This is a follow-up discussion moved from the RFP-8 thread as to not detract from the technical outcomes that particular RFP aims to achieve. @raedah brought up some interesting points regarding smart contracts and DAOs that should enjoy further discussion. Here is one perspective. Ethereum itself is structured differently than Bitcoin-related cryptocurrencies. Ethereum has a ledger for contracts, which can store memory (https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Design-Rationale). Bitcoin and derivatives use a system of unspent transaction output (UTXOs) and there are no provisions for inserting or altering memory in the blockchain. Ethereum also has a state tree that tracks all the memory and the computational state of the blockchain. There may be serious scalability issues with the architecture when it enters widespread use, and it is considered experimental for the time being. Decred's scripting language should try to meet a middle ground between Bitcoin and Ethereum. It should enable simple smart contracts, but it should prevent the user from doing obviously dangerous things and prevent negative impacts on network scaling or security. There are already several alternative implementations of Ethereum designed to work agnostic of the blockchain where they operate. These include Bloq and Eris. Rootstock is an offering of a sidechain with Ethereum scripting. In the future, if we decide to integrate Ethereum-style scripting, the predicted scenario would be as some kind of sidechain secured by PoS, dependent on the main, PoW-containing chain. Similarly, other types of contract assembly language that are developed in the future could also be integrated into sidechains. Sidechains is a more powerful idea, if correctly designed, because it allows Decred to be used for any future scripting language. Bitcoin's scripting language is still considered relevant, and ensuring that our scripting language has consistencies with that language means that the developed IDE will also be available to Bitcoin users. As for The DAO, it's a wait and see thing. The assumption that smart contracts will make the law conform to them rather than vice versa may be a bad one. There has been a lot of criticism, including from a prominent cryptocurrency lawyer, of the structure and contract of The DAO. For example: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/27/dao-call-for-moratorium/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2016/05/17/thedao-dont-walk-away-restructure/ https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/blockchain-company-wants-to-reinvent-companies It would be nice if the development subsidy DCR for RFPs eventually moves to some kind of known corporate structure with legal protections and representation, which are underlied by contracts on a blockchain. A free-for-all of voting for how money should be spent might be less than ideal. Right now, barely anyone using The DAO is even voting. Normal corporate structures should be considered for Decred's future development, with elected boards, limited liability, and a solid legal foundation in the country in which it is recognized. Note that this is not the alpha and omega, this is just one perspective put forward to stimulate the discussion. Regardless of the discussion, however, we should always turn to empirical evidence to try and formulate our future together. It's important to dream, but it's equally as important to focus on action rather than rhetoric (even if the former is not always valued as much). What has been working and working well is development, which has been extremely high, despite operating on a fraction of the budget other projects operate on. The RFP process is doing very well too, with a number of RFPs completed, others progressing well, and new ones being posted. What we are seeing as project is that more and more people are getting involved who have a longer-term orientation in their interaction with Decred. These are all measurable signs of health as a project and a cryptocurrency. Right now the focus is and remains a technical one through development activity. This is to move us along the accessibility scale (stake pools, GUIs, etc.) so that new users can enter the system, receive representation, and ultimately participate in voting together through consensus-based decision-making. An actionable roadmap is currently being prepared for announcement so we can all get on the same page as well. It's termed actionable as it focuses on what is realistically attainable and likely to eventuate as opposed to extremely long-term goals that are unlikely to materialise when one adds the requirement of adaptability into the equation. Adaptability is one of the project's strengths, which must be balanced with what can be delivered rather than saying what development wants to deliver. Having said that, smart contracts and DAOs are an interesting area for exploration, and RFP-8 lays the groundwork needed for that exploration. We should, however, explore it together in novel ways and not just jump on a bandwagon because it's a hot topic. Let's come up with a new way in the future of addressing the gaps. A diverse approach builds strength, and that starts with good discussion.