How is Polkadot different from holocracy?

While introspecting about what Web3 means to me I stumbled upon this paper. The second paragraph struck me in particular (I’m an American):

Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business…Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities.

It helped me better understand what is special about being a stakeholder in the Polkadot ecosystem.

Later I was speaking IRL with someone unfamiliar with Polkadot and it helped me “connect the dots”, no pun intended. She is studying organizational management and referred me to this case study on holocracy.

My cursory response was that holocracy would still, presumably, be operating within a structure driven by fiduciary duty to shareholders rather than stakeholders.

I am posting here in the spirit that it could be beneficial for conversations with folks outside the ecosystem. If this should go somewhere else, like a different forum, or otherwise, please let me know.


Shareholder-based decision-making represents a simplified form of governance. By holding a certain number of tokens, individuals acquire voting power corresponding to their token holdings. Polkadot implements democratic voting algorithms, such as Seq-Phragmén and time-locked conviction voting, to safeguard minority rights to a certain extent. To further engage stakeholders, we might consider incorporating additional features and complexity, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, a reputation system, and various other mechanisms. I believe it’s best to leave these innovations to the Substrate app chains for experimentation, while Polkadot focuses on providing security and funding for these app chains, builder tooling system.