Trust in Web 3

Why We Still Need It

 

As we witness the rapid evolution of the decentralized web (Web3) and the rise of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), the importance of intentionally building trust in these ecosystems cannot be understated. Trust is the foundation upon which successful collaborations and governance models are built, and it plays a crucial role in unleashing the long-term potential of its people and communities.

 

We will spread across four work phases involved in product development: Design, Build (or Collaborate), Promote, and finally Reward. The basis for this relates to the innovation cycle, first introduced by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. 

 

This table shows related memes, starting chronologically bottom left, and moving anticlockwise.

 

Note the deliberate axes in this layout. The left is tasks, and the right is human. The top is visible, above the surface, and the bottom is internal, below the surface. We start at the bottom left with ideas and internal planning tasks, move right to human-led hacking teams, then up to external human involvement, back to “internal” reward for all participants, and then cycle around again.

 

A typical optimistic graph moves upwards, traveling left to right. Here, we must superimpose a helix. The reward and design processes look back for a moment before circling back up again.

Introduction & Premise

In a rapidly changing world shaped by Web3 and innovative, emerging technologies, the foundational element of trust is more crucial than ever. This is particularly relevant in a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) environment. Despite technological advancements, trust continues to be the glue that holds communities together and facilitates cooperation. Based on that sense, the World Economic Forum wrote an article after the annual meeting in Davos, 2024, about “Rebuilding trust in the future” underscoring the urgent need to rebuild trust amidst rising global tensions, geopolitical fragmentation, climate crises, and social discontent. 

Trust is even more important in Web 3, for its audience, since relationship building and trust are vital in working relationships, and breaking trust with folk means they are likely to walk away simply. In Web 3, there are no employment contracts, only working agreements, and it becomes even more important to abide by what we said we would do.

Readers might well ask “Is trust for everyone?”. We want to put enough material in front of folk so they can decide for themselves. This article intends to empower the Web3 community to reflect on how they think about trust and its consequences along their journey.

Recognizing that trust management is a complex matter, this article aims to outline some key elements while acknowledging that it’s a broad topic. Here, the focus is to explore the essential aspects of trust-building and management within decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, going over and breaking down elements, dividing into four key stages where trust is a vital tool and component:

1. Initial Trust Building – Design Phase: Establishing trust when new members join a DAO or community, focusing on aligning goals and values.
2. Trust in Collaboration – Build Phase: Strengthening trust through collaborative efforts and shared experiences within a community.
3. Public Trust in DAOs & P2P – Promote Phase: Building and maintaining public trust in decentralized systems and peer networks.
4. Trust Rewards and Management – Reward Phase: Recognizing and managing trust, including rewards and acknowledgment for trustworthy behavior.

By examining these stages, we aim to highlight the importance of trust frameworks, leadership, and collaborative practices in fostering a healthy and productive community environment. Through case studies and theoretical insights, this article offers a comprehensive overview of the strategies and challenges associated with trust in the digital age.

1. Initial Trust Building – Design Phase

Building trust starts with the decision to engage with others. Each person has an individual perspective when choosing whom to interact with, ranging from personal values and behaviors to community rules and the potential for productivity. Factors such as interests, needs, commitment levels, and economic motivations can also influence our decisions to join a community and work more closely with others. That is typically done by both parties looking at the plans the other party has, and deciding if fruitful mutual working can take place.

Because folks are lining up plans, we can consider this a Design process.

 

Whenever we decide to engage with someone, we use a set of criteria that are ours uniquely. Do we believe folk who are offering “easy money”? Are we looking for specific types of people, with specific types of values and behavior?

Whenever we decide to join an online community, we have further criteria. Are they in an interesting area of ours? What will the commitment needed be? Do we need to do this for economic reasons? Do we like the community rules? Can we see productive ways forward, meaning time in the community will be constructive and rewarding? Are considerate responsive people in communities folk we would like to work with? Are there folk to worry about, folk who take advantage of others?

 

Perhaps, like us, your preference is to build constructive working relationships that are win-win in nature. Trying to find a team to make a meaningful contribution. Not simply extractive and win-lose in nature, with “me, me, me” as the only beneficiary.

As such, we would look for compassionate, responsive people willing to help whenever needed, given their capacity to do so. And willing where possible to balance the needs of the group against the needs of every individual.

 

In any community, existing members have a choice with new arrivals. They can either hold their hand, helping them learn how to get to a point of useful contribution, or they can build learning pathways, signposting, and quests, to help new arrivals find their feet and contribute to the community.

 

While hand-holding is more personal, it is very time-consuming and will detract from productive efforts in the community. A balance is needed, and this balance varies with every new entrant.

 

How communities vary in this area is pretty diverse.

Case Study 1 – The Ecology of Systems Thinking

 

This is a case study based on Innov8tor3’s experience trying to build a functional work group using the Facebook public offering, as an Admin, starting in 2016. The group subject matter was Systems Thinking. “One community I supported in 2016 had no real mission, simply to help foster interest in the core topic, in this case, Systems Thinking. This worked well in attracting audiences, we grew from 850 to 6,000 in about 29 months, and thereafter, even without hands-on support, momentum carried on until by the end of 2023 the group was over 13,000. I was at first very proactive with new members, greeting them and engaging on topics that were felt to be Systems Thinking in their construction. There was no significant signposting. By the end of my active involvement, the lack of rules and no overt mission meant folk were not geared up to collaborate, even though I was keen to do so with many members.Subsequently, the group size also attracted bad actors with extractive tendencies, which is probably inevitable when groups get to certain sizes. I reached the end of my road, unsure what I could do next to make changes.”

We’ve identified that Leadership is a key component of creating trust, both in organizations and individuals. When we find something or someone inspiring, an inner fire lights up in our chest, motivating us to keep going and trusting the processes, even when overcoming obstacles. But when the work we do has no meaning, things get boring and the passion gets cold. We all want to develop, create, and contribute to something. That is why fighting against structurelessness is important and finding ways to encourage a complete and continued learning journey, from onboarding for opportunities to rotating power gracefully, and promoting generational change. Dave Snowden also talks about this, noting as one factor we typically try to make a journey from chaos to complexity, to complicated to clear.

Trust Frameworks

Through subsequent online engagement and research, GravityDAO realized that trust upfront often equates to good leadership. Working with others is hard, but it’s harder when there are no frameworks to keep us all on the same page. Some of the frameworks GravityDAO has studied, promoted, and used in Web3 workplaces to create trust in collective settings are included here:

A) Elinor Ostrom – 8 principles for the commons.

Ostrom studied organizations for most of her career, seeking the elements that made them function cohesively and coherently. Add link and reference to Governing the Commons and Beyond markets and states

Elinor Ostrom’s research focused on identifying elements that made organizations function cohesively and coherently. Her work emphasizes the importance of trust in building successful communities and organizations. She selected a list of principles for running the Commons in her research.

1. Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries.
2. Rules should fit local circumstances.
3. Participatory decision-making is vital.
4. Commons must be monitored.
5. Sanctions for those who abuse the commons should be graduated.
6. Conflict resolution should be easily accessible.
7. Commons need the right to organize.
8. Commons work best when nested within larger networks.

https://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/ostrom_1990.pdf
https://web.pdx.edu/~nwallace/EHP/OstromPolyGov.pdf

 

B) Deliberately Developmental Organizations (DDO).

The Leadership Tribe website introduces the DDO, coined by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey in their groundbreaking book “An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization”, as an organization that puts personal growth at the heart of its strategy. 

​​Building a DDO is a long-term journey requiring sustained commitment and effort, prioritizing continuous personal and professional growth for their members, and integrating development into daily work. In these environments, employees are encouraged to explore weaknesses, receive regular feedback, and align personal growth with organizational goals. By fostering transparency, trust, and a supportive atmosphere, DDOs create a culture where individuals can safely express vulnerabilities and develop their potential. This approach not only enhances individual capabilities but also strengthens the organization’s adaptability and overall performance.

To keep sections “A” to “H” consistent, a DDO diagram is referenced in the Autonomy section.

 

C) Liberating Structures 

This is a trust framework that supports smooth day-to-day functioning in organizations. Fearless Culture, a consultancy that implements ten Liberating Structure practices, exemplifies how these practices contribute to building trust within an organization. 

Liberating Structures offer a refreshing alternative to traditional, hierarchical meetings. These easy-to-learn microstructures transform how groups meet, plan, and make decisions. By including everyone’s voice and fostering collaboration, Liberating Structures unlock innovation, boost engagement, and lead to more effective strategies. From healthcare design to government legislation, organizations across diverse fields are experiencing the power of Liberating Structures.

Fearless Culture summarizes here like this:

1. Include and unleash everyone
2. Never start without a clear and common purpose
3. Practice deep respect for people and local solutions
4. Build trust as you go
5. Learn by failing forward
6. Practice self-discovery within every group
7. Amplify freedom and responsibility
8. Emphasize possibilities: believe before you see
9. Invite creative destruction to enable innovation
10. Engage in seriously playful curiosity  

 

Close study will probably note that each of these practices is trust-inducing, and builds up an overall picture and recognition of trust in manifold actions. You can find more examples of how to include LS in your daily practices with this list of case studies researched by AI.

 

D) Servant Leadership

This is often represented by turning an organizational pyramid upside down, showing the leader at the top as supporting all others in the organization, and using the Atlas style. These are the ten commonly quoted principles.

There are ten main features of Servant Leadership.

Servant Leadership Components:

1. Empathy: Understanding and considering the needs of others.
2. Listening: Actively seeking out and considering the perspectives of followers.
3. Healing:  Promoting a sense of community and working towards reconciliation.
4. Persuasion: Inspiring and motivating others through reason and shared vision.
5. Conceptualization:  The ability to see the big picture and develop strategic goals.
6. Foresight: Anticipating future challenges and opportunities.
7. Stewardship: Taking responsibility for the well-being of the group.
8. Commitment to the Growth of People:  Investing in the development and potential of followers.
9. Building Community: Fostering a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
10. Humility:  Acknowledging limitations and valuing the contributions of others.

 

Through separate research, about supportive / servant leaders, we can recognize the term support as a less hierarchical term for the word leader, which can often become infused with unhelpful controlling properties. Because in servant leadership the hierarchy chart is inverted, the leader “supports” the whole organization. The word “support” then carries much more meaning when used in workplaces, and we can note its use elsewhere and wonder at the quiet leadership taking place. During COVID-19, support workers were suddenly praised as being essential to the functioning of the economy (you can read more about it in this article). 

This case study shows how famous leaders demonstrated Servant Leadership.

 

E) Cynefin Framework

The many facets of trust and dispute resolution play out across a variety of situations. From mending celebrity rifts to navigating international trade deals, fostering understanding can bring a sense of order from the potential chaos of disagreements as the Cynefin Framework shows us. This article explores ten real-world case studies, where navigating conflict and rebuilding trust led to positive outcomes. From product safety concerns to social unrest, these examples showcase the power of finding common ground and moving toward resolution.

Click here for a link to a great “3D” graphic explaining Cynefin.

 

F) Decolonisation

Decolonization in organizational contexts involves dismantling power structures and practices avoiding perpetuating colonial attitudes and advocating for equity and inclusion. This approach values indigenous knowledge and seeks to empower marginalized voices. The video links explore these themes, emphasizing non-extractive practices and recognizing indigenous histories. For further insights, refer to GravityDAO’s TEC YouTube channel on decolonization and Durgadas’ discussion on decolonization. These resources provide practical examples and discussions on implementing decolonial principles in communities and organizations.

 

G) Non-Violent Communication

Non Violent Communication is a core skill, and key infrastructure for work we want to see taking place. In this document, we will cover it more in the section dealing with collaboration, since it is often here, in the nitty gritty, that differences in ways of working can arise which need negotiation and resolution.

One specific element of NVC is the OFNR framework, which helps take differences of opinion and find constructive, creative, and perhaps better outcomes as a result.
Observations – What does each person see, that is feeding their position
Feelings – What emotions are aroused, connected to past, family, work-life experiences
Needs – What are the essential needs to be addressed, after emotions have been distilled
Requests – What are the minimum standards moving forward to support easier working

More detail on NVC is included in the Collaboration section, where most disagreements occur.

 

H) Other Relevant Points & Case Studies

• Trustless Systems vs Human Trust

 

As we are discussing Trust, we should also briefly mention what is meant by the Web3 expression Trustless.

There’s a growing trend of trusting systems over humans due to inherent human biases, complexities, and faults. Overt trust systems with deep rules and reputation scoring can deter some from joining, as they can be seen as barriers. Some large Web3 communities thrived initially without overt trust mechanisms. Simpler “trustless” systems perform consistently, minimizing the need to trust individuals, which in Web 3 is often seen as preferable. However, even advanced AI systems like OpenAI have limitations requiring human input to confirm and extend capabilities and provide governance and reassurance that systems are functioning without prejudice to community members. As trust creation evolves, there’s a growing preference for reliable system performance over error-prone human judgment. However, human intervention remains necessary to complement automated trustless systems.

Deeper Dive Analysis

 

Case Study 2 –  Leadership in Complex Systems

We are all growing. A leader will not always be young, and we need to learn to make space for others and embark on new roles.

This is a case study based on Vitalik Buterin’s experience on Leadership in Web3 based on his blog post: “The End of my Childhood”. “One of the memes of the core organizing team at Zuzalu was the 21-year-old Nicole Sun, and a year earlier she had invited me to visit a hacker house in South Korea: a ~30-person gathering where, for the first time that I can recall, I was by a significant margin the oldest person in the room… But watching all of these people go further than I did, younger than I did, made me realize that if that was ever my role, it would be no longer. I am now in some different kind of role, and it is time for the next generation to take up the mantle that used to be mine.” – Vitalik Buterin. Article Synopsis – Vitalik believes decentralization can help AI safeguard us against ourselves, given sufficient monitoring and support. He accepts his role as a leader in crypto communities.

 

2.Trust in Collaboration – Build Phase

So let’s now assume we have got past the point of choosing communities or choosing work colleagues. 

 

Now we have decided to engage in some Web3 contributions, and we are joining a team of others, including folk managing tasks and deliverables.

 

Why do we want to contribute? Because it gives us an ethical sense of value and purpose, as a human being. In the long term, it can lead to higher skills and ideally even employment, to help pay bills and put food on the table.

How can we contribute? If we work with others in teams, it can mean we can do a lot more than if we work alone. And the camaraderie of working with others on a common cause can be hugely life-enhancing. Working in teams has an added benefit, in that, it’s more likely that community needs will be recognized across more team members, so it can be that better community solutions are produced this way.

 

What do healthy and unhealthy collaborations look like, and are there any gray areas?

Healthy Collaboration

 

What would we ideally hope for in working colleagues?

 

Maybe we can hope for the following:

 

• Supportive, even if circumstances are difficult and counter-productive? 
• Respectful, understanding we all know a certain amount, but can’t know everything?
• Compassionate, we humans are complicated and at times affected by our emotions.

 

Are colleagues willing to let us set our boundaries as needed, even a bit reluctant to interfere and suggest alternatives? And still, understanding when we have to breach our boundaries?

 

Are there folk willing to serve the community, understanding “We’re All Gonna Make It” – WAGMI, by working together? Yet still following the servant leader model.

 

Marshall Rosenberg understood clearly how we can talk with one another more respectfully, building a body of work on the subject and coining the now widely used term Non Violent Communication, NVC for short. Is NVC in use in any organization where we interact?

 

Gray Area 1 – Challenge

More of a gray area, is healthy and respectful challenge e.g. of working practices encouraged? Perhaps improvements can be made from a technical perspective, where working practices can be redesigned, or from a personal basis, where it is felt that suboptimal working relationships are in existence. Whatever we want to challenge, and for whatever reason, NVC provides a very helpful framework to allow us to make such a challenge positively and constructively. It gives us confidence to challenge anything, but in ways that are helpful and useful.

 

Unhealthy Collaboration

We have all seen or experienced extremely unhealthy working conditions where bullying is tolerated or even encouraged, or folk are abusive to one another. There may be evidence of unchallenged forcing or aggressive behavior, or manipulation, one example being guilt-tripping people into doing work where they may otherwise choose a different priority.

 

Persistent use of the word “you” can be attached to forcing or manipulative behavior, and is a possible trigger to look out for.

 

Gray Area 2 – Over Focus & Burnout

Folk can be overly wedded to the work they have on hand, to the point where they forget to impose healthy boundaries and start to neglect key areas of their own life. It could be their health, their family, their finances, and other important areas that still need focus and attention. In extremes this can lead to burnout, needing periods of rest and respite. This is still unhealthy working, but a rather more subtle form, which at first may not notice, and can creep up on folk without any noticeable signs. In our case study, Aloysius recommends taking on the stressors, not the stress, practicing self-compassion and naming our inner critic, physicalizing stress easing, prioritizing rest and self-care, and managing societal pressures.

Aloysious studies on burnout

 

Gray Area 3 – Group Service Hijacking

Another gray area is where folk are called upon to serve their group, in the John F Kennedy style. “Ask not what your DAO can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your DAO”. That can be fine so long as everyone is doing that because then work is shared evenly around the team or group. If one person is hijacking sentiment through “loyalty demands” to get others to work, sometimes citing “Sociocracy” as their reference point, and not contributing as much themselves, then that hijacking can and should be identified and stopped, since it is ultimately unhealthy. This can even be subtly clothed in morality language, it’s something to be aware of.

 

Supportive, caring, and compassionate leaders will be aware of the risks and difficulties of extreme working and loyalty demands above and will act to make sure colleagues adopt healthy and balanced working practices, and are not overcome by overwork.

Healthy vs Unhealthy Collaboration

One area well recognized to be unhealthy is the area of conflict. Disagreements that don’t find a resolution can slide over into conflict, where folk are tired, stressed, and under pressure from external factors at home or work, meaning their patience and tolerance can be stretched, strained, and occasionally broken.

Creative Differences or Dispute?

Disagreements are natural and can deliver genuine creative advances when managed well. But sliding into dispute is a time suck for all members of the community, who usually just need the disagreement resolved, wherever this is possible.

Submerged Differences

A less visible form of conflict is where both parties disagree, but the topic is kept submerged. At this point, the disagreement simmers, which is again unhelpful, since the issue stays unresolved.

Conflict Resolution

It helps a lot if a neutral third party is appointed to listen to two disagreeing parties if they cannot surface or resolve a problem themselves. That third party can then listen, document positions, mediate, and suggest possible compromises or creative solutions. But in the end, the Request and Agree components must be undertaken by the two disputes.

Time Zone Difficulties

One of the issues about working with others online can be the time zones involved.

Web 3 has focused strongly on Ask Me Anything style meetings, and has become rather stuck on them as THE means to communicate and stay up to speed with DAO projects.

However, this means folk in different time zones struggle to attend, especially where they may have family commitments, meaning out-of-hours participation is difficult or impossible.

Here is a more detailed analysis of this, with some suggestions as to more effective ways to work with async contributors, including the use of AI to provide 24/7 support.

 

Producing content is one way to encourage async discussion and contribution. This could be a written document, allowing comment and thought, or say on X Spaces, where folk can catch up with a live meeting at a later date. Assigning time slots at times to suit different time zones can help.

3. Public Trust in DAOs & P2P – Promotion Phase

Public trust is a cornerstone of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). These entities depend on effective governance, autonomy, and robust trust frameworks at the organizational and peer-to-peer levels. Transparency and collaboration are essential elements that enhance these foundational aspects, optimizing communities for growth and success.

Governance

Governance is an important lens through which DAOs can be viewed. It can be we start external to a DAO, and that Governance rules decide for us whether we want to join in or not.

DAOs (Decentralised Autonomous Organisations) tend to have various ways to ensure trust, usually through a set of voting mechanisms that the community agrees on, and that help steer the DAO from one season to another.

Voting can take place on who the DAO appoints to lead work in a particular season, which includes authorized payments from the DAO Treasury, and in some cases contributions made across guilds or subgroups within a DAO.

DAOs seek internal consistency so that decisions made and visible externally can all be questioned and explained wherever needed.

 

Gravity DAO has expressed a wish to trial DDO as a methodology. Therefore DDO Governance will vary to a degree or two from conventional DAO Governance. But to be representative, DAO Governance already varies substantially from DAO to DAO, so DDO inside Gravity DAO will be a case study to watch, to see long term how it differs.

Autonomy

The overriding sentiment is typically to ensure that decentralized processes hold sway, meaning that accountability works across the entire DAO, and is not vested in one or two decision-makers who have undue influence on DAO directions.

 

For folk in decision-making roles, they are typically required to have made sufficient contributions to the DAO such that they have established a reputation, indeed trust, among other DAO members. In addition, they need to uphold DAO planning and objectives during a season and will be judged on their performance by their peers.

 

 

Here we see the idea of DDOs introduced, as discussed in the structure section. Some case studies are offered here but are so far uncorroborated.

 

Please note the above diagram is presented by Gravity DAO as suggestions for ways forward.

 

DAO Level Trust

There is an expectation that DAOs do their level best to ensure all governance processes are as transparent and accessible as possible, to maximize engagement and contribution across the entire DAO.

Governance is, therefore, a hot topic in Web3, although some contributors are more than happy to leave governance to others, while they focus on building products or keeping food on the table. But here again, trust becomes a key factor.

 

It’s often easier dealing with external problems – using DAO profiles and service definitions – than internal problems, P2P. This seems odd, but is because we include our own emotions when dealing with internal problems, and emotions then often cloud the issues we are trying to deal with. 

P2P Trust Visibility vs Reputation

When we deal with people directly, peer-to-peer aka P2P, trust becomes a continuous trust-building exercise. Folk are only as good as their last piece of work and need to affirm this regularly to maintain trust with DAO peers.

Systems now exist to help DAO reputations appear external to a DAO, and can include tokenized ways to keep score and offer rewards within a DAO.

 

Considering reputation, as a public version of trust, it’s not quite the same. Folk may have a reputation in certain areas, but the reality may not match our expectations, and therefore trust works at a different, more intimate level than reputation.

From the Twitter account of innov8tor3:

“Trying to build #Reputation, we must remember the journey we take to get to that goal is critical to being able to truthfully claim that goal. There will be #Temptation, but typically with #Risks that damage reputation, rather than enhance it. Ten examples from Gemini of reputation areas, with attaching temptations and risks.”

 

Finally, this is exemplified by the growth of reputation or credentialing-based systems, to help underpin reputation in DAO settings. These include:

 

Regenscore https://regenscore.io/profile
Praise https://optimism.givepraise.xyz/
Gitcoin passport https://passport.gitcoin.co/

DeWork https://dework.xyz/ 

 

One potential downside to this is that only people already “in the system” receive data-based trust. For new entrants, that trust still needs to be established, and gradually trust data needs to be accumulated. Arguably this could mitigate against new entrants, with people preferring to work with well-known “mates”, rather than risk working with newbies.

 

4. Trust Rewards and Management – Rewards Phase

 

Freedom & Autonomy vs Agreements

One of the things that have been delivered by Web3 technologies is, to more or less extent, freedom and autonomy. This helps folk to be very optimistic that change can be made, that initiatives can grow, and that everyone will join in with an initiative given sufficient positive language and agreement.

 

What is too often neglected is the human need to build trust, build relationships, and fully explain to folk asking questions what the current situation is and what current plans are to move forward. The process in fact of obtaining agreement.

 

It is a frequent problem that tech and other folk can over-focus on products, and forget the human factors involved. The very derivation of the Web3 term trustless refers to the way tech behaves consistently every time, whereas humans can react very differently at different times.

 

Telling folk “There, there, it will all be okay” is lazy and disingenuous on one level, ignoring the work needed to reach agreements, and potentially also patronizing and deceitful. This could be a sign that this person is disconnected emotionally at some level, and this will likely not resolve the immediate situation and could be the root of future conflict. This amounts to dismissing another person’s feelings, which is a bad sign in trust building.

 

These are not actions that build trust in Web3 participants, in fact, quite the opposite.

 

Shilling, Spamming & Scamming

This freedom and technical ability has led too many folk to an unfettered rise in shilling everyone how amazing their project is, for some leading to their poorly thought-through spamming by use of the @everyone and @here tag in Discords. Some may be desperate or just fed up with a lack of success and may develop further intent to remove digital funds from unwary Web3 citizens, using extractive practice and deceptive and deceitful technology.

If it’s too good to be true, then it probably isn’t!

This lack of trust in folk shilling, spamming, and scamming is something Web3 can address but needs to grasp the nettle to do so. It is very possible to award trust badging and community achievement POAPs or NFTs which establish reputation and trust for identified public key holders. Does the community recognize the individual contributor, and is it prepared to endorse them using Web3 tech?

 

There’s even a systemic problem with this, in that currency exchanges prefer the often overblown pump and dump approach. They get results sooner and look like a better investment. But it’s typically only for the short term. In the long term, exchanges are then prone to investment bubbles deflating and bursting. Short-termism is a dangerous beast to ride, and typically it is innocent and gullible investors who lose out. By now even Web 2 has heard of FTX. 

 

A further difficulty with trust, requiring detection and prevention measures, is the Sybil attack, where hostile entities create multiple fake identities in an attempt to flood a space and take over operations there. Often personified by the roadrunner – representing innocence – trying to outrun Wile. E Coyote – representing wicked intent.

 

Relationship Brokers

Even among friends who over time have built a much stronger working relationship, it’s very possible that relationships can break down. Often, it tends to be that assumptions that were made and not documented end up becoming a bone of contention, or a running sore.

 

GravityDAO wrote previously about dispute situations, with startup founders falling out, where other startup employees face the impossible choice of who to choose in a founder disagreement. The result can be complete stasis in the startup, which of course can be fatal for trading and ultimately survival. A great deal of money is lost this way for investors, who might well believe that an effective mediation service is worth trying to keep their investment on a more even keel.

 

Contrary to popular belief, most reasonable folks are seeking amicable, just solutions. If one can be found, this can be reaffirmed. Trust is not always lost in absolute and unrecoverable terms.

Mutual Trust Improves Performance

It’s no secret that teams who trust each other achieve more. So says Michael Page, recruitment consultant.

• high-trust organizations are 2.5 times more likely to be high-performing revenue companies when compared to their low-trust counterparts.
• have a voluntary turnover rate that’s half the rate of their industry peers

Note the diagram showing DAO evolution is also relevant here, as shown above in the Autonomy section. 

Achieving Consensus in Web3

Of course, the challenge in Web3 is there is no hierarchy to push teams to perform, it’s all down to individuals to rein in their autonomy and consider whether progress for the community matters more than their own goals and beliefs.

This is a tough call. It often requires individuals to have the ability to attain outstanding caliber. Or, it requires outstanding leadership – in a decentralized setting – such that enough folk will agree to consensus and vote to move forward that way.

Public Praise, Private Challenge

As Michael Page points out in the article link above, folk vary considerably in how well they handle challenges. Some are brave enough to debate in public, others less so, and prefer challenges to take place in private.

 

We all need to be aware of this, in Web3, because it will vary substantially from person to person. In each case in Web3, we have situations where folk can stay and discuss, or pass and exit, on a moment-to-moment basis, and for myriad reasons.

Full Commitment to Mutual Support

Mutual monitoring requires trust in one another, our people skills, and our commitment to consistent public behavior. This is so we can test relationships in the cold light of difficult circumstances, and our ability to rebuild trust as needed. The challenge may have been a little too robust, the push has been a little too hard, whether because of how we offered it or how it was received.

 

Here we see ten popular organizational feedback loops, highlighting the “signal processing” and the risks where the challenge is involved, but also the creativity possible arising from “creative differences between old and new”.

We should note carefully we are all human beings at the end of the day, subject to making mistakes and having moment-by-moment frailty.

But, critically, do we commit to treating each other as humans, willing to rebuild and support each other as humans, where we may have gone too far and pushed too hard?

Risk of Tyrannical Technocracies

And there’s a considerable risk if we don’t continue to build human relationships in the emerging DAO scape of Web 3.

 

One undesired consequence of technocracy is being caught in systems, and having a new kind of bureaucracy where filling information in multiple online platforms ends up being as demanding as having to go to government offices.

 

We need to work on improving our way of building reputation, and some platforms try to be the meeting point for project accountability for transparent capital allocation, but eventually, we end up getting to the point of having multiple databases where we can get easily lost or caught in the process.

 

Technology is great but it’s not everything. We must also make sure to include humans. This Charlie Chaplin GIF from a silent movie shows what can happen if we aren’t careful.

 

Conclusion

In this article, we’ve explored various ways humans collaborate to achieve common goals and undertake impactful projects, highlighting that even with vast technological advancements, these tools primarily serve to enhance human endeavors. We’ve outlined the intricate and multifaceted nature of trust through four developmental stages within networked, peer-led organizations, particularly focusing on the unique dynamics in Web3 and DAOs. Unlike the top-down approaches of Web2, where trust is often inconsistently applied, Web3 seeks to foster a peer-led, autonomous environment where mutual respect and recognition of human complexities are paramount.

 

Despite the extensive literature on teamwork and collaboration, effective coordination remains a challenge, exacerbated in Web3 by its decentralized and often unpredictable nature. It underscores the delicate balance of building and maintaining trust—easy to lose, yet hard to earn. This discussion invites a broader reflection: “Is trust for everyone?” Given its vital role across various contexts, as detailed here, the answer might lean towards yes. We now turn the question to you, the reader, to consider its implications in your interactions and organizations.

 

Next & Later Steps

As we developed this article, several key topics emerged that deserve further exploration. One significant area is whether people in Web3 are getting the support and resources they need, a topic ripe for deeper debate. We also need to address inclusion, we need to consider the challenges and opportunities of working with diverse individuals, particularly those who might not fit the typical mold, and who bring unique skills but may struggle with social cues.

 

So that we can trust each other, we must accept people as they are, their authentic selves. They need to commit to being authentic, and so do we, and we need to commit to working with them as they are. We can work with one another in full trust, even when difficult areas or issues arise.

 

Community cultures vary greatly, and introducing new ideas into established DAOs can be challenging. Additionally, the concept of trust tokens and SocialFi is growing, offering new ways to build reputation and trust. Finally, we must consider the “exclusion by knowledge” issue, where newcomers may feel out of place without adequate onboarding support. 

 

These topics highlight the complexity and diversity of issues surrounding trust in Web3 and DAOs. We recognize the need for ongoing discussion and exploration to fully address these topics, as it is crucial for building inclusive and effective Web3 communities.

 

Where to Learn More

Where can we learn about all this? Much recent material has been curated by an online group called GravityDAO, who are affiliated with Token Engineering Commons, also an online group. Both can be found on Twitter, at the time of writing.

GravityDAO has a range of materials, some of which can be accessed by clicking here, and other materials obtained with a simple Google:

NVC – Non-Violent Communication – Marshall Rosenberg, 1960s onwards

Servant Leadership – Robert K Greenleaf, 1970

Controlling Coercive Behaviour – UK Law, 2015

Read The Stack, Benjamin Bratton – 2015

Graviton Introductory Course:

https://gravitydao.org/en/online-courses/uncategorized/graviton-introductory-course/

GravityDAO’s complete working library is available here:
https://github.com/CommonsBuild/graviton-training/

What Gravity Plans for the Future:

https://gravitydao.org/about-us/

 

Contributors

@innov8tor3, @biancagadelha, @bellcho, @durgadas, @Jeremyandthegospelofchange.

 

Appendices

History

The original article was started by innov8tor3 to develop the GravityDAO profile further, establish organizational or person-to-person trust, maintain healthy working relationships, or repair trust where needed.

He was then joined by Bianca Gadelha, as a collaborator and sounding board, to better integrate the article with existing GravityDAO history and values. At this point, the suggestion was to make the article into three separate articles in Medium, to improve readability and digestibility.

 

The most recent step has been to re-examine the article in light of the wish expressed by Juan Carlos Bell to align more with educational values, and once more unify the three Medium articles. In line with that alignment, most of the trust structures listed under Phase 1 reflect GravityDAO’s preferences and practices.

Unlike many Web3 initiatives, more work was done “offline” in async ways, punctuated with synch meetings held to agree and decide on direction and next steps.

 

Some differences in style needed accommodation. Sometimes comments were too long and were added as suggestions. Where comments were typically noted and acknowledged as “Resolved”, direct “quote” suggestions were accepted where agreed upon, and other indirect suggestions were removed after suitable action was taken. Over 150 comments and suggestions were made, preserved, and acted upon, most with comments as to the action taken.

Discussion Notes – Including Twitter / X Spaces

The following relates to a summary of a series of Twitter Spaces held to discuss the document creation, taking feedback from a wider community. (You can listen to it by clicking here).

 

From the last space, some questions about trust came up, and here’s a part of that collaboration:

 

What do you like the most? 

Peter: We can be human, mostly because we can trust each other, we can understand each other better and keep the connection/ Nikola: human part of things. We can always trust technology, but if we can’t trust each other we can’t get where we need to get. We do some interesting practice so we can get to know each other better, based on the trust we build./ Juan: transparency, in Web3 everything is accessible./ Bianca: that we feel validated

What’s the most challenging? 

Peter: people work in different ways, and it can be hard to do it/ Nikola: get out of my way and open my mind to understand others’ perspectives. We are not taught to be understanding to each other/ Juan: to break the ice, people sometimes just don’t trust. Being skeptical, having to validate yourself over and over again. We are talking about trust and people don’t trust us./ Bianca: the difficulty of remembering we are humans