Urbit is in the midst of its fifth (!) coup. At least I think it's the fifth. I can't keep count. As @curtis_yarvin said recently, these are real Roman times for Urbit. And there are lessons here for every other DAO and open source project, including NEAR and House of Stake.

1. Governance theater: It's a mistake to put the governance cart before the product horse. I've seen so many DAOs fail trying to put in place ideal governance before there's even anything to govern. Urbit risks going the same direction.

There are no easy answers here, but I'd recommend that the Foundation not attempt to own products. Those belong inside tiny, centralized fiefdoms. Urbit does need successful products to succeed, something it's lacked so far, and this maximizes the likelihood of success.

2. Traction: Curtis is right that Urbit is "default dead" without a successful product strategy and revenue. Finding that should be the goal, by any means necessary. It has some time, but not a lot - the project is already > 20 years old!

3. Professional leadership: Urbit, like so many other crypto and crypto-adjacent projects, has struggled to recruit professional leadership for a host of reasons. I share its aversion to mainstream thought and institutions, but if I were emperor, I'd prioritize finding a new set of leaders at any cost. I feel strongly that this is a blocker to growth and product success.

Read the whole issue here: Urbit Isn’t Alright, by @lrettig