requiring constant communication or oversight.
The Cell working group pattern demonstrates this approach through “nucleus” documentation that captures a team’s purpose, practices, and progress in a format accessible to both internal members and external collaborators. This transparency creates what the readme calls “clear interfaces that enable trust-based coordination between groups and individuals across a broader DAO network.”
Related Concepts
Networks: The interconnected relationships through which coordination flows
Governance: The systems that establish and maintain coordination frameworks
Protocols: Standardized rules and procedures that enable predictable coordination
Agreements: Explicit understandings that establish coordination parameters
Scale: The different levels at which coordination mechanisms operate
Culture: The shared norms and understandings that enable tacit coordination
A system that combines resilient localized production with access to global knowledge commons and coordination protocols, following the principle “what is heavy is local, what is light is global.”
Cosmo-localism represents a third way beyond pure globalization or localism, enabling communities to maintain autonomy while benefiting from global networks of knowledge and resources. It emphasizes local production for local needs while sharing knowledge, design, and coordination tools globally.
Uses of “Cosmolocalism”
Cosmo-localism in Production
In production contexts, cosmo-localism promotes manufacturing closer to the point of use, using globally shared designs and knowledge but local materials and methods. This reduces transport costs and environmental impact while maintaining production efficiency through shared innovation.
Cosmo-localism in Knowledge Management
In knowledge management, cosmo-localism involves creating global commons of shared information and expertise while maintaining local sovereignty over implementation. Communities contribute to and draw from shared knowledge pools while adapting solutions to local contexts.
Cosmo-localism in web3
In web3 contexts, cosmo-localism finds powerful expression through:
Token systems aligning global and local incentives
Open protocols for knowledge and resource sharing
Decentralized governance tools for community autonomy
Global capital pools supporting local initiatives
The key innovation in web3 implementations is the creation of technical infrastructure that enables efficient coordination between autonomous local communities while preserving their independence and unique characteristics. This allows communities to:
Access global resources while maintaining local control
Share knowledge without losing autonomy
Coordinate actions without central authority
Build resilient local systems within global networks
Participate in larger economic systems on their own terms
DecentralizedAutonomous Organizations (DAOs) are blockchain-based coordination systems that enable groups to govern shared resources and make decisions collectively without centralized control, using transparent rules encoded in smart contracts to align incentives around common goals.
DAOs represent a fundamental shift in how people organize, moving beyond traditional hierarchical structures to create more flexible, transparent, and participatory systems. At their core, DAOs combine technological infrastructure (blockchain, tokens, smart contracts) with social coordination mechanisms to enable distributed governance while maintaining coherence and purpose alignment. They enable stakeholders to collaborate, allocate resources, and make decisions through transparent processes that are secured and executed by code rather than relying on trusted intermediaries or central authorities.
The underlying technology provides cryptographic guarantees that agreements will be executed as specified, while the social layer creates the conditions for effective human collaboration across contexts and scales. This combination allows DAOs to experiment with novel governance models that can be more responsive, inclusive, and adaptable than traditional organizational structures, while also operating with greater transparency and lower coordination costs.
Uses of “DAO”
The term “DAO” has evolved to encompass multiple interpretations and implementations, each emphasizing different aspects of decentralized coordination:
DAOs as Legal Entities
In some jurisdictions, DAOs can be legally recognized organizational structures (such as DAOs registered in Wyoming or DAO LLCs in the Marshall Islands). In this context, a DAO represents a legal wrapper that provides limited liability protection while enabling on-chain governance and transparent operations. This interpretation focuses on DAOs as alternatives to traditional corporate structures, with similar functions but more distributed control mechanisms.
DAOs as Protocol Governance Systems
Many blockchainprotocols use DAOs to manage upgrades, parameter changes, and treasury allocations. These protocol DAOs (like MakerDAO or Uniswap) enable token holders to vote on proposals that shape the development and operation of the underlying technology. The focus here is on decentralizing control over critical infrastructure to prevent capture by any single entity while ensuring the protocol evolves to meet user needs.
DAOs as Purpose-Aligned Networks
As described in the DAO Primitives Project, DAOs can be understood as “purpose-aligned networks of small autonomous teams” rather than discrete entities. This perspective views DAOs as fluid coordination systems where smaller groups (Cells) self-organize around a shared purpose while maintaining their autonomy. The network provides infrastructure for these groups to discover each other, share resources, and align activities toward common goals without requiring centralized direction.
“If we can shed this ‘company as centralising entity’ paradigm and instead see DAOs not as entities but as centerless networks with coordinated flows of resources, then a whole new way of looking at business and economics becomes possible.”
DAOs as Experimental Spaces
DAOs also represent laboratories for social, economic, and governance experimentation. They provide infrastructure for testing novel coordination mechanisms, incentive structures, and decision-making processes at scale. This usage emphasizes DAOs as vehicles for institutional innovation, enabling communities to rapidly iterate on organizational designs that would be difficult to implement within traditional structures.
DAOs as Network Economies
Unlike companies that operate business models, DAOs can function as network economies that harness both scaling infrastructure and creative networks. As described in Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power, this enables DAOs to achieve efficiencies similar to traditional organizations while maintaining the innovation capacity typically lost in rigid hierarchies.
“DAOs are network economies, not business models. And as network economies they can be more like cities and can escape the rigid and finite fate of companies.”
Key Characteristics of DAOs
While implementations vary widely, most DAOs share several defining characteristics:
Distributed Decision-Making: Authority is distributed across members rather than concentrated in a management hierarchy.
Transparent Operations: Transactions, governance processes, and resource allocations are publicly visible on the blockchain.
Programmable Governance: Rules for coordination and decision-making are encoded in smart contracts, ensuring consistent enforcement.
Token-Based Participation: Rights to participation, governance, and economic benefits are often represented by tokens or other cryptographic credentials.
Purpose Alignment: Members coordinate around shared goals, values, or objectives rather than being directed by centralized authority.
Permissionless Access: Many DAOs allow anyone to participate in some capacity without requiring approval from gatekeepers.
Multi-Scale Governance: Different decision-making processes operate at different scales, from small autonomous teams to network-wide votes.
Related Concepts
Governance - The frameworks and processes that guide decision-making in DAOs
Decentralization refers to the distribution of power, decision-making, and control away from a central authority to multiple individuals or entities, allowing for more distributed and autonomous operations.
Decentralization represents a fundamental shift in how systems are organized and governed, moving from hierarchical, centralized structures toward networked, distributed arrangements. This organizational principle can be applied to technological systems (like blockchains), governance structures (like DAOs), and social coordination mechanisms. At its core, decentralization seeks to reduce single points of failure, minimize capture by concentrated interests, and enable greater participation by diverse stakeholders.
The degree of decentralization exists on a spectrum rather than as a binary state. Systems can decentralize specific functions (like decision-making or resource allocation) while maintaining centralization in others. The effectiveness of decentralization depends heavily on context - what works for one system or community might be inappropriate for another. Well-designed decentralized systems carefully balance autonomy with coordination, creating structures that enable individual freedom while maintaining coherent collective action.
Uses of “Decentralization”
Decentralization in Technological Systems
In blockchain and Web3 technologies, decentralization refers to the distribution of network infrastructure, data storage, and processing across multiple independent nodes. This technical decentralization creates systems that are resistant to censorship, tampering, and single points of failure. Bitcoin pioneered this approach by distributing the verification and recording of transactions across a global network of computers, eliminating the need for trusted intermediaries like banks or payment processors.
The technical implementation of decentralization typically involves consensus mechanisms, cryptographic verification, and incentive structures that allow a network to maintain consistency and security without central control. Different protocols make different trade-offs between decentralization, scalability, and security (often called the “blockchain trilemma”), leading to varied approaches across the Web3 ecosystem.
Decentralization in Organizational Design
In organizational contexts, decentralization involves distributing authority, decision-making power, and operational responsibilities across teams rather than concentrating them in a management hierarchy. As described in Building DAOs as scalable networks, this can take the form of “purpose-aligned networks of small autonomous teams” that coordinate through shared protocols rather than command-and-control structures.
Decentralized organizations often implement governance at multiple scales: small collaborative teams make operational decisions, coordination mechanisms align activities across teams, and constituency-scale processes determine overall direction and purpose. This approach combines the adaptability and contextual intelligence of autonomous teams with the coherence and scaling benefits of networked coordination.
Decentralization in Governance
In governance systems, decentralization refers to distributing power and authority across stakeholders rather than concentrating it in representative bodies or executive leadership. This can involve direct participation in decision-making, delegation mechanisms that preserve accountability, and nested governance structures that handle decisions at appropriate scales.
As explored in the Governance for better futures series, decentralized governance approaches can create more responsive, legitimate, and resilient systems by engaging diverse stakeholders and balancing power across networks. This doesn’t mean eliminating all structure or leadership, but rather designing systems where authority flows from community consent rather than institutional position.
Decentralization in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, decentralization addresses traditional power imbalances in philanthropy and development work. By distributing decision-making authority to affected communities rather than donors or intermediaries, decentralized approaches can create more equitable, contextually appropriate, and sustainable solutions.
This application of decentralization particularly emphasizes the importance of transferring not just nominal authority but also resources, knowledge access, and implementation capacity to historically marginalized communities. Web3 tools can enhance this process by creating transparent resource flows, participatory decision mechanisms, and direct community ownership of assets and infrastructure.
Related Concepts
Autonomy: Decentralization creates spaces for autonomous action by individuals and groups within a larger system
DAOs: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations implement decentralization through technological and social coordination mechanisms
Governance: Decentralized governance systems distribute decision-making authority across stakeholders
Consensus and Consent: Mechanisms for reaching agreement in decentralized systems
Power: Decentralization fundamentally addresses the distribution of power in social and technical systems
Permissionless-ness: The ability to participate without requiring approval from centralized gatekeepers
Networks: Decentralized systems typically organize as networks rather than hierarchies
Decisions are the transformative points where potential becomes direction through the selection of specific courses of action from available alternatives, enabling coordinated progress while reflecting underlying values, power structures, and governance principles.
Decision-making lies at the heart of all organizational systems, determining how resources are allocated, strategies are formed, and collective action is coordinated. The mechanisms through which decisions are made fundamentally shape an organization’s ability to respond to challenges, innovate, and align with its purpose. Traditional systems have often concentrated decision-making authority in hierarchical structures, while decentralized approaches distribute this power across networks of autonomous agents operating within shared frameworks.
In the context of decentralized organizations, decisions take on additional dimensions of complexity and opportunity. When properly designed, decentralized decision-making systems can harness collective intelligence, increase responsiveness to changing conditions, and create more equitable participation in governance. However, they also introduce challenges around coordination, accountability, and effectiveness that require thoughtful design of decision protocols, processes, and supporting infrastructure.
Uses of “Decisions”
Decisions in DAO Governance
In DAO contexts, decision-making encompasses both the technical mechanisms (voting systems, proposal processes) and social practices that enable collective action. Unlike traditional organizations that rely on authority-based decision hierarchies, DAOs experiment with various approaches to distributing decision rights while maintaining coordination.
As described in Building DAOs as scalable networks, effective DAO governance often employs a two-house model separating different types of decisions:
Community Governance decisions focus on long-term direction, purpose alignment, and treasury management at constituency scale
Operational Governance decisions address day-to-day implementation, project management, and tactical choices at coordination scale
This separation allows for appropriate decision processes at different scales and timeframes while preserving overall alignment.
Decisions in Collaboration Teams
At collaboration scale, decision-making becomes more direct and relational. Small autonomous teams (Cells) require efficient decision protocols that balance speed with quality.
The Decider protocol illustrates this approach, providing a structured process for rapid team decisions that maintains space for objections while avoiding unnecessary debate. As the protocol documentation explains:
“The decider protocol is designed to support collaboration scale teams to make decisions in a way that: 1. Is fast and efficient 2. Protects against group anti-patterns that lead to poor decisions”
Such protocols establish clear social agreements about how groups will navigate choices together, creating predictable patterns that reduce coordination costs.
Decisions in Consensus vs. Consent Frameworks
Decision-making approaches vary significantly in how they define agreement. Two prominent approaches in decentralized systems are:
Consensus-based decisions require all participants to actively agree with and support a proposal before moving forward. This approach prioritizes universal acceptance but can be time-intensive and vulnerable to blocking.
Consent-based decisions focus on the absence of reasoned, substantial objections rather than active agreement from all parties. This enables more efficient decision-making while still protecting against harmful changes.
As explained in the consent documentation:
“Consent is a principle where a proposal or action can proceed when no participant raises a reasoned, substantial objection that the proposal would harm the organization’s ability to achieve its purpose or prevent a member from fulfilling their role.”
The choice between these approaches reflects fundamental trade-offs between participation, efficiency, and risk management that organizations must navigate based on their context and goals.
Decisions in Resource Allocation
A critical function of decisions in any organization is determining how resources are deployed. In decentralized systems, this often involves innovative approaches to treasury management and capital allocation.
From community-directed funding through proposals to algorithmic distribution mechanisms like quadratic funding, web3 organizations experiment with decision structures that distribute resource allocation authority while maintaining alignment with collective purpose. These systems often blend human judgment with programmable rules to create more transparent, participatory resource decisions.
Related Concepts
Several key concepts in the knowledge base connect directly to decisions and decision-making:
Governance: The overarching frameworks within which decisions are made, including the distribution of decision rights and accountability mechanisms
Permissions: Systems that determine who can make which types of decisions and under what conditions
Execution: The implementation of decisions, transforming choices into actions and outcomes
Evaluation: The assessment of decision outcomes, informing future decision processes
Agreements: The formal or informal understandings that establish decision parameters and processes
Progress: The tracking and management of advancement toward goals, both informing and resulting from decisions
Frameworks are structured conceptual models that provide organizing principles, components, and relationships to guide understanding, decision-making, and implementation in complex domains, enabling consistent approaches to recurring challenges without rigid prescription.
Frameworks serve as intellectual scaffolding that bridge theory and practice, offering flexible but coherent structures for approaching complex problems. Unlike rigid methodologies that prescribe specific steps, good frameworks establish foundational principles, key components, and important relationships while leaving room for adaptation to context. They provide cognitive leverage by organizing knowledge and experience into patterns that make complexity more manageable and communicable.
In the context of decentralized systems and social impact, frameworks play a crucial role in translating abstract concepts into practical implementation while maintaining values alignment. They help diverse stakeholders develop shared understanding and coordinate action without centralized control. By making implicit knowledge explicit and transferable, frameworks accelerate learning across communities and enable more effective collaboration across cultural, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries.
Uses of “Frameworks”
Frameworks serve distinct yet complementary purposes across different domains: in organizational design, they provide structural models for coordination and development; in web3 governance, they offer systematic approaches to power distribution and decision-making; and in social impact, they create navigational tools for addressing complex societal challenges while maintaining values alignment.
Frameworks in Organization Design
In organizational contexts, frameworks provide structured approaches to governance, coordination, and development. They offer conceptual models for understanding key components and relationships in organizational systems, helping stakeholders visualize complex interactions and design coherent structures.
The DAO Primitives Framework exemplifies this approach, providing foundational concepts and patterns for building decentralized organizations. As noted in the knowledge base, this framework explores how DAOs function as “purpose-aligned networks of small autonomous teams” and offers tools for facilitating group development across different phases and scales. This framework helps practitioners design organizations that balance autonomy with coordination, creating systems that can scale while maintaining alignment with core purpose.
Frameworks in Web3 Governance
In web3 governance, frameworks provide structured approaches to addressing coordination challenges, power dynamics, and decision-making processes. These frameworks often combine technical mechanisms (like voting systems and smart contracts) with social practices and principles that guide their implementation.
The Anticapture Framework represents a significant contribution to this field, offering a systematic approach to designing systems resistant to power concentration and exploitation. It provides a structured analysis of capture risks and corresponding design patterns to create more resilient governance systems. As referenced in governance discussions throughout the knowledge base, Anticapture offers principles for balancing decentralization with effective coordination.
Similarly, Modular Politics provides a framework for understanding how governance components can be designed as interchangeable modules, allowing for flexible adaptation to different contexts and needs. This framework helps communities select and combine governance mechanisms appropriate to their specific requirements rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.
Frameworks for Social Impact
In social impact contexts, frameworks provide structured approaches to understanding and addressing complex societal challenges. They help practitioners navigate the interconnected nature of social, economic, and environmental systems while maintaining focus on equitable outcomes and community empowerment.
The various frameworks discussed in the “Governance for better futures” series offer approaches for reimagining how communities can coordinate action toward social goals. These frameworks emphasize principles like multi-scale governance, participatory decision-making, and distributed leadership to create more inclusive and effective impact initiatives.
Related Concepts
Primitives: Fundamental building blocks that frameworks organize into coherent systems
Patterns: Reusable solutions to common problems that frameworks often incorporate and contextualize
Protocols: Standardized procedures that implement framework principles in specific domains
modules: Self-contained components that can be arranged according to framework principles
Playbooks: Practical guides that apply frameworks to specific implementation contexts
Practices: Regular activities and methods guided by framework principles
Frameworks in the SuperBenefit Knowledge Base
Several key frameworks are documented and developed within the SuperBenefit ecosystem:
DAO Primitives Framework: A conceptual model for understanding and designing decentralized autonomous organizations
Anticapture: A framework for designing governance systems resistant to power concentration and exploitation
Modular Politics: An approach to governance that emphasizes composable, interchangeable components
Decentralized governance in the context of Web3 and DAOs refers to the decentralized, blockchain-based system where rules, decisions, and resource allocation are managed collectively by participants through transparent, automated mechanisms like smart contracts. Rather than concentrating decision-making power in a traditional hierarchy, decentralized governance distributes authority across different scales and functions of the organization.
Types of Governance
community-governance
Operates at Constituency Scale to safeguard and evolve the network’s overarching purpose. Community governance includes a broad base of stakeholders who may not be directly involved in operations but are aligned with the network’s purpose. It uses slower, more deliberative mechanisms like conviction voting and optimistic governance to make long-term decisions about network direction and treasury allocation.
operational-governance
Functions at test-pattern (small autonomous teams) coordinate their activities. Operational governance provides the flexibility and autonomy needed for teams to execute effectively while maintaining coordination across the network.
multistakeholder-governance
Focuses on aligning key stakeholder interests and managing relationships between different participants in the network. This includes coordinating between active contributors, token holders, users, and other parties who have a direct stake in the network’s success. Stakeholder governance helps balance competing interests while maintaining alignment with the network’s purpose.
Impact refers to the measurable, positive change created through intentional interventions in social, environmental, and economic systems, with a focus on sustainable, equitable outcomes that address systemic challenges.
In the context of Web3 and decentralized systems, impact represents a fundamental shift from traditional approaches to social and environmental change. Rather than relying solely on centralized institutions or market mechanisms, Web3 enables new models for coordinating resources, verifying outcomes, and aligning incentives toward positive-sum goals. These approaches leverage transparency, decentralized governance, and programmable incentives to address complex challenges that have proven resistant to conventional solutions.
Impact in this context moves beyond isolated interventions to focus on systemic transformation, seeking to address root causes rather than symptoms. This systemic approach recognizes the interconnected nature of social, environmental, and economic challenges, and aims to create regenerative solutions that build resilience, equity, and sustainability into the fabric of our systems and institutions.
Uses of “Impact”
Impact in Web3 and DAOs
In Web3 ecosystems, impact refers to the measurable positive outcomes or changes facilitated by decentralized technologies and coordination systems. This includes improving access, transparency, and equity across social, environmental, and economic dimensions through novel mechanisms enabled by blockchain and related technologies.
Web3 approaches to impact often include:
Transparent resource allocation through community-directed funding
Verifiable outcome reporting using attestations and on-chain data
Incentive alignment through token engineering and mechanism design
Public goods funding through quadratic mechanisms and retroactive rewards
Coordination of decentralized contributions toward shared goals
These mechanisms enable more participatory, transparent, and equitable approaches to creating change, allowing communities to self-organize around shared challenges without requiring centralized intermediaries to coordinate or validate their efforts.
Impact Measurement and Verification
A critical dimension of impact involves the processes and systems for measuring, verifying, and communicating outcomes. Web3 technologies enable new approaches to impact measurement that address longstanding challenges in the social impact sector.
As explored in the attestations lexicon entry, “Impact attestations represent a specialized application of attestation technology focused on documenting, verifying, and communicating social and environmental outcomes.” These systems enable more transparent, verifiable reporting while creating new mechanisms for directing resources toward effective interventions.
Impact verification typically involves multiple stakeholders and perspectives:
Self-reporting by project implementers
Community verification by affected stakeholders
Third-party validation by independent evaluators
Resource provider confirmation by funders or investors
These verification layers work together to create more robust, context-sensitive assessments of impact that balance rigor with flexibility and local relevance.
Impact in Philanthropy and Social Finance
In philanthropic and social finance contexts, impact represents a shift from traditional funding models toward more transparent, participatory approaches to resource allocation and outcome verification. This shift acknowledges the power imbalances inherent in conventional philanthropy and seeks to create more equitable relationships between funders and communities.
The Reimagining Power project specifically examines how Web3 can transform impact by addressing fundamental power dynamics in philanthropy. As the project documentation notes, achieving transformational change “requires bold shifts in how we understand and exercise power, mobilize resources, and distribute value.” This includes creating mechanisms for communities to directly participate in decision-making about resource allocation and impact assessment.
In this context, impact is closely tied to principles of:
Community self-determination and autonomy
Transparent and accountable resource flows
Equitable distribution of decision-making power
Recognition of diverse forms of knowledge and expertise
Related Concepts
Attestations: Verified digital statements that provide cryptographic proof of impact claims
Resources: Assets deployed toward creating impact, including financial and non-financial capital
Governance: Systems for making decisions about resource allocation and impact priorities
Evaluation: Processes for assessing the effectiveness and outcomes of interventions
Transformation: Fundamental shifts in systems and structures to address root causes
Sustainability: The capacity for interventions to maintain positive outcomes over time
An organizational philosophy and practice that emphasizes local autonomy, community self-determination, and place-based solutions while maintaining beneficial connections to broader networks and resources.
Localism represents a response to excessive centralization and globalization, seeking to rebuild community resilience and autonomy while preserving valuable external connections. It focuses on organizing human activity around natural boundaries (like watersheds and bioregions) rather than arbitrary political divisions, while developing local capacity for governance, production, and cultural expression.
Uses of “Localism”
Localism in Economics
In economic contexts, localism promotes local production and consumption cycles, community-owned infrastructure, and economic systems that serve local needs. This includes developing local currencies, mutual credit systems, and community-based financial institutions that keep resources circulating within the community.
Localism in Governance
In governance, localism emphasizes democratic self-determination at the local level, with communities making decisions about issues that directly affect them. This often involves participatory democracy, commons management, and collective stewardship of shared resources.
Localism in Ecology
In ecological contexts, localism focuses on organizing human activity in harmony with local ecosystems and bioregions. This includes sustainable resource management, regenerative agriculture, and ecological restoration guided by local knowledge and conditions.
Localism in web3
In web3 contexts, localism has evolved beyond traditional emphasis on self-sufficiency to embrace what’s known as cosmolocalism - a hybrid approach that maintains local autonomy while leveraging global networks. This evolution represents an important adaptation to modern technological capabilities:
Traditional localism focuses on local self-sufficiency and independence from external systems
Web3 tools enable a more nuanced approach where communities can:
Maintain sovereignty over local resources and decision-making
Share knowledge and protocols globally through open systems
Connect local initiatives through decentralized networks
Access global capital while preserving local control
Coordinate between autonomous groups without centralization
Support place-based governance with digital tools
The key innovation is the ability to choose the optimal scale for different activities - keeping production and governance local while participating in global knowledge and resource networks. This follows the cosmo-local principle of “heavy is local, light is global,” enabling communities to benefit from broader connections without sacrificing autonomy.
Networks are interconnected systems of agents, resources, and relationships that enable coordination, collaboration, and value exchange without requiring centralized control, creating adaptive structures capable of scaling both efficiency and innovation simultaneously.
Networks represent a fundamental organizational paradigm distinct from hierarchical, entity-based structures. They consist of nodes (individuals, teams, organizations) connected through relationships, protocols, and shared agreements that facilitate the flow of information, resources, and decision-making across the system. Unlike traditional organizational models that centralize control and coordination, networks distribute agency and authority across participants while maintaining coherence through shared purpose and protocols.
In the context of decentralized systems, networks provide the underlying infrastructure for emergent collective intelligence. When properly designed, they can achieve both the efficiency benefits of scale (through fractal scaling hierarchies) and the innovation benefits of diverse collaboration (through social connectivity). This dual capacity allows networks to evolve organically in response to changing conditions, directing resources toward the most promising opportunities without requiring top-down direction or rigid structures.
Uses of “Networks”
Networks in DAO Ecosystems
In the DAO context, networks represent a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize organizations. Rather than viewing DAOs as discrete entities similar to companies, they can be understood as “centerless networks with coordinated flows of resources” that enable more dynamic, adaptive coordination. As described in DAOs aren’t things… they are flows, DAOs function as “network economies” rather than traditional business models.
These DAO networks consist of interconnected cells (small autonomous teams) that self-organize around shared purpose while maintaining their independence. The network provides infrastructure for these cells to discover each other, share resources, and align activities through transparent protocols rather than management hierarchies. This fractal structure allows DAOs to scale both operational efficiency and creative innovation simultaneously.
Networks as Scaling Systems
Networks enable distinctive scaling properties that differ significantly from traditional organizational models. As explored in Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power, networks can exhibit both:
Sub-linear scaling through fractal hierarchies that create increasing efficiency as the network grows (similar to biological systems and infrastructure networks)
Super-linear scaling through social connectivity that generates increasing innovation, creativity, and adaptation as the network expands (similar to cities and other social systems)
This dual scaling capacity allows networks to become more efficient while simultaneously becoming more innovative and adaptive - a combination that traditional hierarchical organizations struggle to achieve. As Building DAOs as scalable networks describes, this enables DAOs to “leverage both Dynamic-One and Dynamic-Two” scaling systems simultaneously.
Networks as Coordination Mechanisms
Networks function as coordination mechanisms that align autonomous actions without requiring centralized control. Through transparent state documentation, shared agreements, and real-time information flows, networks enable participants to make contextually appropriate decisions while maintaining overall coherence.
The concept of Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness illustrates how networks coordinate through access rights rather than management hierarchies. By enabling permissionless access to work, collaboration, and proposal mechanisms, networks create the conditions for distributed decision-making where “strategy emerges autonomously” from the collective intelligence of participants rather than being dictated from the top.
Networks in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, networks enable more distributed, contextually-responsive approaches to complex challenges. Rather than centralizing resources and decision-making in large institutions, network approaches distribute agency to those closest to problems while providing infrastructure for knowledge sharing, resource allocation, and collective action.
The cosmolocalism framework demonstrates how networks can balance local autonomy with global connectivity, following the principle that “what is heavy is local, what is light is global.” This approach enables communities to maintain sovereignty while benefiting from broader network resources and knowledge commons.
Related Concepts
Systems: Networks are composed of interconnected systems that work together through coordinated processes
Agents: The autonomous individuals or entities that form the nodes of networks
Flows: The movement of resources, information, and value through networks
Governance: The frameworks and processes for collective decision-making in networks
Primitives: Network structures can be built from foundational building blocks
Cells: Autonomous teams that form the nodes of DAO networks
Coordination: The processes through which network participants align their actions
Community: The social fabric that enables trust and collaboration in networks
References and Resources
DAOs aren’t things… they are flows
Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power
Permissions are formalized rights and access controls that determine which agents can perform specific actions within a system, enabling secure coordination by balancing autonomy with accountability across decentralized networks.
Permissions serve as the foundational infrastructure for coordination in decentralized systems, establishing boundaries that both enable and constrain participant actions. Unlike traditional permissions that enforce rigid hierarchies, web3 permission systems create dynamic, contextual access patterns that can evolve with the needs of the organization. When thoughtfully designed, permissions create the conditions for appropriate decentralization - distributing authority without sacrificing coherence or security.
In complex coordination systems, permissions operate at multiple levels simultaneously: technical permissions enforce rules through code and cryptography, while social permissions establish norms and expectations through governance processes and agreements. The interplay between these layers determines how power flows throughout a system and shapes both its operational effectiveness and its resilience against capture or misuse.
Uses of “Permissions”
Permissions in DAO Primitives
In the DAO Primitives framework, permissions function as a core mechanism for coordinating autonomous teams (Cells) within a larger network. The framework treats permissions not as static assignments but as relational agreements between network participants that determine how resources, decisions, and responsibilities are distributed across the system.
As DAOs scale through fractal structures of interconnected Cells, permissions enable what Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness describes as “permissionless access to the network” while still providing necessary constraints on resource allocation. This distinction is crucial - while anyone can see opportunities and start working, permissions govern who can access treasuries, make binding decisions, or modify shared infrastructure.
This approach creates what might be called “calibrated permissioning” - deliberately designing where authority lies to achieve appropriate decentralization without sacrificing coordination capacity or security.
Permissions in Technical Infrastructure
At the technical level, permissions are encoded directly into blockchain protocols, smart contracts, and governance mechanisms. These programmatic permissions establish cryptographically secured rights that determine who can interact with contracts, trigger governance processes, or access protected resources.
Unlike traditional database access controls, on-chain permissions are publicly verifiable, immutable unless explicitly designed to be modified, and enforced without the need for trusted intermediaries. This creates strong guarantees around permission execution that can serve as the foundation for complex coordination systems.
Technical implementations include:
Multi-signature wallets requiring approval from multiple keyholders
Role-based access control in smart contracts
Token-gated permissions where ownership of specific tokens grants access rights
Time-locked or condition-based permissions that activate under specific circumstances
Permissions in Governance Systems
In governance contexts, permissions define who can participate in different aspects of decision-making and under what conditions. This includes rights to create proposals, vote on decisions, delegate authority, or implement approved changes.
Permissions in governance typically operate across multiple scales, with different decision types requiring different permission structures. As described in Building DAOs as scalable networks, a two-house governance structure might separate permission systems:
Community Governance permissions focus on long-term, high-stakes decisions about purpose and treasury management, often requiring broader stakeholder participation
Operational Governance permissions address day-to-day implementation and tactical decisions, distributed across autonomous teams in a sociocratic structure
This multi-scale approach allows permissions to be calibrated to the specific nature and impact of different decision types.
Permissions and Permissionless-ness
A key tension in web3 systems exists between permissioned access and “permissionless-ness” - the ability to participate without requiring approval from gatekeepers. As explored in Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness, effective DAOs must balance open participation with structured coordination.
The solution proposed involves distinguishing between “access to the network” (which should be permissionless) and “access to resources” (which requires appropriate permissions). This approach enables three essential freedoms:
The freedom to work on something without requiring permission
The ability to attract others to work on a project
The right to put up proposals to the broader network
By structuring permissions this way, networks can harness collective intelligence through permissionless exploration while maintaining appropriate controls around resource allocation and implementation.
Related Concepts
Autonomy: Permissions define the boundaries within which autonomous agents can operate
Delegation: The process of transferring permissions from one agent to another
Decisions: Permission systems determine who can make which types of decisions
Agents: The individuals or entities that receive and exercise permissions
Governance: Systems that establish and modify permissions across organizations
Resources: Assets and capabilities that permission systems regulate access to
Protocols: Standardized rules that often encode permission structures
Policies: Formalized rules that establish parameters for permissions
References and Resources
Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness: Explores the balance between permissions and permissionless access
Building DAOs as scalable networks: Discusses permission structures across governance scales
DAO Primitives Project: Framework for understanding permissions in decentralized organizations
Practices are established methods, routines, and processes that guide individual and collective behavior, providing structured approaches to action, decision-making, and coordination that enable consistent and effective pursuit of shared goals.
Practices bridge the gap between abstract principles and concrete actions, translating values and purpose into reliable patterns of behavior. They encode accumulated knowledge and wisdom into repeatable processes that can be shared, taught, and refined over time. Unlike rigid procedures, effective practices maintain a balance between structure and adaptability, providing enough guidance to ensure consistency while allowing for contextual application and continuous improvement.
In decentralized systems, practices take on particular importance as they replace traditional command-and-control mechanisms with shared protocols for collaboration. Well-designed practices create alignment without requiring centralized authority, enabling autonomous individuals and teams to coordinate effectively by following common approaches to communication, decision-making, and resource allocation. These shared methods become part of an organization’s culture and identity, reinforcing values while building collective capacity.
Uses of “Practices”
Practices in the DAO Primitives Framework
Within the DAO Primitives Framework, “Practice” is one of three core dimensions of Group State (alongside purpose and progress). It represents the agreed-upon methods and approaches that guide how a team works together and coordinates its activities.
As part of Group State, practices include:
Decision Protocols: Methods for making collective choices, such as consent-based or consensus-based processes
Meeting Formats: Structured approaches to gathering, sharing information, and collaborative work
Communication Channels: Established patterns for how information flows within and between teams
Role Allocation: Processes for assigning responsibilities and authority
Conflict Resolution: Methods for addressing tensions and disagreements
Practices in this framework are explicitly documented and continually refined based on the team’s experience and evolving needs. They create a shared operating system that allows teams to work together effectively without centralized control, balancing autonomy with coordination.
Practices in Governance Systems
In governance contexts, practices refer to the established methods through which decisions are made, resources are allocated, and accountability is maintained. These include formal procedures like proposal processes and voting mechanisms, as well as informal norms around deliberation, inclusion, and transparency.
Enabling broad participation while maintaining efficiency
Providing clarity and predictability while allowing for adaptation
Protecting against capture while minimizing bureaucracy
Supporting both operational decisions and long-term strategic direction
As explored in the “Governance for better futures” series, governance practices must evolve to address complex challenges while fostering decentralization and pluralism. Practices like community voting, delegation, and multi-stakeholder coordination create the infrastructure through which groups navigate complexity and manage shared resources.
Practices in Community Coordination
At the community level, practices establish shared norms and approaches that enable coherent collective action. These social technologies include:
Onboarding processes: How new members are welcomed and integrated
Knowledge sharing: Methods for documenting and transferring information
Contribution recognition: Systems for acknowledging and valuing participation
Resource allocation: Approaches to distributing collective resources
Cultural rituals: Regular activities that reinforce community identity and values
Community practices create the conditions for trust, reciprocity, and collective intelligence to emerge. They help translate values into consistent behaviors while establishing clear expectations that guide participation. In decentralized communities, these practices often evolve organically through experimentation and adaptation rather than being imposed from above.
Related Concepts
Agreements: Formal commitments that establish shared expectations, with practices often emerging from agreements
Protocols: Standardized rules that govern interactions, which practices often implement
Purpose: The guiding goal that practices help realize
Progress: Systems for tracking and demonstrating advancement, which practices support
Roles: Defined responsibilities that practices help coordinate
Tasks: Specific actions guided by established practices
Governance: Systems for collective decision-making that incorporate various practices
patterns: Reusable solutions to recurring problems, which often codify effective practices
Primitives are the most basic, foundational elements or operations in any system or domain, serving as the essential building blocks from which more complex structures, processes, or concepts are created.
Uses of “Primitives”
Primitives can be seen across various domains, such as programming (e.g., data types, basic operations like addition), hardware (e.g., logic gates, transistors), and software architecture (e.g., messaging protocols, database queries). Their simplicity and generality make them highly reusable, flexible, and reliable, allowing systems to scale and evolve while maintaining clarity and modularity.
In both web3 tooling and systems design, “primitives” refer to basic, foundational components or operations that are simple, reusable, and interoperable, serving as essential building blocks for creating more complex applications, services, or systems by combining or extending them.
Primitives in Systems Design
In systems design and organization, primitives refer to the most basic, foundational components or operations that cannot be simplified further but are used to build more complex systems. These building blocks provide standardized functionality or abstractions, allowing for the creation of larger, more sophisticated systems by combining or extending them.
Primitives in web3
In web3 tooling, primitives refer to basic building blocks or fundamental components that developers use to create decentralized applications (dApps) and blockchain-based systems. These include elements like tokens, wallets, smart contracts, consensus mechanisms, and decentralized identities, which serve as reusable, interoperable pieces of code or protocols. By combining and extending these primitives, developers can efficiently build more complex applications and services within the decentralized ecosystem.
Primitives in Practice
Organizations can benefit from primitives by leveraging these basic building blocks to streamline processes, improve efficiency, and enhance flexibility. By breaking down complex tasks or systems into simpler, reusable components, they can standardize operations, reduce redundancy, and adapt quickly to changes.
These elements are simple, repeatable, and can be applied across different departments or projects, allowing the organization to maintain consistency while adapting to various challenges. By utilizing these foundational building blocks, organizations can ensure that their operations are efficient, flexible, and aligned with their strategic goals.
At SuperBenefit, we’re exploring the potential and practical uses of web3 primitives in the DAO Primitives Project. For help choosing the patterns, practices and primitives for your project, check out the group-facilitation. You can learn more about our approach in the conceptual framework.
Primitives in this repository
Some notes in this knowledge garden represent primitives, and include metadata to help you navigate and discover them.
Notes which representprimitives are indicated using the primitive file class (type: primitive). This file class (a subclass of resource and link ) contains several metadata fields which are either inherited or unique.
Protocols are standardized sets of rules, procedures, and agreements that define how participants in a system interact, communicate, and exchange value, enabling consistent and predictable coordination without requiring central authority.
Protocols serve as foundational infrastructure for coordination in complex systems, establishing shared languages and behaviors that allow diverse agents to interact reliably. Unlike centralized systems that depend on hierarchical control, protocol-based coordination distributes authority across networks, allowing participants to engage directly without intermediaries while maintaining system coherence. This approach creates resilient, adaptable systems that can scale organically while preserving transparency and participant autonomy.
In both technological and social contexts, protocols transform unpredictable interactions into structured, repeatable patterns. They reduce coordination costs by establishing clear expectations and procedures, enabling complex collaboration among parties who may have no prior relationship or trust. While technical protocols operate through cryptographic verification and algorithmic enforcement, social protocols function through shared understanding, cultural norms, and governance agreements that guide collective behavior.
Uses of “Protocols”
Technical Protocols in Web3
In blockchain and web3 contexts, protocols are the formalized rule sets that govern how distributed networks operate, communicate, and maintain consensus. These protocols are typically implemented through code that defines transaction validation, data structures, consensus mechanisms, and network behaviors.
Technical protocols in web3 include:
Consensus protocols that establish agreement on the state of distributed systems
Transfer protocols for securely moving digital assets between parties
Messaging protocols for communication between different blockchain systems
Identity protocols for verifying and managing digital identities
Financial protocols (DeFi) for lending, trading, and other financial interactions
Unlike traditional software systems, the open and permissionless nature of blockchain protocols enables global networks of participants to coordinate without central authorities. As noted in the Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness article, these systems create “the ability for anyone anywhere to contribute creatively to a system” by establishing clear rules that maintain network integrity while enabling permissionless participation.
Social Protocols in DAOs
In decentralized autonomous organizations, social protocols establish governance processes, decision-making frameworks, and coordination mechanisms that enable collective action. These protocols bridge the gap between technical systems and human behavior, creating structured but flexible ways for communities to collaborate.
Social protocols in DAOs include:
Governance protocols for proposal creation, deliberation, and voting
Resource allocation protocols for managing shared treasuries
Contribution protocols that define how work is assigned, evaluated, and rewarded
Dispute resolution protocols for addressing conflicts and disagreements
Permission protocols that define access rights and responsibilities
The DAO Primitives Framework describes these social protocols as essential components for scaling coordination across different organizational levels. By establishing clear patterns for interaction, DAO protocols enable both small team autonomy and network-scale collaboration, creating systems that can “evolve organically” while maintaining purpose alignment.
Open Protocols
Open protocols are publicly accessible, non-proprietary standards that anyone can use, modify, and build upon without permission or payment. They represent a fundamental shift from closed, proprietary systems toward shared infrastructure that prioritizes interoperability, transparency, and collective governance.
Public Accessibility: Documentation and specifications are freely available to all
Permissionless Implementation: Anyone can build applications or services using the protocol
Community Governance: Development and evolution is guided by multi-stakeholder processes
Interoperability: Designed to work with other systems and services
Open Standards: Based on publicly documented specifications rather than proprietary technologies
Organizations like OpenCivics emphasize that open protocols create “digital public infrastructure” that enables more equitable, democratic participation in digital systems. Unlike proprietary platforms that extract value and control data, open protocols distribute value and authority across networks of participants, creating more resilient and equitable digital ecosystems.
Protocols in Civic Systems
In civic contexts, protocols establish frameworks for public participation, deliberation, and decision-making. These civic protocols bridge traditional governance structures with digital tools, creating hybrid systems for community coordination.
Civic protocols include:
Participatory budgeting protocols for community resource allocation
Deliberative democracy protocols for structured public discussion
Data commons protocols for managing shared information resources
Mutual aid protocols for community support and resource sharing
Public goods funding protocols for sustaining critical shared infrastructure
These systems enable communities to self-organize around shared needs and resources without requiring centralized management. As described in Governance for better futures, these protocols can help “shepherd emergence and serve more relational and systemic approaches to cooperation” by creating infrastructure for distributed decision-making and resource governance.
Related Concepts
Governance: Protocols establish the rules and procedures for collective decision-making
Agreements: Protocols formalize shared understandings about how systems operate
Networks: Protocols enable coordination across distributed networks of participants
Decisions: Protocols structure how collective choices are made and implemented
Primitives: Protocols are fundamental building blocks for constructing complex systems
Purpose is the shared vision, mission, or fundamental reason for existence that provides direction, meaning, and coherence to collective endeavors, serving as the orienting force that guides decision-making and action without requiring centralized control.
Purpose sits at the heart of effective coordination in decentralized systems, providing the gravitational center around which autonomous activities can align. Unlike traditional command structures that rely on hierarchical direction, purpose-driven systems enable coherent action through shared understanding of fundamental goals and values. This approach creates the conditions for distributed decision-making while maintaining overall alignment across diverse participants and contexts.
In complex environments, purpose functions as both a strategic compass and an integrative force. It establishes the boundaries within which experimentation and adaptation can flourish while ensuring that diverse activities contribute to a coherent whole. When clearly articulated and genuinely shared, purpose enables communities to navigate uncertainty, resolve conflicts, and evolve while preserving their essential character and direction.
Uses of “Purpose”
Purpose in DAO Primitives Framework
In the DAO Primitives Framework, purpose serves as one of three foundational dimensions of Group State, alongside Practice and Progress. It represents the “why” that animates an organization’s existence and activities. As the framework explains, purpose encompasses the shared vision that “creates alignment in a self-organizing network,” establishing the boundaries within which autonomous teams can operate effectively.
This framework treats purpose as a dynamic navigational tool rather than a static statement. Purpose evolves through collective sense-making and ongoing refinement, creating what Building DAOs as scalable networks describes as “coordination in much more complex and useful ways than can companies.” By orienting around shared purpose rather than rigid structures, decentralized networks can maintain coherence while adapting to changing conditions.
Purpose in Web3 Governance
In Web3 governance systems, purpose functions as the cornerstone for legitimate decision-making. As described in Governance for better futures, effective governance frameworks are designed to “safeguard the purpose of the network” while enabling flexibility in implementation. This approach creates a two-house governance structure where Community Governance focuses on long-term purpose alignment, while Operational Governance enables adaptive execution.
The emphasis on purpose-based governance represents a fundamental shift from traditional approaches that prioritize compliance with predetermined rules. Instead, as noted in Minimum Viable Permissionless-ness, Web3 systems evaluate decisions based on whether they advance the network’s purpose, with governance serving as a mechanism to “avoid capture and remain alive and relevant.”
Purpose in Coordination Systems
In decentralized coordination contexts, purpose serves as the primary mechanism for aligning autonomous actions without requiring central direction. It enables what DAOs aren’t things… they are flows describes as “centerless networks with coordinated flows of resources” - systems where alignment emerges from shared understanding rather than hierarchical control.
This coordination function is particularly valuable in complex environments where no single entity can possess complete information or context. By establishing shared purpose as the orientation point, systems can harness distributed intelligence while maintaining overall coherence. As described in Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power, this approach allows networks to “contain multitudes” of autonomous groups working toward an “overarching purpose inside a vastly more flexible structure.”
Purpose in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, purpose often extends beyond organizational boundaries to address broader societal challenges and transformations. Purpose-driven impact initiatives seek to create lasting change in complex systems rather than simply delivering short-term outputs or services.
As explored in Governance for better futures - New and Old, purpose in social impact work involves “reframing governance as the stewardship of holistic interests rather than just specific ones.” This expanded scope requires governance arrangements and capacities that can “hold the inevitable tensions in commoning and maintaining a strong sense of mutual responsibility.”
Related Concepts
Agreements: Purpose agreements provide the foundation for coordination in decentralized systems
Vision: The aspirational future state that purpose aims to realize
Values: The principles and beliefs that shape how purpose is pursued
Decisions: Purpose provides the framework for evaluating options and determining direction
Governance: Systems that safeguard purpose and ensure alignment across activities
Groups: Purpose provides the orientation for collective action across different scales
References and Resources
Building DAOs as scalable networks: Explores purpose as the orienting force in network governance
DAOs aren’t things… they are flows: Discusses purpose-aligned networks
DAO Primitives Framework: Details purpose as a foundational dimension of Group State
Resources are assets, materials, or capabilities that enable action, including tangible elements like funds and equipment as well as intangible elements like knowledge, time, and attention, all of which can be allocated toward achieving specific goals and outcomes.
Resources form the foundation of all organizational systems, determining what actions are possible and how effectively goals can be pursued. In decentralized systems, resources take on particular importance as their distribution, governance, and flow directly shape power dynamics and operational capabilities. The way resources are managed—whether centralized under hierarchical control or distributed through networked governance—fundamentally influences what outcomes are possible and who benefits from them.
Web3 systems introduce new paradigms for resource management through mechanisms like programmable treasuries, tokenization of previously non-financialized assets, and transparent on-chain tracking of resource flows. These innovations enable more participatory approaches to resource allocation while creating new challenges around coordination, security, and alignment between individual and collective interests.
Uses of “Resources”
DAO Primitives Framework
In the DAO Primitives Framework, resources are fundamental building blocks that enable coordinated action. They include financial assets (like treasury funds), technical infrastructure, community attention, and knowledge capabilities that DAOs can leverage to achieve their purpose. The framework emphasizes that effective resource allocation through transparent and participatory processes is essential for decentralized organizations to coordinate efficiently across different scales.
In Anticapture, resources are defined as anything that can be used to achieve desired outcomes, including tangible assets like food, money, and energy, as well as intangible ones like attention and social reputation. The term distinguishes between private resources, controlled by a single agents, and shared resources, governed by a network of agents. Shared resources are particularly vulnerable to capture, making decentralized governance essential to protect them from misuse or control by bad actors
In Web3 Governance
In governance systems, resources provide both the means and often the focus of collective decision-making. The allocation of treasuries, deployment of technical infrastructure, and cultivation of community attention all require governance mechanisms that can effectively direct resources toward purpose-aligned activities. Effective resource management in DAOs requires balancing flexibility for rapid action with appropriate controls to prevent misuse or exploitation.
In Social Impact DAOs
For organizations focused on social impact, resources extend beyond financial capital to include relationships, environmental assets, and social capital. Impact-oriented DAOs often develop innovative resource management systems that blend traditional approaches with web3 mechanisms like quadratic funding, impact certificates, and regenerative economics to more effectively direct resources toward sustainable outcomes that transcend financial returns.
Related Concepts
Permissions: Controls determining who can access or direct specific resources
Decision-making: Processes through which resource allocation choices are made
Platforms: Infrastructure that serves as a resource for coordination
Roles: Defined responsibilities that include authority over specific resources
Agreements: Formal or informal understandings about resource access and use
Sustainability refers to the design and implementation of systems that balance environmental integrity, social equity, and economic viability to meet present needs without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs, particularly through decentralized coordination mechanisms that enable regenerative rather than extractive relationships.
In the context of Web3 and decentralized systems, sustainability extends beyond traditional environmental concerns to encompass the resilience, longevity, and regenerative capacity of sociotechnical networks. These systems aim to create positive-sum outcomes by aligning incentives toward long-term value creation rather than short-term extraction. Sustainable approaches in this domain recognize the interdependence between ecological health, social wellbeing, and economic prosperity, seeking to design coordination mechanisms that naturally regenerate rather than deplete the resources upon which they depend.
The shift toward sustainability in decentralized networks involves reimagining fundamental structures and incentives to prioritize long-term resilience over immediate efficiency. This includes developing governance models, economic systems, and technological infrastructures that internalize externalities, distribute benefits equitably, and remain adaptable to changing conditions. By making sustainability a core design principle rather than an afterthought, these systems can help address urgent global challenges while creating more viable paths for human cooperation and flourishing.
Uses of “Sustainability”
Sustainability in Web3 and Blockchain
In Web3 contexts, sustainability addresses both the environmental impacts of blockchain technologies and the long-term viability of decentralized networks. This includes developing energy-efficient consensus mechanisms to reduce carbon footprints, creating tokenomics models that support ongoing maintenance and development, and ensuring that protocols can evolve without compromising core values or security.
The sustainability challenges of early proof-of-work blockchains have driven innovation toward more energy-efficient alternatives like proof-of-stake, as well as layer-2 solutions that reduce computational overhead. Beyond environmental concerns, sustainable Web3 systems also focus on governance mechanisms that prevent capture by short-term interests, enabling networks to make decisions that preserve their long-term viability and purpose alignment.
Sustainability in DAO Design
For Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, sustainability involves creating structures and processes that can endure and evolve while maintaining alignment with core purpose. As described in Building DAOs as scalable networks, sustainable DAOs leverage both sub-linear scaling dynamics (for efficiency) and super-linear social network effects (for innovation), creating positive feedback loops similar to those that allow cities to thrive over centuries.
Unlike traditional organizations that often decay and die as their infrastructure becomes rigid, sustainable DAOs design for adaptability, incorporating mechanisms for renewal and regeneration. As noted in Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power: “Like cities, leveraging Dynamics One & Two, DAO networks can benefit from the same positive feedback loops as they grow. Increasing economies of scale make them powerful, while constant creativity, innovation and responsiveness keep them alive and relevant to a changing world.”
Sustainability in Community Governance
In community and network governance, sustainability focuses on creating decision-making processes that can balance immediate needs with long-term stewardship. This involves developing governance models that distribute power appropriately, create accountability for outcomes, and enable communities to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining core values.
As explored in Governance for better futures - New and Old, sustainable governance approaches often draw from traditional wisdom and indigenous perspectives that emphasize intergenerational responsibility: “We descend from the earth and that’s who we have to give back to because it will sustain us for the rest of our lives and future generations.” These approaches prioritize relationships with place and community, seeing sustainability not as an abstract goal but as a lived practice of reciprocity and care.
Sustainability in Social Impact
In social impact contexts, sustainability focuses on creating lasting positive change through interventions that address root causes rather than symptoms. This includes developing resource models that support ongoing work, building local capacity rather than creating dependency, and ensuring that impacts endure beyond initial funding or attention cycles.
Sustainable approaches to social impact often emphasize cosmolocalism, combining “resilient localized production with access to global knowledge commons and coordination protocols.” This approach builds self-sufficiency at the local level while connecting communities to broader networks of resources and knowledge, creating systems that can endure and evolve over time.
Related Concepts
cosmolocalism: An approach combining local resilience with global knowledge sharing
localism: Organizational philosophy emphasizing local autonomy and place-based solutions
progress: Tracking and demonstrating advancement toward sustainable outcomes
purpose: The guiding reason behind actions or decisions that often includes sustainability dimensions
systems: Organized sets of interconnected elements that must balance various sustainability factors
Systems are interconnected networks of components that work together through dynamic processes and relationships to achieve specific purposes, creating emergent behaviors and capabilities that transcend the sum of their individual parts.
Systems thinking recognizes that complex challenges cannot be understood or addressed by focusing on isolated elements, but rather require examining the relationships, flows, and feedback loops that connect components within larger wholes. This perspective is particularly valuable in decentralized contexts, where coordination emerges from interactions between autonomous agents rather than top-down control. Understanding systems dynamics helps us design more resilient, adaptive organizations and governance structures that can respond effectively to complexity.
In the web3 and DAO ecosystem, systems design focuses on creating coordination infrastructure that enables self-organization while maintaining alignment with collective purpose. This involves careful attention to incentives, feedback mechanisms, information flows, and governance structures that allow systems to evolve and adapt while preserving core values and functions. The evolution from traditional organizational forms to network-based systems represents a fundamental shift in how we approach coordination at scale.
Uses of “Systems”
Systems in Organizational Design
In organizational contexts, systems represent the formal and informal structures, processes, and relationships that enable coordination toward shared goals. Traditional organizational systems often rely on hierarchical control mechanisms, while decentralized approaches emphasize self-organization through transparent protocols and aligned incentives.
As explored in Building DAOs as scalable networks, effective organizational systems in the web3 context function as “purpose-driven network economies” rather than rigid entities. These systems combine scaling infrastructure (for efficiency) with creative networks (for innovation), creating what the article describes as “DAOs as systems that can influence systems” - capable of addressing complex social and environmental challenges through multi-scale coordination.
Systems in Web3 and DAOs
In the web3 context, systems often take the form of decentralized protocols and governance frameworks that enable coordination without centralized control. DAOs aren’t things… they are flows reframes DAOs as “centerless networks with coordinated flows of resources” rather than traditional organizations, emphasizing their nature as complex adaptive systems.
These decentralized systems harness both technical infrastructure (blockchains, smart contracts, token systems) and social coordination mechanisms to achieve both efficiency and innovation. As described in Scale and the levers that provide DAOs their power, this enables them to function more like cities than companies - capable of simultaneously becoming more efficient through scaling infrastructure while generating increasing innovation through social network effects.
Systems in Social Transformation
In social impact contexts, systems approaches recognize the interconnected nature of complex challenges and seek to address root causes rather than symptoms. This perspective emphasizes understanding and transforming the underlying structures, relationships, and feedback loops that maintain status quo conditions.
As discussed in Governance for better futures - New and Old, addressing challenges like climate change or inequality requires “multi-modal, multi-disciplinary, multi-scale, multi-national approaches that are intelligent, coordinated and responsive to the emergent nature of the systems they are working in.” Web3 technologies offer new possibilities for designing systems that can coordinate this complexity through distributed intelligence and aligned incentives.
Systems Thinking Methodologies
Systems thinking encompasses various methodologies and frameworks for understanding and intervening in complex systems:
Causal loop diagrams: Mapping relationships and feedback loops between system elements
Stock and flow models: Analyzing accumulations and rates of change within systems
Network analysis: Examining patterns of connection and influence between system nodes
Scenario planning: Exploring possible system trajectories under different conditions
Leverage point identification: Finding places where small changes can produce large system effects
These approaches help practitioners identify emergent properties, anticipate unintended consequences, and design more effective interventions that address root causes rather than symptoms.
Related Concepts
networks: Systems often take the form of interconnected networks of agents and resources
governance: The frameworks and processes through which systems are directed and managed
protocols: Standardized rules that enable coordination within decentralized systems
primitives: Fundamental building blocks from which more complex systems are constructed
coordination: The processes through which diverse agents align their actions within systems
emergence: The way complex behaviors and properties arise from simpler system interactions
transformation: Fundamental shifts in how societal systems and structures operate
complexity: The property of systems with many interdependent parts and non-linear behaviors
Systems transformation refers to the fundamental shift in how societal structures and processes operate, driven by decentralized technologies that enable more transparent, equitable, and inclusive solutions for addressing complex social challenges.
Values are core principles and desired characteristics that guide decision-making, system design, and operations, embodying the aspirations and ethical commitments that shape how organizations and networks function and evolve.
Values serve as both normative guidance and practical design considerations in decentralized systems. They represent the fundamental principles that communities commit to upholding while also describing the desired qualities that systems should embody. Unlike rigid rules, values provide flexible orientation points that help navigate trade-offs and resolve conflicts when concrete decisions must be made in complex or ambiguous situations.
In decentralized contexts, values take on particular importance as they often replace traditional command structures by creating alignment around shared priorities and commitments. When explicitly articulated and collectively endorsed, values enable autonomous agents to make consistent decisions without requiring constant oversight or detailed instructions. This makes values essential coordination mechanisms for networks where centralized control is neither possible nor desirable.
Uses of “Values”
Values in DAO Formation and Governance
During the formation phase of DAOs and decentralized organizations, establishing shared values creates a foundation for effective collaboration and decision-making. These values help diverse stakeholders align around common priorities and provide guidance for navigating trade-offs in organizational design, tool selection, and governance processes.
Values in DAO governance often include principles like transparency, decentralization, inclusivity, and accountability. These serve as both aspirational goals and practical design considerations. For example, the value of decentralization might guide decisions about permission structures, while transparency values shape information sharing protocols and documentation practices.
As described in the DAO Primitives Framework, values influence how qualities like autonomy, privacy, and sustainability are operationalized in specific contexts. They help bridge between abstract principles and concrete implementation choices, allowing teams to maintain coherence while adapting to their unique circumstances.
Values in Systems Transformation
In the context of social impact and systems transformation initiatives like Reimagining Power, values play a crucial role in reshaping existing structures and creating more equitable alternatives. Values-driven approaches recognize that technological systems are not neutral but embody specific priorities and power dynamics.
Web3 technologies offer unique opportunities to encode values like equity, privacy, and autonomy directly into system architecture through smart contracts and decentralized governance. This “values-by-design” approach creates more resilient implementation of principles that might otherwise be compromised by market pressures or power imbalances.
For example, privacy values can be encoded through zero-knowledge proof mechanisms, while equity values might be implemented through transparent resource allocation protocols or quadratic funding mechanisms. This technical implementation of values creates systems that structurally reinforce desired characteristics rather than merely aspiring to them.
Values at Different Scales and Scopes
Values operate at multiple scales within decentralized systems, from individual contributors to working groups to entire networks. Different contexts may prioritize different values based on their specific needs and challenges:
Individual level: Personal values guide contributor actions and decisions
Team level: Shared values enable coordination within working groups or cells
Network level: Core values create coherence across the broader ecosystem
Inter-network level: Aligned values facilitate cooperation between different DAOs and communities
This multi-scale approach recognizes that while certain foundational values may be universal, their practical application and relative priority can vary based on context. Teams working on privacy-sensitive applications may emphasize confidentiality values, while public-facing initiatives might prioritize transparency and accessibility.
Common Values in Decentralized Systems
While each community develops its own unique value set, several core values frequently appear in decentralized systems:
Autonomy: Enabling self-determination at individual and group levels
Transparency: Making processes, decisions, and information openly accessible
Decentralization: Distributing power, control, and resources rather than concentrating them
Privacy: Protecting sensitive information and enabling confidential participation
Sustainability: Creating systems that can maintain themselves over time without extraction
Inclusivity: Enabling diverse participation regardless of background or resources
Adaptability: Building systems that can evolve in response to changing conditions
These values often manifest as qualities that systems embody to varying degrees. For example, the value of privacy might be expressed through technical qualities like data minimization, selective disclosure, or zero-knowledge mechanisms.
Related Concepts
Purpose: Values align with and support the broader purpose of an organization or network
Culture: The lived expression of values through behaviors, norms, and practices
Agreements: Formal or informal understandings about how values will be upheld
Governance: Systems and processes for making decisions aligned with collective values
References and Resources
DAO Primitives Framework: Explores how values inform the design of decentralized organizations
Reimagining Power: Examines how values can be encoded into technical systems for social transformation
