Artist Creation Framework

Hi everyone,

I am so glad to find colony, I am still reading the docs, but I feel so excited, I have to stop reading and thank to all the team who believes in this project.

I created a robot poet character as an art project in 2015 and after a while the character started to get offers that I had no motivations to reply, but it was not up to me to reject them either. After a while we formed a fan group for the decision making, the group was trying to be as non-anthropomorphic as possible but it was hard to manage everything. So that I tried to create a curator/manager to control the robot poets career. I wrote a sudo code for the system, and published a job application form online, spread the form and managed to make a sample exhibition almost fully decentralized. After that I tried to write the code of this system and make it work, and there I got stuck so bad. I realized that I have never designed anything to live autonomously and have no experience how to do so. I took it slow, now shifted the project a bit.

I want to share you my notes that I am working on. I felt so excited to see similar solutions in colony whitepaper.

Some parts are pretty similar to colony, for example I call a task, atomic task and its similar to task definition in colony except it does not have a manager but a creator who does not know what happened to the task after it was created. It has more than one evaluators.

I always have hard time to explain short so I will try the long one, sorry for that.

Since it is an art project rather than a working tool!, I tried to make the system as blind and decentralized as possible. I wanted to go as deep as possible.

This is the first version that I already tested;

Lets assume we have a main task "We want to create an exhibition in a X space on January 2020 with the name -house of my dreams- "

The first task is to plan the main task. So it goes to a “planner” (skill) planner replies with a work.
Now the system goes to 3 other planners, and gives them the first sentence and the reply from the planner and ask for comments. After that, another one (a fifth person) makes a summary of the comments. The summary is sent back to the first planner. That cycle continues till they reach a consensus. After that full skill list and tasks are defined.

The tasks gets executed one buy one. For example in my performance the first task was “write a manifesto of the exhibition”. This task goes to a task classifier, and gets classified (writing skill) and classification is controlled by other people. Then it goes to a task tagger, it is tagged if needed (art, exhibition, architecture, house).
Then it goes to a person with writing skills who is related to the tags. It is controlled and this cycle continues.
The system can ask its members to get new members to the systems if there is no one with the needed skill for the task.

Anyway, this trial worked a bit too well probably because of how I chose first members. After that I wanted to create a system which is like colony, so that communities could decide, if they want to be aggressive in their HR or more conservative about how they pay people etc. Still working on it, but definitely colony will save months of work. I hope I did not tell it to complex, sorry for the excitement.

Hey @bagerakbay, thanks for the post, your excitement is infectious!

Let us know if you have any specific questions or if you just want to jump on a call at some point to dive further down the rabbit hole.

I’m interested to hear more about this and your thoughts on how it compares to Colony’s task flow. Your workflow seems like it has a lot of human touch points, which feels like it could be a little slow/burdensome. You mentioned that it worked quite well though, what was the experience like for the people participating?

@aurin thanks for the comment. I know my approach to the problem looks a bit weird, this is probably because I was’nt following DAO’s while building it, I didnt think they were related but I was wrong. Since your reply, I have been researching more and trying to find the differences between what I thought and what DAO communities have done.

I thought about your comment on more human touch points. I think they are many complex ways to make a contract, we probably need a contract algorithm sets for many different problems. When I was planning a DAO, I always saw it more complete not complete as a human but like a temporary organization with whole properties. The aim (vision mission), the way it is gonna build and maintain the team (people who will be involved in any work), economy (the way wages etc are formulated), some parts of this are not in DAO models I have seen. But i think those are contracts, and meta contracts about contracts (you can call this governance but I think it is a bit more than what DAO’s call governance).

In addition to DAO’s I dream to have a system like “mechanical turk” in the DAO, MT is used to complete micro tasks but I want to include task atomizing as a micro task so that it can become closer to be turing complete. Maybe a turing complete DAO is what I am looking for.

I have written a bit more and created a github page with it, some friends started to help, it is at

I would love to have a call, mahlas is a bit too much local and probably still too messy to get started, I would be happy to get feedback.

This is an interesting statement, could you share a little more on what you mean by it?

To me it seems like idea of Turing completeness does not really make sense in the context of a DAO; essentially an organisation with code at the core and humans at the edges.

As I understand, DAO’s still have human at the core, less than before but they still have it. Correct me if I am wrong, in a DAO, members does create proposals and other people vote for it. The DAO itself does not have an aim or a fitness function. It is just like a better (more transparent, decentralized) way to run organizations. Different DAO’s might have different consensus algorithms or voting mechanisms. But that does not make the DAO autonomous, well it is more independent than before but the DAO is not autonomous.

If we want to make a DAO autonomous, it should include more parts. It should have rules about member expansion, proposal creation even self termination or reproduction.

Lets assume that we analyse many organizations and come up with different algorithm packs which identifies these organizations. This could include phases like starting the company, making it more mature and retiring it.

And put these codes on a web site like github. After that anyone can run these codes (start a new dao), define the DAO’s scope, vision and mission and give the needed resources to start and now even be a member of it and that person might have no control over the DAO after it has started. It should be able to run itself. It should recruit people, make them create proposals that fits its vision, execute proposals and control if it is working better for the vision.

In this example I feel like the DAO is more autonomous.

You may ask if we need this and why. I truly do not know, but I feel like taking the DAO idea more non-anthropomorphic might flourish amazing things or maybe not. This is what I called being Turing complete. The DAO can create any type of organization possible not only the ones we can imagine.

1 Like

I tend to think that the organisational logic is the core of a DAO. A DAO’s edges are those parts of the organisation that can interact with the real world, the agents that the DAO incentivizes in order to maximize its goals.

Most organisations attempt to maximize some metric, usually profits or shareholder value. DAOs are no different. Some DAOs may have strictly define what they want to maximize, while others might be much more broad, vague, or fluid. In any case, as with any other organisation, DAOs will use the resources they have at their disposal (capital, network, labor, etc) to incentivize autonomous actors to perform tasks that maximize 𝒳.

At colony, we tend to think about DAOs as akin to superorganisms, like an ant colony, bee hive, or coral colony (hence the name Colony), the emergent behaviors of which (like maximizing 𝒳) might be radically different from the individual goals or needs of its agents.

thank you @auryn for the explanation. I do not see much difference then, but maybe it is better to see the applications than discuss. I feel like I have to read and produce more and see how it works.