Just DAO It: A Podcast for People Starting DAOs

Adam Miller: Good morning, everyone,
and welcome to Just DAO It, the

podcast for people starting DAOs
and Web3 projects and AI agents.

I'm Adam Miller, and I'm your host.

I'm the CEO of MyDAO, which provides
legal entity solutions for DAOs, Web3,

and AI agents in partnership with the
government of the Marshall Islands.

Welcome to the show, Alex.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
Thank you, Alan.

I'm very happy to be here

Adam Miller: Excited to
have you here as well.

you recently published an article on
Paragraph titled "The Minimum Viable

Institution: A Lightweight Coordination
Model for DAOs and Purpose-Driven

Networks" that really got my attention.

so really excited to dig into
that in the second half of the

show, but would you just tell us
a little bit about yourself first?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I am, Mexican.

I am a freelancer, an independent worker.

I am living in southeast Mexico in a
small town called San Crisól de Las Casas.

the poorest state in terms of
economics, for Mexico, but also the

wealthiest in terms of eco diversity.

And, yeah, I'm basically, a
facilitator, focusing governance.

so I'm a gov nerd.

I'm, also a practitioner and I've been
exploring the last years, how to make

coordination without subordination

Adam Miller: Mm, coordination
without subordination.

All right.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yep.

Adam Miller: Okay, so for anyone new
to the show, in the first half of

the show, we do the Just DAO It news
report, where I go over recent news

in the world of DAOs and Web3, and,
Alex and I talk about the stories.

And then in the second half of the show,
we will go deeper into an interview

with Alex about his background, the work
he's doing, and we'll go even deeper

into our thoughts on the related topics.

Quick disclaimer, not legal or tax advice.

We're not lawyers, we're not tax advisors,
and we're certainly not your lawyer.

All right, it's time for
the Just DAO It news report.

first story of the show is about ENS, or
Ethereum Name Service, and the ENS DAO,

and it's what my AI called the "2026
governance crisis," which I think is fair.

For anyone who doesn't know, ENS is
one of Ethereum's longest-running

projects or protocols and one
of its longest-running DAOs.

it's a naming system that
allows you to map names.eth

to addresses, so your blockchain
address, your websites, your social

media, anything else, kind of like
domain name service on the internet.

So the thing that allows
us to have maidao.org,

we also have maidads.eth,

because maidao.eth

was taken and won't sell it to
us, and later even bought daos.eth

as an investment and what we thought
could be a fun, name to hold.

And so, do you have any,
Alex, do you have alex.eth

or anything like that?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I have.

I am alexsotodigital.eth

Adam Miller: And so, the ENS DAO, which
launched with the ENS governance token

actually in 2021, governs the protocol,
which means the software that runs the

network, and its treasury, which is valued
at around $100 million of cash, another

couple hundred million dollars in ENS
tokens, so maybe not really worth quite

that much, but that's the market value.

And there's also an ENS
Foundation in the Cayman Islands.

so similar to the work we do in
the Marshall Islands, there's a lot

of crypto projects that have their
foundation, in these jurisdictions.

And the foundation acts as the DAO's legal
wrapper for signing contracts, paying

taxes or not paying taxes, taking on
liability and other off-chain functions.

the ENS website frames the DAO's role
as governing the protocol and the

treasury with one token, one vote, and
the option to delegate your tokens.

so what happened recently?

this crisis happened, when there became,
some conflict over what to do with the

treasury, both because people felt like
maybe the treasury wasn't being spent

effectively over the last few years,
but also concern about governance hacks.

So like a lot of DAOs with one token,
one vote, there's concern that someone

could buy enough tokens, drain the
treasury for more money than they had to

spend on the tokens, and basically ruin
the project, by draining the treasury.

and, this led to a series of proposals
and discussions about the DAO's security

council, and whether they need a new
security council, about the foundation

and whether to delegate either most
of the treasury, and/or most of the

operational responsibility for managing
the project to the foundation, saying

things that we often hear these days
in Web3, which is just the DAO's

inefficient, it votes on too many
things, nobody's paying attention.

The foundation would do a better job.

They'd be more focused.

And during these conversations,
people have resigned.

The director of operations,
Brantley Milligan, resigned.

been a lot of discussion, including
accusations of homophobia and wokeism, but

we'll mostly leave that out of the show

look into on X if they want to.

And to me, one of the more interesting
things here is this comes u-up a lot

in DAOs as well, people are accusing,
Nick, co-founder Nick Johnson.

They're saying that he vetoed a proposal
Because he voted his 4 million tokens,

which is out of about 90 million
outstanding, against what a number of

other people were voting for in a vote
that only garnered about 6 million votes.

So there was no vote
passing and then a veto.

He simply voted-- He simply had a lot more
voting power than anyone else who voted.

to me is the 80 million-plus of the
90 million tokens that didn't vote

at all, and this is part of the
story that's interesting to everyone.

You know, people argue,
"Oh, the DAO's broken.

Nobody's voting."

And then people on the flip side
are arguing, "Oh, he has veto power

because he has 4 million votes."

to me, this is just the
outcome of the vote, right?

And if a lot of people are not voting,
that probably means they don't care

about the outcome, and so we should
probably trust the outcome of the vote.

Of course, on the flip side, there's
just the question of should you

give the founders, should anyone in
a DAO have that much voting power?

And that's a question better
decided when you're launching the

DAO than once everybody disagrees
about what the DAO is voting on.

but let me pause there, Alex.

You probably heard a few things
you might want to comment on here.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

I mean, I want to be careful because
I don't know the specifics, and as a

delegate in other DAOs, I understand
the complexity of each specific context.

But, like, some of my reactions in
general, saying this from the outside

is, first, I think there is too much
focus in Nick as a person, as an actor.

And I don't think the real discussion
is if he is or not a good leader

or, like, if he is like a saint
that can protect the protocol.

I think that good governance shouldn't
require a saint, shouldn't require

a founder that is benevolent.

I think that institutional design
should, constrain the ways in,

So even if the person suddenly gets
crazy and wants to default, cannot.

so I think that's a good
framing that I would propose.

second, I want to give some room
for the ENS Foundation because I

think they have valid concerns.

I think that it's true that token voting
is not a good tool for daily operations.

I think that ENS is a good example
of, a governance crisis that is

actually an operational crisis.

Because the problem is actually how
do you implement in the daily basis.

And I think that the problem is
that the design that they have

inherited is actually not working.

It seems that the solution that
they are proposing is, like,

"Okay, let's then bring the
authority back to the foundation."

But I think that the problem with
that is that the foundation is, like,

the opaque back end of the system.

So if you bring the operations
to the foundation, you're almost,

like, losing, a lot of legitimacy.

So, I think it's, it's valid to want
to be more efficient, to want to be

more agile, to want to be more fast.

I think the problem is that
the design that they currently

have doesn't help with that.

And then the solution that
they are implementing is

actually not solving the issue.

It's, it's just making this more opaque

Adam Miller: Yeah.

And I think, part of-- one of the proposed
solutions, which actually came from,

early Ethereum member Christopher Jentz,
who's a co-founder of the DAO movement.

he suggested give more power to
the foundation on an annual basis,

approve their budget each year.

will take on some of the operational
responsibilities over that period of

time, but leave the ultimate power with
the DAO and the token holders so that if

they wanna change their mind and go in
a different direction, they can do that.

And I think that's a good balance
in decentralized organizations.

You know, leave occasional big strategic
decisions to the community, to the

token holders, and then allow whoever
they're delegating, whether that's

a team within the DAO or whether
that's a third-party company, a lab

co, an op co, a dev co, a foundation,
let them run with, with that for

some period of time

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I agree in general, but trying

to describe the nuance I see.

first, and I think this is
interesting because I understand

you're a lawyer, right?

So you have…

Or at least you have…

Adam Miller: No,

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
Not, not a lawyer,

Adam Miller: company that offers

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: yeah.

Adam Miller: solutions, but
I'm actually not a lawyer

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah, sorry.

good that you say that out loud.

But I think the issue I'm trying to signal
here is I believe we make a separation

between like Foundation, Labs, DAO,
as if they were different entities,

and they are different legal entities.

But I would say that they are all
part of the same institutional system.

And I think that the problem is that
all the qualities of decentralization

and transparency that we apply to the
DAO, we are actually not applying also

to the Foundation or the Labs, I think
the problem is not where the work,

operational work is, is occurring.

I think the issue is that you need to
bring some mechanisms to have constraints

of power and authority in the roles
that are doing the work, even if they

are in the Foundation, in the Labs.

Like bringing the work to the
Foundation shouldn't mean, "Oh, now

we can do this in closed doors."

Adam Miller: Good point.

I think the other thing this highlights
is, there's a lot of talk over the

past year or two about the failures
of a number of, prominent DAOs why

didn't they do things differently.

The reality is all these DAOs
were started before anyone

else had started a DAO, right?

lot of the first…

A lot of DAOs that were started
anytime before a few years ago,

people could argue, "Well, why
didn't they go talk to organizational

researchers or professionals that
have been studying decentralized

organizations out of crypto?"

But in my experience, those
people weren't around.

They only came around a few years ago,
and so there just wasn't an opportunity to

engage with them.

I think now, if you're starting a DAO
now, there's a lot you can learn from in

terms of the right way to decentralize,
especially just thinking about things

in a modular or systematic way, like
you said, an institutional ecosystem or

system, to just plan ahead that all these
things that have gone wrong over the

past decade, these things will go wrong,
and you have to have a system in place

ahead of time so that you're ready to
resolve these challenges when they arise.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

I mean, I agree.

I also want to push back a little
bit because I am maybe one of

those people that were kind of
researching these kind of models.

And at the beginning, I thought
it was also impossible for me

to enter the conversation, or
at least I didn't know how to.

So I agree that there was like a, a void
of communication between those two worlds.

But I also think that part of the
technological startup mindset usually

is, like, we need to innovate and we
need to, like, start from scratch.

And I think there was a lack
of humbleness about going and

learn from community experiences.

Because DAO for me is a, conflictive
term because I think it has

changed connotations sometimes.

I think the first definition
actually, it was like, autonomous

in the sense of, like code is law.

You know?

Like, like the idea that the DAO was going
to be almost, like, automated to the point

that the machine will make the decisions.

I think that-

Now we have started to use
DAOs more as like communities

with tokens and treasuries.

but I think that if you expand that
concept a little bit more to like, let's

say, distributed teams trying to, do
collective efforts, then like there,

were other examples outside Web3, that
have stress-tested models for decades.

like sociocracy, I think came
like in the '70s, you know.

There are like lots of material
information of good practices, and I think

one of the problems of current DAO design
is that we actually copy-paste the nation

state model even without acknowledging
the problems that the nation state model

is having at the nation state scale.

like so, so, like I, I, I don't
know a lot of governance from the US

although I do because we need to read
about that in the news every day.

But like I see the governance in the
US as an au-autocracy, that is kind of

having no restrictions, no constraints.

I am concerned that that is
our, model to follow, you know.

so I think we need to kind of
stop copy-pasting like traditional

organizations or like nation
states', scale models, and we

need to start actually like
with the small scale, you know.

Not only like studying and learning
from nature because like living

systems already do decentralized
decision-making, every day.

I just posted a tweet saying like,
"We are a DAO in the sense that

we are a collective of distributed
systems coordinating, every day."

I think we do like thirty-seven
billion decisions every second,

within ourselves, So nature has a
lot of answers but also then like

the five, ten people scale group, If
you cannot control centralization of

power in a group of ten people, how
are we expecting to do that in two

hundred, two thousand, twenty thousand?

Adam Miller: I certainly think that,
you know, the early DAOs jumped right

to "Let's try democracy," right?

They said, "Let's just give everyone a
vote on everything and see how it goes."

it was

also a little bit of an accident
that these all became such,

wealthy organizations, right?

they all started around a time when the
value of Ethereum was so low, they sold

some tokens, and now they're worth tens
or hundreds of millions of dollars, and

even that presents its own challenge,
and maybe it's a good problem to have.

And so now it's like, oh, geez, we
gotta figure out how to do this right

once they already had a lot at stake.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

I agree.

I just want to say that even though
democracy was, I guess, the spirit

behind it, I think by the pure
fact that we are doing token voting

Adam Miller: Mm-hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: you
don't have actually one person, one

vote, then you are actually kind of
defaulting implicitly to oligopoly.

I think we all knew that,

Adam Miller: Yep

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Without
proof of personhood, it's almost

impossible to replicate that model.

So we kind of copy-pasted some of the
parts, but we left others, I guess,

based on But I think that again, and
I also don't want to enter to the

regulatory thing about, why DAOs were
useful to decouple responsibility

from the founding team and et cetera.

Like, I think that's layer of complexity.

Adam Miller: Hmm

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I think
the point that I'm trying to make is that

now that decentralization is not like a
forced thing to do, that everyone needs

to be decentralized by default, and it
becomes almost like a principles matter.

Like, do you think it should
be decentralized or not?

And do we want to distribute
power and authority?

I think now we have the opportunity to
redesign the DAOs in a way that is not

concerned about regulatory problems.

It has a lot of more tools in
terms of proof of personhood and,

like, in general, like attestation,
social graphs, et cetera.

my suggestion would be to stop
thinking about like foundation

labs and DAO as separate entities,
even if they are different legal

figures, and start thinking this as
a whole organism, a-as a whole system

Adam Miller: Yeah, makes sense.

And I think founders usually do, right?

I mean, they-- usually it's the,
the founding team that's designing

the system at, at its founding point
and saying there's gonna be this…

Like, they don't start out
saying, "We want three entities."

They sta-start out saying, "We
want to achieve this goal."

They start talking to lawyers, tax
advisors, and it's like, " Okay, I

guess we need two or three entities.

let's figure out the right role for them."

but certainly I think, people need to
be a little more thoughtful about that.

I think one of the most interesting
things you said, and I'm actually

surprised that I so mindlessly parroted
the line that these were all democracies,

because really most of them were…

I mean, what, what, is olig-is
oligopoly the right or oligarchy the

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Polly

Adam Miller: for just one token, one vote,
where you can buy the token that's in…

And oligopoly usually is more
of a business control term, but

it's, it's

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I

Adam Miller: not a democracy.

It's more of just a pure
capitalist system, right?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah,
I think that the-- I'm not sure about

the definition, like definition, but I
think the idea is that if you can buy

as many tokens as you want, then it's
kind of the rule of the powerful, you

know?

so I mean, that makes sense if
you come from shareholders where,

like, you think like, okay, but, like,
because they have a stake on things,

they would try to benefit the protocol.

But I think the problem is that there are
so many layers of complexity that there

could be actors that are actually doing
things counterintuitive because they

have, like, other things in their agenda.

Adam Miller: Right.

Right.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I think, yeah.

Adam Miller: yeah, I think,

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Sorry.

Adam Miller: we're obviously getting
pretty deep on this topic, which is

fine, but I think one of the things that
pushes people towards one token, one

vote is that they need to raise money or
they want to raise money for the project

to help them achieve their goal, and by
trading power for capital, you end up

with the capital you need to do something.

Are there any easy fixes
for that or any different

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah

Adam Miller: you especially love
where, like how do you allow

it to be one person, one vote

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Hmm.

Adam Miller: still raise
money for a project?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I think
you said it, you nailed it right now.

You are trading capital for power.

I think that we need to start raising
capital without giving power away.

So detaching the token
from the governance power.

and I think governance power
should be defined in a way that

is actually helping the system
learn and get better and improve.

so that would mean
probably, changing how…

the rights the token gives, or at
least constraining, some of the things.

Because I do think that token
holders can protect the protocol.

I think there are mechanisms where having
control over certain things is good.

But again, I think the problem is that
one thing is, like, the governance,

meta-governance of how do we change rules
and other things is operations, you know?

I think one of the main things that it
was confusing for me at the beginning is

that people call everything governance.

then after some time, I learned that
there was, the term of meta-governance

to refer to what I call governance.

But the point is that
there are two things.

There is, the governance, which
in my words would be, like,

how do we decide how we decide?

Adam Miller: Mm-hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
And then it's, like, the

operational decision by itself, no?

So in the operations, you are working
f- in f- for your purpose, and in

governance, you're working on the
institutional design by itself.

You're changing rules,
policies, workflows, et cetera.

I think that we have been extra focused
in, like, governance, meta-governance.

Like, what are the different systems
that have different authority?

But we haven't actually gotten into
the point of how those operations

are done in a distributed way.

Adam Miller: I think in some ways I could
even argue that it's the meta governance

that was left out of the technology.

The technology just said, "Okay, choose
your meta governance now, launch your

smart contract, and now you are locked
into a governance system forever,"

versus let's build in a way for people to
actually change the way we do governance

into those same smart contracts, which
is challenging, but not impossible.

Just briefly, some more Ethereum news.

the Ethereum Foundation
itself has undergone a major

organizational transformation.

long story short, the foundation laid off
a portion of its workforce, its budget for

twenty twenty-six, and announced a change
in focus rather than being completely

protocol-centric and leaving everything
else to the rest of the community.

They're going to focus on several
different things: protocol, access, user

experience, community, and institutional.

And they've encouraged, and this is
already happening, they've encouraged

the formation of other major
organizations to support Ethereum

outside of the Ethereum Foundation.

And so one of those is EthLabs, which
is an independent R&D lab backed by

some of the folks who left the Ethereum
Foundation, and organizations like

ConsenSys already arguably act in a
similar role, and Joe Lubin, the CEO, has

publicly said they will do so even more.

this mostly sounds like news
to me, at least from a values

perspective of decentralization.

Of course, there are people coming
out and also saying, "Wait a second.

We're cutting funding.

We don't know what's gonna happen
with these other organizations.

Is this a bad thing for Ethereum,
or at least a risk for Ethereum?"

do you have thoughts on this, this news?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I am super excited, in general.

I think I'm super bullish
on Eth, on Ethereum.

I think this is probably the
best, moment for the community.

I have not a lot of things
to say beside praising.

I am one of the people that do think
that the foundation should focus in the

purpose, should defend the principles.

I think that this seems like a new
stage in the network where other players

need to actually take on other focuses.

And I think it's true that there
was lacking, Eth lab's, effort

to bring the Eth more to the
center of the conversation.

and I think that now the bigger
token holders are actually

investing resources into promoting
the ecosystem is a great, signal

Adam Miller: Yeah.

Also highlights, incidentally, a different
type of decentralized governance, which is

what Bitcoin and Ethereum have, which is
arguably no official governance mechanism.

There's no voting mechanism
for Ethereum or Bitcoin.

It's a system where you
simply participate or not.

Same thing if you're a validator, arguably
that's the closest thing to a vote.

You either validate the network
or not, or promote a hard fork

if that's really what you want.

But it's such a high-risk thing to do and
such a challenging thing to do ultimately

the system is participate or not.

A lot of the funding, don't know if it's
fair to call it luck to some extent,

it's just the fact that some of the
founders on to some of their tokens

and put those tokens into foundations
or held them themselves and are

people who want to contribute to the
community and got so wealthy, right?

Hundreds of millions of dollars from
what was their initial token allocation,

that they're able to fund the protocol on
an ongoing basis raising money, without

the community voting for them to do it.

from a values perspective,
again, it sounds cool.

I don't know how effective that
generally is, but it seems to be

somewhat effective for these two
organizations, Bitcoin and Ethereum

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah,
you make me think also about like,

well, capture resistant, I think is
like a, a, a very important concept.

And I think that Ethereum is
being very responsible in the way

they are looking for every way
they could avoid being captured.

And yeah, I think that is actually
coming back to the ENS work,

story and, and like many DAOs.

I think that is the biggest concern.

You know?

Like, it doesn't matter if it's the
founder or it's like new investors

that arrive later or it's like, etc.,

like a, Russian, billionaire.

Like, if, if someone can enter the
system, change the rules, and then kind

of defect on the community that actually
gave the project value in the first

place, then we have lost, you know?

Adam Miller: Yeah

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I
think that the only way Ethereum,

and mainly any DAO can win, is if
they create these institutional

mechanisms in a way that they are
actually saying, rules won't change

unless the community agrees on this."

And by making different efforts to
sustain that, they are giving the trust

that we-- it's safe to build here.

You know?

In words of optimism, like having
a platform risk of building on

top of a project that-- a protocol
that can change is not safe, and no

good entrepreneur wants to put all
his life into something that then

the base layer can just disappear.

Adam Miller: I feel like there's
another equally important side

of that story though, which
is product development, right?

I feel like people have figured out how
to have one or the other, either like a

governance safe, capture resistant system
or build a good product with a highly

centralized control and the risk of that
platform being pulled out from under you.

The hard part is doing both, right?

With the easy example is if everyone
can just vote on everything, they might

make bad product decisions or stall,

then if you have a centralized control
that's really good at building a

product because we've been doing
it as a species forever, for a long

time, that person in control can
just pull things out from under you.

I guess maybe ENS is what's showing
is in some ways the worst of both

worlds, which is we thought it was from
capture, safe from veto, and, well,

I guess it has built a good product.

maybe that's what some people
disagree with as well is the

direction of the product hasn't been
good, and now it's seemingly being

pulled out from, from under us.

although again, I still maintain
that all those other 80 million token

holders could vote if they wanted to

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I
agree, and I think, you're touching

on two things that I really like.

First is, in terms of innovation, product
design, those are operations, right?

You don't want everyone
deciding on those things.

You want the experts
deciding on those things.

So I think one of the big challenges
in general in terms of operations and

DAOs is how do you better delegate
authority to certain people without,

losing the control as community, right?

you need the people to be able to
act on things and to have, taste

and to be bold and to, do things
differently and not look for consensus.

So consent is good for meta
governance, for like the agreements.

But in operations, you need to go, you
need to experiment, you need to fail,

you need to learn, you need to iterate.

Those are different rhythms.

And I think confusing those two
worlds is one of the main issues.

and the second thing, I'm
less sure how to explain this.

It's more like a intuition, but
Talking about Ethereum, like I agree

that we need a more, product-oriented
mindset in terms of, UI and how do

we make things, friendly for people.

But I also think that we need to
restrain ourselves to make an analogy

of, like, a tech startup, you know?

Because I don't think that we
want to necessarily, bring, an

iPhone to the world and then
monopolize everything based on that.

I hope that part of the dream behind
Ethereum is actually to make something

that could be used more as an utility
or more like a commons, you know?

So it doesn't necessarily to
make sense from a capitalistic,

mercantilistic perspective.

I think that if we end up solving human
problems or, like, the world, climate

crisis, without having, a product that
is kind of extracting value from the

consumers, that is good, you know?

we don't need to become like the new
Amazon and I think that sometimes

people are kind of criticizing
Ethereum based on, a corporation's

perspective and I think it's like, no.

I think the best-case scenario is that we
can help change the economic model from

a extractive, accumulative model to a
more distributive, regenerative, model.

And I think that is going to break
some paradigms about money and about,

like, why are you not charging more
and, accumulating more capital?

It's like, maybe that's not the purpose.

And again, that's why I think the
foundation needs to restrain themselves

to be too enterprise-focused.

Adam Miller: I think most people in crypto
would say, "That sounds amazing as long

as I make a lot of money along the way."

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

And I would say, like, why do you need
money in the first place if you don't

have a world where you can spend it, you

know?

if you earn a lot of money but we
end up in World War III, then, like,

Adam Miller: Yeah

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
good, luck with that

Adam Miller: Yeah, no, it is
certainly contrary to what you said

and I think, part of the challenge.

one more example of what's happening
in Ethereum, if anyone's not familiar,

the original DAO, the first DAO ever,
The DAO, is back as The DAO Security

Fund, which is one of the players
now in the Ethereum ecosystem, grants

for people building on Ethereum.

And I like to talk about it because
we're proud that they're a Marshall

Islands DAO LLC called The DAO LLC

All right, one more quick story.

I'm gonna update everyone because we
talked about these last week on some

legal and regulatory updates from
around the world, and then we will

turn to the next part of our show.

the CLARITY Act, which is the big United
States, broad crypto act, we talked

about how there's a lot of fighting
over whether to protect developers from

liability associated with how other
people commit crimes with that software.

And it's looking a little bit better for
including that language in the law because

a bunch of law enforcement, I don't know
if they're unions or political action

committees, all came out against it.

After they had a chance to discuss
it with the advocates of the bill,

opposition has largely faded.

a lot of law enforcement agencies,
not the majority necessarily, have

actually come out in favor, and they
understand why you can't hold or

shouldn't hold developers accountable
for how other people use their software.

And if anyone's new to this conversation,
think about, like, terrorists using

Microsoft Excel for their accounting.

Are you gonna put
Microsoft founders in jail?

Probably not.

and so we should apply the same
principles to building smart contracts.

the biggest fight that's remaining
actually now is what's being called the

ethics clause, and it's language that
prevents government officers in the

US from engaging in crypto activities.

it seems like Democrats are mostly
supporting this language because

of what Trump has done over the
past couple of years, which is

make something like a billion
dollars off of his crypto projects.

some of those projects are real.

like the, you know, may arguably a meme
coin where retail investors lost three

billion or four billion dollars and
Trump and his insiders made billions

of dollars, may be another question.

Of course, Trump is not gonna
sign like that in the bill.

And so this could end up being the thing
that kills the bill, which is whether

or not there's language in it about
whether or not US government officials

are allowed to be involved in certain
types of crypto activity, leaving the

bill currently at forty-seven percent
passage odds for twenty twenty-six on

PolyMarket I think most people in crypto
are very much in favor of this bill.

It's actually been an incredible example
of the US government doing a good job, at

putting together really good legislation.

It's reasonable.

It doesn't go too far
in any one direction.

It doesn't give crypto
everything crypto wants.

allows for crypto to happen in a
structured regulatory environment which

frankly also is much better than what
I've seen from almost anywhere else,

if not anywhere else in the world.

It's better than Europe.

It's better than almost anywhere
else, and it still protects consumers

and investors in reasonable ways.

Anything you wanna comment on
clarity before I move on to Mika?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Not really.

Just hoping it occurs soon.

Adam Miller: So it's so cool
that we're all actually hoping

for a law to pass about crypto.

in terms of MiCA or MiCA, which is
the European crypto, regime, the

July 1st deadline has passed for
Projects to get VASP or CASP crypto

asset service provider licenses to be
able to do certain things in Europe.

USDT, I think the second largest-- first
or second largest stablecoin along with

USDC, has publicly said they are not
going to get a license because they

don't believe in the law, or they don't
think they should have to follow it.

And so exchanges and banks are
removing USDT from their systems

that serve European customers, while
USDC is complying with the rules.

And so this is further pushing
things in a direction that they

were already going, which is USDC
is like the very compliance-friendly

stablecoin, large stablecoin.

USDT is the more maybe underground.

I think actually one of the things the CEO
or representative of the company said that

was the reason they were not gonna follow
the rule, this is a little concerning, was

a sixty percent reserve requirement, sixty
or seventy percent reserve requirement.

USDT has never been willing to be
transparent about their reserves,

and if they're complaining about
a sixty or seventy percent reserve

requirement, that kind of makes it
sound like they don't have the money.

that's a maybe a separate issue.

and meanwhile, the SEC in the
United States continues to

advance very productively.

They've made more announcements
about, safe harbors and, reasonable

lesser security rules that you have
to follow if you're decentralized.

Right?

We touched earlier on how early in
crypto, even a few years ago, you know,

it was really common for DAOs to--
people to start DAOs just so that they

could say they're decentralized and not
have to follow other securities rules.

And then a few years ago, over the last
year or two, people have come out and

said, "Oh, good thing we don't have
to do that anymore," or, "Good thing

people are not doing that anymore."

Actually, those rules are
being institutionalized,

and I think for good reason.

If a project is truly decentralized,
you should not have to follow

the same securities laws that
centralized projects have to follow.

And so what was maybe argu-arguably
a loophole is being solidified as

I think a good, reasonable rule.

But that incentive, therefore, is
still there for founders to potentially

pretend to be decentralized or just be
decentralized as an excuse or a reason

not to have to follow securities laws.

So I think we should still keep an eye
out for projects that are decentralized

in name only, maybe trying to avoid
securities rules, but also for a whole

another generation of founders to actually
be decentralized, if only for regulatory

arbitrage reasons, and what will that mean
for the way they structure their projects.

Any thoughts before we
move on to the interview?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I think
probably all founders would prefer

to be decentralized if they knew how
to, because I would bet that being

distributed is actually way better
in terms of agility and resilience.

So I don't think there is, evil in
founders that are kind of, going

back to more centralized models.

It's more like they
don't really know how to.

And I think once we have a model or
a way to do it, then that will become

the default because it's way better

Adam Miller: But d- doesn't decentralized
mean I'm not in charge if I'm the founder?

And d- don't you think that's
something people will generally resist?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I mean, not necessarily.

I don't think, I don't think we need to
be in charge in the sense that, we need to

be, holding everything in our shoulders.

I think that we want to be valuable.

I think we want to, pursuit a
specific purpose, and if we can do

that in a way that allows more people
to contribute, then that would be

way better than do it by yourself.

Like, if you really want to be
in control, then be a solopreneur

Adam Miller: I think that's actually
a counteracting force, which is

especially with AI now, it's even
easier to have a small group of

people build a project, a product, an
enterprise, whatever you wanna call it.

And, I equally share the belief that
it's important that that option is

available and effective for both centrally
controlled and distributed projects.

Like, whatever the people doing
something want to do, I think

they should be able to do.

I might lean a little in terms of
believing that actually most people

would prefer to be in charge of their,
at least as far as entrepreneurs go.

But I could be wrong.

Maybe that's just me.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I want to clarify, I am an

independent worker, right?

So I understand the benefits of being
by yourself and having more control

over your work, your agenda, everything.

So I'm not saying that we
should all be part of a DAO.

I'm saying that it depends on
what are your ambitions, right?

If you want to be, like, a
graphic designer, you can do it by

yourself and your agents, you know?

If you want to build, like, a, a
platform or, like, a, a tool, yeah,

you can do it, like, small team.

But if you want to make a protocol,
which I think by definition is kind of

open to everyone to also, implement it
in their own localities, then I think

you have lost the control whenever
you post the white paper, you know?

I think that it's better to
actually understand that you are

not in control, but you're o-one
of the stewards of the system.

it depends on the context.

I think also one of the main
misunderstandings is also

thinking that centralized versus
decentralized is always, like,

black or white in all contexts.

I think that there are some contexts,
especially, let's say, if you are in a

war situation or, like, mob situation or
anything that has a lot of uncertainty

that, you need to act fast, that a mistake
would cost a lot, like, centralized

decision-making is better, you know?

But if you are building stuff that
can take time, that can t-stress test

ideas, that can, like, bring inputs
from different stakeholders, then

decentralized is better, you know?

Adam Miller: Or if you need that capture
resistance we talked about earlier.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Exactly

Adam Miller: of the big challenges
is, you know, one of the models that's

become common and generally makes sense
for a lot of reasons is to out more

centralized and decentralize over time.

So when you're founding the product,
just be in charge, you or your founding

team, because you have to move quickly,
you have to adjust, you have to pivot.

And then once what you're building
is, relevant to the greater ecosystem,

once it's really being used as a
protocol or a platform, now you

decentralize so that there's capture
resistance so that the community

knows they can trust the project.

But especially given our conversation,
I feel like that has just as many

challenges because as soon as you get to
the point that you should decentralize

when you have all the power and people
are already using your product and

you already have network effects.

And now what if you decide
not to decentralize?

That might be the worst outcome for the
market, is they thought they were getting

decentralization, and now they don't.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yep.

Adam Miller: maybe

that model is as bad as any other

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I
actually have a hot take on that.

I don't believe in
progressive decentralization.

I think a better model is actually
to decentralize small and then grow.

But I think that you need to start
decentralized from the beginning.

The only thing is that a
decentralized team of 10 looks

very different from a decentralized
community of 1,000, you know?

So it's not choosing
one specific, structure.

It's kind of evolving as you grow.

But I think that you need to
decentralize some certain things from

the beginning because if not, power
accumulates more power, you know?

the gravitational pull that
having power has almost makes

impossible for the team to actually
decentralize when they are bigger.

I think many DAOs actually show that.

Like the foundation and the labs
were growing way faster than the DAO,

to the point that everything now is
done in the foundation and the labs.

And of those are actually
turning into, okay, now we are

giving the power to the DAO.

Again, go back to the why are we
thinking the foundation as a centralized

thing that then is going to deliver
power to a decentralized thing?

I think it's better to start
with a decentralized thing

small and then grow from there.

I mean, just to give an
example of what this means.

when you study holacracy, for example,
one of the first things that is

suggested is that the CEO signs a
constitution that is kind of this

saying, "Now I don't have the control."

now is a constitution, the by-laws,
the common understanding of the meta

governance which has a control, right?

And then, for example, you distribute some
roles, so the person who is coordinating

maybe shouldn't be facilitating the
meeting or shouldn't be taking the

notes of the agreements, you know?

It's better to have three people
doing those separate things rather

than having one same person, right?

Instead of having one CEO that is
taking all the decisions, then have

a central circle where you decide the
domains and then pick like a small CEO

for each domain and give like enough
autonomy for them to decide, but having

this understanding of interconnection.

So again, like I think there
are mechanisms available for our

foundational labs, whatever organization,
to try to distribute power in a

way that the structurelessness
is not coming back by itself.

Adam Miller: You know, it's also making me
think, If you decentralize early, do you

have to figure out what decentralization
is gonna look like down the road?

Or do you just have to have systems
in place for, to do that meta

governance over time so that maybe
decentralized today is very different

from decentralized in a few years?

Then if so, that's making me think, how do
you even build this into smart contracts?

And maybe we shouldn't have to build
everything into smart contracts, but,

it kinda makes me think off chain legal
agreements, things like constitutions

which, are generally legally binding.

I mean, you can put them in
whatever legal context you want.

If you sign a document,
you sign a document.

it gets much easier to set
out at first the principles,

rules of the game, than it is to launch
a smart contract that contains all the

possible meta governance and governance
options that you might want down the road.

I fear that, some of the useful
conclusions that we're reaching

also make it sound like it's very
hard to do these things on chain

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I mean, yes,
if you apply the same structure, right?

But like what is a smart contract
but a list of criteria that if they

succeed, then something happens.

You know?

It's like if, then…

So I think that kind of, essence of
automaticizing anything can be applied

to, for example, a role-based model.

So let me kind of pitch you
how do I think this would work.

Like you have the operations
are fragmented into clusters of

different areas of domain or areas of
responsibility, and then you develop

a role that is kind of on charge of
that area of responsibility and domain.

And those roles have like what are the
accountabilities, you know, what are

the assets or like domains they have?

What are like constraints they
have in terms of decision-making?

What are like different feedback
loops that they need to keep alive

by sharing, learnings and stuff?

And if you have that, you
actually have way more clarity and

agility on how things are done.

Because if there is a decision that
is made, then you can see, okay,

which role made this decision?

Okay, because one of the accountabilities
is this, this is the piece that let

this role open or make this action.

Who is having this role?

What is the list of people That is
way more than we have right now.

Like I-- most of foundations
don't even have an org chart

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: is public,

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: imagine how
it would be to have AI agents supervising

that different roles are actually making
decisions within their constraints, and

then smart contracts is just saying, if
everything happens based on the agreement,

then it should just happen, you know.

and then you just focus in refining
the model by these feedback

loops, which is a governance, a
meeting or a governance space.

It's like my role said that I have
this constraint or this accountability,

but now based on this, experience,
we know that maybe this should

change in language so the agreement
is understood in a different way.

Okay.

any objections?

No.

No.

Yes, I have an objection because…

Okay.

So there is, like, like, collective
intelligence kind of adapting this system.

So I am actually very bullish on
DAOs in terms of smart contracts

because I think actually that is what
makes these collective distributed

communities, be more efficient and scale.

like a cooperative or a network that has
been using these kind of principles for

the last twenty years, now with smart
contracts, they can be ten times as bigger

Adam Miller: And I think bringing AI
agents is important too, because a

regular smart contract can't read a
document and say, "Is this a decision

log document from a certain person?"

It can maybe see if any
PDF was uploaded somewhere.

and so I think bringing in the AI
agents as maybe an input to the

smart contract, and of course, then
you need decentralized AI agents.

I think a really cool project is Open
Matter that, we're supportive of.

And Open Matter allows you to
run your AI agent on blockchain

or blockchain-like network.

Now, the AI, actual AI calls still
have to go out somewhere, but

there are verification steps that
the process was run as intended.

The agent itself runs on the distributed
network, and now you can have an AI

agent actually signing a transaction
and sending a stamp of approval.

Yes, this person appears to have produced
the documents they were supposed to.

They look reasonably reasonable.

we can now take that variable in
the smart contract, you know, up

by one or whatever needs to happen.

so I think that is a really exciting,
component to add to the DAO stack.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Definitely.

I think we are gonna see a lot
of changes because of that.

Adam Miller: Yep.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah

Adam Miller: quick segue and then
we'll continue the discussion.

the news report and the first part of
our interview are complete, and as often

happens, we've actually gone pretty
in-depth into the topics we'll cover

in the second half of the interview.

A brief note about my company, MIDAO,
which partners with the government of

the Marshall Islands in providing a legal
entity made for Web3, DAOs, and AI agents.

If anyone's ever interested in talking
about legal structures for your project,

whether you're thinking about doing a
foundation model, dev co, lab co, op

co, DAO, AI agent, decentralized AI,
please reach out to me or to our team.

You can also talk to our AI at MIDAO.org

and learn more.

Okay, continuing the interview.

Let's take one step back, and then

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

Adam Miller: right back
deep again into the topic.

How did you get into Web3
and DAOs in the first place?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah

I mean,

where should I start?

so I, bought, my first co-token
in two thousand and seventeen.

but then I think I never understood
how to get involved more than that.

again, like I felt I'm not a
programmer, I'm not like a tech savvy.

So like this is a cool place, but
it's not my place to work, you know?

I was working at a time in social
entrepreneurship, so, I was kind of,

trying to understand how to basically
stop corporations from ruling the

world and destroy the environment.

My intuition in that moment is that
a social enterprise is almost like

a NGO that is kind of using the
business framework in order to scale

and bring benefits to the world.

So I was kind of studying and actually
I was doing content and interviewing a

lot of founders that were creating these
companies, mainly in Mexico and Latin.

And, then suddenly I kind of discover
that even though the intentions were

beneficial and founders in this niche
were like very purpose-oriented, there

was something in the structure that was
kind of replicating the same things as the

Silicon Valley startups and corporations.

I felt confused because it was like,
I know that my boss at that time

is like such a great person, but in
some way we are becoming what we are

kind of saying we want to destroy.

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: and,
after some time, I understood that

part of the issue was governance.

and basically the ownership
of things, you know?

Like I see ownership as like governance
control and like financial rights.

And in a way, I think that we were-

We were trying to make impact using
a corporation's structure, but

I think the problem is that the
corporation structure was designed to

extract value, not to distribute it.

So in a way, I got to this
question of like, okay, how does…

what is the next design of an
organization if what we want to do

is create impact and not extract?

So that brought me to this, rabbit hole
of, non-hierarchical decision-making

models and, the commons and how,
self-management can make people coordinate

without having, a central authority
and, I did all that outside of crypto.

I was actually, studying
sociocracy and holacracy.

I was working both teaching and
implementing this into organizations,

small organizations, mainly, in
Mexico, mainly in nature conservancy.

And, then at some point, I think it
was like twenty twenty or something,

like the DAO concept arise, and I was
like, "Wow, this is kind of the same

thing, but expressed in a technical way.

Super interesting."

So I, I, I was reading about crypto
because I, I had invested, and I wanted

to know what happened with my coins.

So I was kind of the public, but
I was not active in the ecosystem.

And, in some point of the twenty-two,
I was splitting from a company that I

co-founded, and I was kind of deciding,
okay, part of the issues that I saw

in these, sociocratic communities
is that they have, a very good sense

of equality, distributing the worth.

they are way more decentralized than
most of those, but the problem is

that they are lacking efficiency.

why I also entered to study
holacracy because it's more like a

business-oriented model, although
it's kind of the child of sociocracy.

The point is that I said, "Okay,
I see these worlds, you know.

From one side, I see cooperatives and,
base projects and, nature conservancy

efforts, and they have, a very good notion
of, governance from a one to one person.

Like, how do we stop this
to become like a pyramid?

And at the same time, we have, crypto
that is developing a lot of tools that

seems are going to be useful for this.

So I need to go to crypto to understand
that and then bring those tools back."

And so then I kind of jumped.

My first…

I entered almost through the Common
Stack and that kind of region vibe.

Adam Miller: Mm-hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: But
eventually I got into Optimism, which

at the moment was probably the most,
kind of pioneer DAO in the space.

And yeah, I started to get
involved as possible, you know?

At the beginning I was, just reading the
forums and going to meetings and trying to

be, very active so they couldn't, miss me.

I thought, like, "I'm going to be
so proactive that they will need

to let me in, even if there is no
role, that makes sense for me."

and yeah, I think I've been trying
to do that the last two, three years.

Adam Miller: Do you still see yourself
as someone who's trying to bring

things back to your other world,
or has your perspective changed

now you're just a crypto person?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
so when the DAO concept arise

and, I think it was 2021,

I said, "I want to create a DAO."

I can go in depth on that, although it's
kind of a different topic, but it's,

the DAO that I was envisioning, and
I hope I will publish something soon.

But, it's basically a protocol network
for sharing productive infrastructure

between freelancers So I think my vision
and something that I have been believing

for a while is that freelancers is,
like, the best type of work modality.

But the problem is that we're lacking
a lot of security, in terms of safety.

So my idea or my dream is that if we can
create a common infrastructure, then we

can give ourselves that sense of security
by the power of the collective, right?

So I was designing this organization,
and I was collaborating with some people

and, eventually it was like, okay,
but how do we apply this as a DAO?

And one of the first decisions that we
made is that instead of jumping into

the technology and just, copy-paste
the model, we need to first design the

model in a way that it works analogic,
so that then we can go into the tech.

And I have been working on that
project for, five years now.

I am in a period where
I'm kind of closing.

we eventually, started a cooperative,
and it's a legal figure that I'm

actually promoting to close now.

but the thing is that I have been
kind of betting that actually

those two worlds need to collide
in some point, and I thought that

freelancing work, kind of working
rights were at, like, a good place.

but I think that's my vision.

Like, I was having a DAO, but it
was not a DAO because we were not

using smart contracts or anything.

Adam Miller: Yep

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
it was like a cooperative that

wanted to function different.

and now I am kind of saying…

I have learned so much from institutional
design in Web3, that now I'm saying, like,

maybe the cooperative, the traditional
model is also not the right answer.

Adam Miller: Mm-hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
it's like a hybrid of those two

Adam Miller: So what, do you have
a sense of what you think the ideal

model is for your organization
or for organizations in general?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I mean, I, I do.

I think I do.

going back to the minimum viable
institution, I think that, yeah,

I am trying to slowly but surely,
kind of write all this down in a

way that it could be shareable.

I think in general terms, The only
thing that I am sure is that it needs

to be a role-based model, you know?

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: What I
mean by that is that we need to have

a better way to delegate authority
the operations, so that we can have,

autocratic decision in certain context,
but you remain having a peer-to-peer

relationship between the participants.

maybe making a bridge to the,
minimum viable institution,

post that you mentioned.

I think that one of the learnings that I
have had in DAOs by participating is that

we are spending a lot of time discussing
the meta governance again, and, we

haven't gotten to the operations part.

So I think my suggestion is to
actually find or design or make a

better template of meta governance
and then start from there.

But having a little bit more flexibility
on, like, it's not defining everything,

it's just defining certain basic
rules that can make the system kind

of s-learn and, and se-self-improve.

and then, like, just focusing, being
very clear on the different role

domains, constraints, feedback loops.

Like, if you can have, like, a simple
thing that helps you kind of adapt based

on experience, I think you can improve.

you can adapt.

So say it in a different words, I think
we need to start thinking decentralization

from a technical perspective, and we need
to start thinking decentralization from

a power dynamic perspective, you know?

it's not about having h-hundred delegates.

It's about having mechanisms so that
no one person has rule over everything.

Adam Miller: and ultimately still,
I think even let's say you have 10

delegates who you've delegated operational
responsibility to, in your vision, can

they also easily be removed and replaced
anytime by the greater community?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
You have redundancy of people in

roles, so you can also compare
different people in different roles.

and you have more transparency in
how the operations are occurring.

something that we don't have from
foundations and labs nowadays.

So it's almost like saying we should
be more transparent in the different

authorities that are happening.

Imagine a foundation right now that
could say like, "Okay, these are the

people working on the foundation.

These are the different
authorities they have.

This is the accountabilities they have.

Like, you could kind of detect
very easily where the problem is.

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: So then
you need to kind of build a culture where

there is enough psychological safety to
actually have conversations about this.

Because, again, we forget that we are
people, and that there are, like, emotions

and intuitions and, like, things happening
beside the, the smart contracts, you know?

So, like, we have a lot of
clarity on, like, these votes.

Yeah, certain delegates voted
with this amount of tokens.

We have clarity on all that, but how
was the proposal that the foundation put

into vote designed in the first place?

You know, like, we don't know.

We know nothing about that, and I
think that's also important, you know?

Adam Miller: So what tools have you seen
that you already think are great and fit

really well into your vision and work
really well from a tooling perspective?

And where do you think the biggest
gaps are where you're like,

"Oh, there's this thing I know
I wanna do, but no one's built

the technology for it yet"?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Mm-hmm.

Yeah

I mean, there are certain tools
that actually are not in use

right now, but I think they are
finding something interesting.

I mean, Hats Protocol, I think
resembles a lot of what I'm

saying about, like having roles.

I also liked, like Coordinate and Praise,
which were made by, the Common Stack

ecosystem, which were trying to understand
how do you distribute-- like how do you

reward the value created in contributions?

I think that, Poeth and these kind of
bounty programs, or like pen mechanism,

like there are certain models that are
arising now in this new wave that are

actually very good because they kind of
solve one specific part of the issue.

I think about like this idea
of opt-in vaults and how do

we the treasury to go to zero.

so I think there are like many
things, that are being developed.

Some of them have, fallen or are
not in production right now, which

I guess it's part because there is
no enough but I hope that changes.

I think that there is a lot
on how to make decisions.

Like, ironically, like one type of
decision model, which is voting,

which by the way, I don't promote.

I don't like voting at all,
for most of the scenarios.

we have a lot-

Adam Miller: the highest
level of governance, right?

You still like voting

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
Yeah, exactly.

Like, I think voting is a way to, to…

Like, to give voice to
the, all the stakeholders.

But I think that the problem
with voting, just to make a small

parenthesis, is that there is
always someone that loses, you know?

So I think voting is great when you
cannot find a middle point, you know?

If, if we are saying, like,

Adam Miller: Yeah

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: is
the next, location for DevCons?

okay, you need to vote because
you cannot invent a middle.

It needs to be in one place.

But for the other decisions, I think
it's better to actually integrate the

losing part into the solution, which
is another way of saying, like, you

need to integrate the objections of
a proposal into the design of the

proposal, and you need to create kind
of loops that help you do that, so that

no one is actually losing the decision.

You only are adding different
perspectives into the mix.

Adam Miller: I- is there a
tool you've seen that does that

well, that helps people do that?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: I think
sociocracy is, is, is that basically.

Like, there are governance models that
are-- or, or holacracy where you have,

clear steps on how to do that, you know?

So, like, okay, I have this proposal.

Anyone has objections?

Yeah, I have this objection.

Okay, let's check if
the objection is valid.

Okay, if the objection is valid, then
we need to either change the proposal

or we need to make, a metric to measure
if this concern is happening, or we need

to maybe reduce the scope so that, we
can experiment a little bit more without

having, like, a big problem, you know?

So the facilitation is kind of helping
navigate into that conversation in

a way that all voices are heard.

And I think that is the type of
decentralization that I refer to, I

not only want different nodes of the
network being distributed in different

parts of the world, I also want
different voices in a meeting being

heard and understood and integrated

Adam Miller: Yeah.

And, and to be specific, holacracy
and, and, and sociocracy governance

tools, systems, frameworks that have
been developed over a long period

of time and used outside of the
blockchain context more than in, in it.

they're used broadly.

Are there software tools that help
people do this and that you like, that

you recommend that even maybe have an
on-chain component for tracking the

process and tracking the decisions
and providing the transparency?

is that

maybe a gap?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I think there is a gap.

I usually use one that is called
GlassFrog, which is, done by HolocracyOne,

which is, like, the company that
has been promoting that model.

But the problem is that it's
too built for that model.

And I have seen other softwares
that have attempted to do this in a

different way, but I think they remain
in the kind of superficial parts.

So I think there is definitely, like,
a lack or a void of tooling in those

kind of things, which, by the way, is
something that I want to help with.

I am, like, actively trying to design
tools and make prototypes and stuff.

I also think there is a void in basically
what happens after the decision was made.

So basically, like, following
into, like accountability, also

kind of retrospective analysis and
the kind of institutional memory.

Like, how do you make that the experience
is actually documented in a way that

ca-can be useful for the future?

I think it's something that
most DAOs doesn't have.

So definitely a void.

Adam Miller: it sounds like
another great use case for AI

agents to be part of these systems

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

Adam Miller: right?

I mean,

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah

Adam Miller: it reminds me, we recently
built an internal, project management

AI named Jella, who is in a chat with me
and my team and manages some artifacts,

visual artifacts as well, and helps
provide task tracking, project tracking,

accountability, blocker tracking, I think
we're close to the point that people

might start trusting an AI agent more for
even something like you're describing,

which is almost to be the facilitator
of a system, does the initial work to

hold people accountable, and then lets
the team know, "Hey, this person's

not responding," or, "This person is
providing artifacts that look like

they're made up or they're not real.

They don't look like
they're doing real work."

Let the humans be the ultimate arbiter.

But just to manage a system like
holacracy over a large number of

people, provide that initial of
as well, still leave things to the

humans to make the ultimate decisions.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I think you are exactly right.

as you describe it, AI in that model would
be helping maintain the coherence, avoid

the coordination to fall into entropy.

And then it's kind of helping maintain
the system with hygiene, And it's kind

of making things happen seamlessly.

What it's not doing is taking all
the decisions, I'm not sure, and I

don't think I like the models where
we kind of replicate AI agents as

delegates and then, we put them
into a pit so they can discuss.

I don't think that we
should be outside the loop.

I think that we should be the ones
kind of making sense of reality

and basically prioritizing the
needs that we want to solve.

Because, again, if we want to change the
paradigm that we are not just doing this

to get money and accumulate capital, we
want to actually solve one of the many

problems that we have in the world, then,
like we need to be the one saying like,

"Hey, we need to solve this," you know.

Like, "Let's go to Venezuela,
let's go to this place and let's

solve this issue," you know?

AI agents is basically everything that
is helping us do that in a better way.

Adam Miller: and I think maybe
there's a place for both.

I do personally also like the idea of,
okay, let's say I'm in a DAO, and I have

my AI agent that I've taught to represent
me in that DAO and bring me things when

it thinks I need to provide input, but
otherwise to try to act on my behalf.

try to balance looking out for my own
interests with the interest of the

project, make the easy votes for me.

I have some transparency, maybe a period
that it gives me to approve or deny what

it's gonna do.

I think something like that
maybe could also be a valuable

participant in a system like this

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I think it's impossible to know

how AI agents are going to be.

But I think my-- just to push back,
like, instead of having simple votes

to vote, then maybe just have one hard
vote where you are actually needed

to be involved and let the other
decisions be made in a different way.

Like, I use ChatGPT and Codex
and everything all day long.

I'm not saying that AI is not, good for
summarizing and making sense of things.

I'm just saying that I think
we sometimes underestimate the

complexity of human absurdness.

like, we are not rational
animals, you know?

We are emotional animals
that sometimes rationalize.

I think that even if you have discussions
in forums, sometimes we are not hearing

each other very profoundly, you know?

We need sometimes to have, live spaces
and more, in-person gatherings to actually

understand the other person, you know?

Like, their culture, their context.

So I think that, asking the AI to
make sense of something that is not

rational by doing, kind of logic is
not going to give us the best scenario.

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
there is also a risk of us,

optimizing for something that
is actually not what we want.

Adam Miller: Hmm.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: And
again, like, I don't think we need

to think of work as w-- I'm doing
this to get money and, and survive.

I think we, we will get to
the point where we have, like,

universal basic income or something.

So, like, you would-- you are going
to be working on things that you

are kind of implicated, you know?

You want to be part of that.

So that thinking that the best way
to use AI agents is to disconnect

you from that, it's kind of weird.

It's more like, no, you should
be, like, way more powerful, and

you should be way more involved.

You actually should have more time to
get involved in things that matter to you

and, and stop b-being involved in things
that matter to you, but then delegate

the authority to someone else, you know?

And have a clear sense of everything
that the person is doing so that you

can analyze if that worked or not.

Adam Miller: Love it.

Great vision.

All right, Alex, this has been amazing.

before I close the show, is there anything
else you'd like to leave people with?

And where can people find you and your
projects on the web and on social?

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Yeah.

I just want to end up a positive
note on DAOs because I think we are

in the lowest point of DAO love.

Adam Miller: Yeah,

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
So I want to send…

Adam Miller: at least.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
I think that DAOs are not dead.

DAOs haven't even arrived yet, you know.

Like, we haven't even seen those.

but I think they will be probably,
like, the ultimate benefit that

Ethereum and distributed networks give
us because this is going to change how

power dynamics h-work, how cap-capital
is accumulated, how problems are solved.

Like, this is the thing that
we should be aiming for.

so just not, not throw the
baby with the water or that,

Adam Miller: I love it.

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital:
with, with the bathtub.

and yeah, my…

I mean, my, my user is, Alex
Soto Digital in all platforms.

now I'm starting my website
alexsotodigital.eth.line.

So, yeah, I'm trying to create content
and to keep the conversation going.

Adam Miller: And using

alexsotodigital.eth.lime

or alexsotodigital on X.

Awesome, Alex, this has been phenomenal.

for the audience, you can find

Alex Soto - @alexsotodigital: Three more

@ Adam Miller: 0xthriller.

My DAO is @mydaods

or mydao.org.

again, Alex, thank you so
much for coming on the show.

This has been phenomenal.

And finally, to the audience,
are you thinking about starting

a DAO Web3 project or AI agent?

If so, DAO it