DAOs are redefining the corporation, and the law isn’t ready
The post DAOs are redefining the corporation, and the law isn’t ready appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial. While crypto has already changed the way we trade and invest, it’s now starting to challenge the way we organize, and that’s what decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, are about. Summary Despite massive on-chain treasuries, most DAOs aren’t recognized as legal entities — they can’t sign contracts, pay taxes, or protect members from liability. While DAOs promise openness and decentralized governance, the absence of legal personality means “community ownership” often masks concentration of power among a few dominant participants. DAO “wrappers” like LLCs or foundations fix basic compliance issues but clash with on-chain rules, create multi-jurisdictional confusion, and raise costs — making smaller teams less competitive. A new legal framework is needed — one that defines roles like “digital fiduciaries” and creates a global “DAO passport” for accountability, transparency, and cross-border recognition of decentralized organizations. In fact, DAOs aren’t a small experiment, as they hold over $20 billion in liquid assets, yet, in the eyes of most legal systems, they barely exist. With no CEOs, no headquarters, and no recognized judicial status, a DAO just doesn’t fit into the categories that courts and regulators have always used for companies. So, the real problem is that the law must adapt to organizations that look nothing like those it was built to govern. Simply put, as DAOs spread, legal systems must rethink what an “organization” even is and whether real accountability survives when code rules. The promise and the void At their best, DAOs offer openness, speed, and real collective ownership, so anyone with an internet connection can show up, pitch an idea, or vote. This works because code handles the core processes, making governance much more transparent than…
The post DAOs are redefining the corporation, and the law isn’t ready appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial. While crypto has already changed the way we trade and invest, it’s now starting to challenge the way we organize, and that’s what decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, are about. Summary Despite massive on-chain treasuries, most DAOs aren’t recognized as legal entities — they can’t sign contracts, pay taxes, or protect members from liability. While DAOs promise openness and decentralized governance, the absence of legal personality means “community ownership” often masks concentration of power among a few dominant participants. DAO “wrappers” like LLCs or foundations fix basic compliance issues but clash with on-chain rules, create multi-jurisdictional confusion, and raise costs — making smaller teams less competitive. A new legal framework is needed — one that defines roles like “digital fiduciaries” and creates a global “DAO passport” for accountability, transparency, and cross-border recognition of decentralized organizations. In fact, DAOs aren’t a small experiment, as they hold over $20 billion in liquid assets, yet, in the eyes of most legal systems, they barely exist. With no CEOs, no headquarters, and no recognized judicial status, a DAO just doesn’t fit into the categories that courts and regulators have always used for companies. So, the real problem is that the law must adapt to organizations that look nothing like those it was built to govern. Simply put, as DAOs spread, legal systems must rethink what an “organization” even is and whether real accountability survives when code rules. The promise and the void At their best, DAOs offer openness, speed, and real collective ownership, so anyone with an internet connection can show up, pitch an idea, or vote. This works because code handles the core processes, making governance much more transparent than…
What's Your Reaction?
