DAOs

Decentralized autonomous organizations suffer from a lack of oversight. Companies and founders should take that into account in their planning.

As the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem grows in size and influence, the question of how to best govern DeFi protocols has taken center stage. In crypto-native circles, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are far and away the most popular governance structures.

DAOs are often touted as an all-in-one fix for everything from investor-manager alignment to regulatory risk. However, as a spate of well-publicized internal disputes and regulatory crackdowns has shown, DAO governance is not a panacea.

Blockchain technology, especially trustless smart contracts and distributed ledgers, has created an unprecedented opportunity to build a more transparent financial system, with fewer centralized intermediaries. However, these technologies are still nascent. They should be used to complement — not replace — traditional legal structures.

When it comes to safeguarding investors, there is simply no substitute for traditional legal entities and investor protection regulations.

The problem with current DAO models

Although DAOs purport to be decentralized and autonomous, the vast majority of them are virtually identical to conventional technology startups, with founders, investors, product roadmaps and go-to-market strategies.

The main difference between DAOs and traditional businesses is that DAOs, by and large, do not operate within established legal frameworks. Many DAOs are effectively unincorporated associations. The remainder usually opt for relatively exotic, untested legal structures, which confer few, if any, legal rights to stakeholders.

Related: Elizabeth Warren is pushing the Senate to ban your crypto wallet

That’s bad news for investors and users, who are left with little to no recourse if something goes wrong. It’s also a problem for regulators, which has resulted in DAOs facing critical regulatory issues. This includes taxation of DAO tokens, treasuries, and investments, implementation of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules and Combating the Financing of Terrorism policies, as well as foundational questions of ownership, control and accountability.

Recently, DAO decision-making has drawn particular interest from the legal system, with concerning consequences for investors. In two recent court cases in the United States involving bZx DAO and Ooki DAO, officials took the stance that as governing members of a DAO, tokenholders themselves may be personally liable for legal infractions or negligence by a DeFi protocol’s core team.

As an industry, DeFi must do a better job of upholding the rights of users and tokenholders. Multiple regulatory pathways exist, both globally and within the United States, that offer important protections for investors, as well as considerable flexibility to DeFi protocols.

DAOs have potential that hasn’t been realized

While the current model of DAO governance is flawed, the underlying technology still holds vast potential. In fact, decentralized blockchain technology can be a powerful complement to traditional investor-protection regulations.

For example, trustless smart contracts and self-custodied “receipt” tokens have the potential to render many forms of mismanagement and malfeasance by asset managers virtually impossible. Similarly, decentralized oracles can ensure investors always have access to unbiased, up-to-date data on performance, thus greatly diminishing the scope for fraud.

At the same time, blockchain technologies such as zero-knowledge identify-proofs promise to ease the burden of regulatory compliance for DeFi applications while protecting users’ privacy and anonymity. With unique cryptographic proof, users can complete in-app Know Your Customer (KYC) and AML checks almost instantly without ever disclosing their personal information.

For all its flaws, on-chain governance has the potential to enable value-enhancing participation and guarantees that investor resolutions are truly binding. The only missing link preventing this technology from reaching its full potential is legal compliance.

Hybrid models can work

As with most emerging technologies, there is currently a lack of oversight regarding DAO regulation. However, the novelty of both blockchain and DAOs does not erode the need for regulatory compliance. If anything, it heightens it.

The need for proactive legal compliance in DeFi has never been more urgent. Regulatory institutions are cracking down on DAOs more than ever. A recent example of this is the Sushi DAO debacle, whereby the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a subpoena to the platform. The SEC indicated it was investigating potential securities law violations, including selling tokens that may be considered securities without proper registration.

Related: OpenAI needs a DAO to manage ChatGPT

DeFi protocols need to reconsider the DAO model. For protocols with securities-like governance tokens, the best option may be abandoning the DAO structure altogether. In the United States, established legal entities such as private funds may offer protocols considerable flexibility while clarifying and strengthening legal protections for tokenholders.

Similarly, DeFi protocols should consider housing their full-time core teams within registered limited liability companies, or their equivalent in jurisdictions outside the United States. Corporate structures are critical for protecting team members from personal liability and building effective, streamlined organizations.

DAOs have the potential to make a huge difference in both Web3 and mainstream businesses. The solution is not pitting decentralized and traditional finance against each other as adversaries — it’s integrating the strengths of both.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Decentralized autonomous organizations have too many attack vectors that affect important projects. That needs to change for them to become practical governance models.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have been heralded as the future of governance, unlocking a more egalitarian approach to decision-making. However, decentralizing leadership isn’t a magical solution that instantly leads to better results. To truly get the most out of a decentralized organization, steps must be taken to regulate weighted voting and tokenomics. If not carefully balanced, DAOs can implode — and some already have. 

Decentralized governance explained

DAOs offer a model for managing a project or company that distributes voting rights across all members. There is usually no central authority, only the will of the collective. While this sounds equitable in theory, the opposite can be true for certain governance models.

Perhaps most problematic of all structures are DAOs that operate on a token-based voting system. Despite being built to be decentralized, token-weighted governance — in which users with the most tokens have the biggest share of voting power — can inadvertently end up handing over control to a few wealthy participants and stripping it away from the many. As is immediately apparent, this completely undermines the philosophy that DAOs were built on and allows wealthy whales to have a disproportionate say.

Related: DAOs are focused more on community than profit. Here's why

This can wreak more damage than centralization alone; token-based voting systems can lead to hostile takeovers by DAO token whales and other malicious actors — such as in the takeover of the Build Finance DAO. In February, the DAO fell victim to an attacker who held enough assets to push through a proposal giving them total control of the project.

Because of its token-based governance model, this takeover fell entirely in line with the rules, leaving devs or the community little recourse but to fork the project and start from scratch. Clearly, voting weighted by asset allocation isn’t the best way forward.

Overcoming DAO problems

The point is that asset-weighted voting isn’t the ideal means for decentralized governance systems, especially if they seek to replace legacy models. The long-term goal is to be able to run businesses, organizations, and even nations with a decentralized system that meaningfully gives a voice to every individual but also takes into account what that member is providing. Various forms of personalized, blockchain-enforced IDs, as well as a voting structure based on meritocracy, may be just what is needed to balance the equation.

Imagine a new model, one where voting members are assessed against certain key performance indicators (KPIs). These can involve engagement and development metrics within the DAO, and a failure to meet these KPIs can result in that user’s voting power being reduced or removed entirely. Taking this approach would encourage all entities to make decisions that are in the broader interest of the community, not just themselves.

It can also apply to almost any factor of the platform, such as future technological developments or how community funds are allocated. It could even create new social organizing structures for charity, environmental groups and entire governments — providing larger motives than capital gain alone.

Related: Decentralization, DAOs and the current Web3 concerns

Already, NFT communities have demonstrated that they can incentivize acts benefiting the collective, such as participation being a prerequisite to be “whitelisted” for an NFT drop. It's not uncommon for successful Web3 projects to offer some kind of collaborative, mutually shared goal, and existing systems of leadership don't offer that direct incentive to participate. Take for example modern governments, in which citizens vote for an individual to be put in the position of centralized power. Web3 and DAOs are demonstrating how things could work in a different way, through mutual benefits and incentivized participation.

This is just one vision, but the basic premise remains. New structures must be explored to ensure decentralized organizations remain incorruptible. There are too many attack vectors affecting important projects, and if DAO governance is to grow into a global movement and ever see implementation beyond crypto, then these issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.