Written by: Wang Chao

"Rage Quit"DAO领域被简称为“怒退”，曾是一个相对较小众的概念。随着DAO的发展，越来越多的DAO开始面临分叉、创始人出走、甚至清盘的状况，使得“愤怒退出”这一词汇逐渐频繁地出现在各种报道中。

But it is worth noting that there is a big misunderstanding about "angry quit" among people, and even some foreign professional media often misuse it.

origin

At the 2019 Ethereum Denver Conference, Ameen Soleimani and his colleagues released Moloch v1, a protocol for creating donation-based DAOs. Compared to complex DAO operating systems such as Aragon, the core of the Moloch v1 protocol has only more than 400 lines of code. It is concise, elegant, easy to understand and use, and allows people to easily pool funds together and collectively manage and coordinate the use of funds.

In DAO governance, minority opinions are always unavoidable. Usually, decision-making and transaction execution follow the principle of "the minority obeys the majority". But this also brings risks: when the majority holds the decision-making power, it may abuse its advantage and infringe on the interests of the minority. In order to prevent this risk, the Moloch protocol introduces the concept of "Rage Quit".

How to “rage quit”?

When a member opposes a proposal, even if they voted against it, the proposal may still pass. In the Moloch protocol, there is a 7-day grace period between the time a proposal is voted on and when it is actually executed. During the grace period, members who voted against it can choose to "anger quit" if they do not want their funds to be used for the project. This will allow them to have their funds in the project before the proposal is executed.contractThe remaining interest in the

Angry quitting isn’t something you can do at any time, here are a few key characteristics:

• "Rage Quit" by SmartcontractThe code enforces constraints.

• Only members who voted against the previous proposal are eligible to perform an "angry quit".

• An "angry quit" can only be done during a grace period when a proposal has been passed but not yet implemented.

• When a member quits, he can only retrieve hiscontractThe remaining share.

(For example, if 100 ETH is initially invested and 30% in the treasury has been used, members can only withdraw 70 ETH.)

There is also an invisible premise here, that members need to have direct, traceable historical input into the DAO treasury. Only in this way can the remaining rights be fairly confirmed at the contract code level, allowing members to exit. In other words, if a member has never put money into the DAO treasury, there is no such thing as an "angry exit", and even if the code is written, it cannot be executed.

An interesting little-known fact is that in the Moloch V1 protocol, in order to pursue the simplicity andSafetyAngry Quit is the only way to withdraw funds from the protocol. In other words, in order to get the funded funds, the funded project owners can only withdraw funds by executing Angry Quit, even if they are not angry and do not want to quit.

evolution

The Moloch v1 protocol has achieved remarkable success, but its function is limited to coordinating donations and has a narrow scope of use. Therefore, many teams have iterated on Moloch v1 and launched Moloch v2. This new version mainly adds a series of features that enable it to support joint investment, thereby opening up a wider range of business areas.

With the improvement of contract functions and the completion of the compliance framework, Moloch V2 has triggered a wave of Investment DAOs. The LAO, Flamingo, and MetaCartel are the best among them. Later, Investment DAOs were even formed to invest in Investment DAOs. Up to now, Investment DAOs have become a force that cannot be ignored in the Web3 investment market. Many Investment DAOs have already entered the traditional investment field and invested in Stability. AIAnd other excellent projects.

I have strayed off topic, let's get back to Rage Quit. This type of investment DAO built on the Moloch V2 framework and its variants naturally supports "rage quit", but the situation is much more complicated than before. V1 is a donation agreement, and what has been donated is spent. Even if the members withdraw, they cannot make any claims on the money that has been donated, so "rage quit" can be very simple to take back the part that has not been donated. But v2 is an investment agreement, and the money that has been invested has been exchanged for equity or token rights, and it is waiting for a return. This part of the rights must not be invalidated because of "rage quit". Therefore, it involves the confirmation and splitting of historical rights. Therefore, we can see that "rage quit" has become much more complicated than v1 in terms of code and details since v2, and there have been some changes. I won't go into the specific details, there are many differences in different protocols and variants, and everyone should have this concept in mind.

In summary, the main purpose of "angry quit" is to protect members of the general donation/investment type DAO. Its core function is to allow members toXiaobai NavigationDestroy your shares in the DAO and take back the remaining funds in the treasury.

Angry quits happen every day, but this isn’t a “rage quit”

For the vast majority of DAOs, their structure and operation do not meet the basic conditions for implementing an "angry exit". Many DAO members do not directly inject funds into their treasury, so DAO membership has no direct connection to the treasury balance, so the applicable scenarios for an "angry exit" are quite limited.

In fact, it is easy to understand. Consider a company. If an employee resigns due to dissatisfaction, even if he has been granted stock options or holds company shares, he is not eligible to withdraw the company's funds when he leaves. Similarly, after a shareholder buys Moutai shares, he finds that Moutai has started to produce chocolate with liquor. He is very angry and decides to withdraw. At this time, he can choose to sell the shares on the stock market, but he cannot ask to return the shares to Moutai and obtain the company's cash in proportion.

We have indeed seen founders themselves propose "angry quits" in DAOs. However, this "angry quit" is more of a formality, just a name, and is actually the result of negotiations among all parties. Unless the founder's rights and interests have a clear correspondence or agreement with the funds in the DAO's treasury, he is not eligible to withdraw funds when he exits.

Nouns DAO is a special case. It has experienced a fork, and the new contract after the fork supports the "angry exit" function. Its operating mode is roughly consistent with the original "angry exit" concept, but the specific implementation details have been adjusted. Nouns DAO can do this mainly because Nouns is essentially more like a donation-based DAO: every time a Nouns is sold in an auction, it brings direct and traceable funds to the treasury. The funds that have been used in the treasury are equivalent to supporting ecological construction and are regarded as donations. They do not correspond to the specific rights and interests of a certain individual member, which also provides convenient conditions for the implementation of "angry exit".

write at the end

Since "angry exit" and "exit" are both commonly used words in daily contexts, when they are combined, it is easy for people to understand their meaning only literally. However, the Moloch protocol, despite pioneering this concept, did not define it as a proper noun. This led to the gradual development of "angry exit" and the public's multiple interpretations of it, sometimes with misunderstandings. Such evolution also allows us to see the integration and evolution of technology and culture. Every innovation and every misunderstanding has promoted thinking and improvement in the DAO field. Today, the "angry exit" we are talking about is no longer its original appearance, but an institutional innovation that keeps pace with the times and continues to evolve.

As a decentralized organizational model, DAO is in the early stages of its development. Every problem it faces will lead us to explore and define the operating mechanism of the future digital society. And "angry quit" is a key node in this long journey. It is not just a few lines of code or a function, but also represents the exploration and pursuit of freedom, justice and community rights.

The article comes from the Internet:“Angry Quit”: Rebellion and Freedom in DAOs

Related recommendations: Conversation with DWF Labs: We don’t manipulate anything

For the recentCommunityControversy, BlockBeats recently exclusive interviewcryptocurrencyDWF Labs, a well-known market maker in the industry, has insight into the liquidity truth behind the controversy. Interviewed by: Jack, BlockBeats Compiled by: Sharon, BlockBeats Edited by: Jaleel, BlockBeats This year, DWF…