Oct 23, 2022·edited Oct 23, 2022Liked by Gabriel Shapiro

Interesting... but I totally disagree. Many DAOs want their formal, binding governance to be about more than just the protocol, especially to align community values, handle the distribution and/or investment of protocol income and influence the future direction of the group (not just the protocol). To conclude that these processes must be non-binding, don't need to adhere to any strict requirements and don't represent the views of the community is underestimating the potential of the technology. Though your suggested approach may lead to a more convenient legal interpretation of DAO governance and the legal status of governance tokens, I take the view that the law needs to be adapted to reality, rather than the other way around.

Expand full comment

@jack I don't mean to say that social governance is bad, just that it carries heavy post facto legal consequences & warrants careful ex ante legal engineering---DAOs which do this should be prepared to be regulated like businesses.

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2022Liked by Gabriel Shapiro

Excellent legal analysis. Though many in the crypto community may wish there were no differences between "executive votes" and "signaling votes", it is the legal/regulatory reality in which we currently live.

Expand full comment