Wulf A. Kaal

DAO Market Meta Analysis 2024

Full text for verification

DAO Market Meta Analysis 2024

Canonical record: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4900875

This is an alternate SSRN posting of the same work published at 5254152. Its 40 claims are recorded under that identifier.

Source extraction SHA-256: 36af18dae613cb99a52923226c06fb8401d5a90223b2efb0adcab975cee09751

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **DAO Market Meta Analysis 2024**

Wulf Kaal, Ph.D.1

# **Abstract**

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represent a transformative approach to governance and decision-making, driven by technology that enables decentralized, transparent, and direct stakeholder participation. DAOs are disrupting traditional centralized models across various industries. For instance, they offer alternatives to conventional banking and investment systems by facilitating decentralized asset management and peer-to-peer transactions. In the insurance sector, DAOs streamline claims processing, reduce fraud, and enhance risk assessment accuracy. They also provide solutions to combat misinformation and censorship through community-driven news platforms.

However, several challenges and open questions persist for DAOs. Key issues include the need to establish standardized governance mechanisms to ensure fairness, security, and accountability. Additionally, scalability concerns, legal frameworks, and interoperability between different DAOs are critical areas requiring further exploration and development.

This paper presents an analysis of the DAO marketplace that utilizes a dataset of 50 DAOs selected by the assets size in their treasuries across different industries. Through descriptive statistics and comprehensive analysis, the paper identifies trends in DAO industries and highlights governance and other shortcomings in the evolving landscape of DAOs.

**Key Words:** Decentralized Autonomous Organization, Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain, DLT, Distributed Systems, Governance, Distributed Ledger Technology, Regulation, Protocols, Optimization, Principal-Agent, Emerging Technology

**JEL Categories:** K20, K23, K32, L43, L5, O31, O32

> 1 Professor of Law. The author is grateful for excellent research assistance by Beau Raymond, Jack Palmer, and Josh Nierengarten. The author is grateful to the student in his class on Decentralization - Tech and Policy in the spring semester 2024 for their support in generating the data for this study.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **Table of Contents**

|**Introduction.....................................................................................................................3**|
|---|
|Historical Context and Technological Evolution...........................................................3|
|Emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)..............................4|
|**Key Concepts and Technologies Underpinning DAOs............................................... 4**|
|Governance in DAOs vs. Traditional Corporations......................................................4|
|One-Person-One-Vote.................................................................................................5|
|Quadratic Voting..........................................................................................................5|
|Fungible Governance Tokens......................................................................................5|
|Reputation Governance.............................................................................................. 5|
|**Importance of Governance in DAOs........................................................................6**|
|Current State and Challenges of DAOs...................................................................................6|
|**The Impact of DAOs on Traditional Industry................................................................6**|
|DAOs in the Financial Sector...................................................................................... 7|
|Tokenization of Assets.................................................................................................7|
|Decentralized Exchanges............................................................................................7|
|DAOs in the Insurance Sector.....................................................................................8|
|Decentralized Risk Pools............................................................................................ 8|
|DAOs in the Service Provider Industry........................................................................8|
|Tokenization and Incentivization..................................................................................9|
|DAOs in the Media Industry........................................................................................ 9|
|DAOs in Non-Profits....................................................................................................9|
|Global Community Engagement............................................................................... 10|
|**Open Challenges.......................................................................................................... 10**|
|**DAO Market Analysis....................................................................................................11**|
|Dataset...................................................................................................................... 11|
|Scoring Methodology.................................................................................................11|
|**Descriptive statistics....................................................................................................12**|
|**Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 31**|
|**APPENDIX A: DAO Dataset..........................................................................................33**|
|**APPENDIX B: DAO Scoring......................................................................................... 48**|
|**APPENDIX C: Bibliography.......................................................................................................71**|

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Introduction

DAOs represent a transformative development in the landscape of business entities, offering decentralized, transparent, and efficient alternatives to traditional corporations. By addressing challenges through robust governance structures and continuous adaptation, DAOs can realize their potential as a transformative force in the modern economy. Further research and development in DAO governance will be critical to harnessing their full potential and ensuring their contribution to a more decentralized and transparent economic system.

By examining the historical context, technological foundations, governance models, and current state of DAOs, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of their potential and challenges in the digital age. Effective governance mechanisms are essential to ensure that DAOs can operate efficiently, transparently, and sustainably, thereby realizing their potential as a transformative force in the modern economy.

# Historical Context and Technological Evolution

Business entities have evolved alongside technological advancements, from simple trade systems to complex corporate structures. The digital age, marked by the rise of the internet and digital communication, has further transformed the way businesses operate. Traditional business models, designed for a pre-digital era, may no longer be the most efficient means of managing operations in today's interconnected and fast-paced environment.

The evolution of business entities can be traced back to early civilizations, where trade and commerce were facilitated through various forms of partnerships and guilds. As technology advanced, these entities evolved into more complex structures, such as joint-stock companies during the Industrial Revolution. The introduction of limited liability in the 19th century marked a significant milestone, allowing for greater risk-taking and capital accumulation. In the 20th century, the rise of multinational corporations further transformed the global economy, enabling businesses to operate across borders with unprecedented scale and efficiency.2

2 Zingales[2000]; Rajan and Zingales [2001]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)

The Information Age has facilitated the emergence of DAOs, which utilize blockchain technology to operate in a decentralized and transparent manner. DAOs differ fundamentally from traditional corporations in their governance structures, relying on smart contracts to encode rules and automate processes. This allows for greater efficiency, security, and autonomy in business operations.3

Blockchain technology, the underlying infrastructure of DAOs, offers a distributed ledger that ensures transparency and immutability of transactions. Smart contracts, self-executing contracts with terms directly written into code, eliminate the need for intermediaries, reducing costs and increasing trust among participants. The combination of these technologies enables DAOs to function without centralized control, providing a more democratic and inclusive form of governance.4

Key Concepts and Technologies Underpinning DAOs

DAOs are built on blockchain technology and smart contracts. These technologies enable DAOs to function without centralized control, ensuring transparency and automation in decision-making processes. The concept of DAOs was significantly influenced by early discussions on smart contracts by computer scientist Nick Szabo and later by the Ethereum project, which provided the technological foundation for implementing DAOs.5

Governance in DAOs vs. Traditional Corporations

Traditional corporations are governed by a board of directors and executives who make decisions on behalf of shareholders. In contrast, DAOs employ various governance models, such as one-person-one-vote, quadratic voting, fungible governance tokens, and reputational governance. These models offer different approaches to decision-making, reflecting the decentralized and participatory nature of DAOs.6

- 3 Wright and De Filippi [2015]

> 4 Buterin [2014]; Tapscott and Tapscott [2016]

> 5 Szabo [1997]; Ethereum Foundation [2015]

> 6 Zwitter and Hazenberg [2020]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# One-Person-One-Vote

This model ensures equal voting power for all participants, promoting democratic decision-making but potentially leading to majority tyranny. One-person-one-vote in DAOs seeks to address the imbalance found in traditional corporations by giving each participant an equal say, regardless of their financial stake.7

Quadratic Voting

Quadratic voting allows participants to allocate votes based on their preferences, reducing the influence of wealthy individuals and encouraging nuanced decision-making. The cost of additional votes increases quadratically, making it prohibitively expensive for any one individual to dominate the voting process. This promotes a more equitable distribution of voting power.8

Fungible Governance Tokens

These tokens represent voting rights and can be traded, providing liquidity and transparency but also risking vote buying and manipulation. Governance tokens are a common feature in many DAOs, allowing participants to buy and sell voting rights on cryptocurrency exchanges. While this can enhance liquidity and participation, it also raises concerns about the concentration of power and the potential for manipulation.9

# Reputation Governance

This model allocates decision-making power based on participants' past contributions and reputation within the community, promoting transparency and trust but challenging to measure objectively. Reputational governance systems use metrics such as contribution history, community feedback, and peer reviews to determine voting power. This incentivizes positive contributions and discourages harmful behavior.10

- 7 Taleb [2007]

> 8 Posner and Weyl [2018]

- 9 Cong and He [2019]

- 10 Beck et al. [2018]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Importance of Governance in DAOs

Effective governance is crucial for the success of DAOs, ensuring that decisions are made democratically, conflicts are managed, and the organization remains aligned with its mission. Governance mechanisms also help in addressing risks such as centralization, manipulation, and legal non-compliance.11

Current State and Challenges of DAOs

As DAOs gain popularity, several platforms, such as Aragon, Colony, and DAOStack, provide tools for DAO creation and management. However, poorly governed DAOs face significant risks, including centralization, lack of transparency, and inefficiency. Effective governance structures are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure the sustainability and success of DAOs.12

Aragon offers a suite of tools for DAO governance, including token management and voting systems. It provides templates for creating DAOs but requires careful consideration to avoid risks associated with fungible governance tokens.13

Colony focuses on task and reputation-based governance, integrating decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols to manage funds and incentivize contributions. Its flexible governance model allows customization to suit different organizational needs. Colony's reputation system rewards participants based on their contributions, ensuring that those who add value to the organization have a greater say in decision-making. This can promote meritocracy and encourage active participation.14

The Impact of DAOs on Traditional Industry

The advent of DAOs is significantly impacting various sectors, heralding a paradigm shift in traditional industries. DAOs, enabled by blockchain technology and smart contracts, are revolutionizing finance, insurance, service provision, media, non-profits, and political action by fostering decentralization, transparency, and community-driven decision-making. This paper explores the transformative potential of DAOs across these

> 11 De Filippi and Hassan [2016]

> 12 Hassan and De Filippi [2021]

> 13 Hassan and De Filippi, [2021]

> 14Allen [2017]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

sectors, their impact on existing models, and the challenges and opportunities they present.

DAOs are emerging as a transformative force across various industries. By leveraging blockchain technology and smart contracts, DAOs facilitate decentralized decision-making, transparency, and direct stakeholder participation.

DAOs in the Financial Sector

The financial sector is undergoing a significant transformation with the emergence of DAOs. By utilizing blockchain technology and smart contracts, DAOs enable decentralized financial systems that are more transparent, efficient, and accessible. Decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms built on DAOs offer a wide range of financial services, including lending, borrowing, trading, and asset management, without relying on traditional intermediaries.15

Tokenization of Assets

DAOs facilitate the tokenization of traditional financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. This allows for fractional ownership, increased liquidity, and efficient transferability of assets. Additionally, DAOs enable decentralized asset management, allowing investors to participate in the governance and decision-making processes of investment strategies.16

# Decentralized Exchanges

DAOs have given rise to decentralized exchanges (DEXs) that operate without central authority. These exchanges facilitate peer-to-peer trading of digital assets, offering enhanced security, privacy, and user control. DAOs govern the rules and operations of these exchanges, ensuring transparency and fairness.17

> 15 Buterin [2014]

> 16 Catalini and Gans [2016]

> 17 Hayes [2019]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

DAOs in the Insurance Sector

The insurance industry is also experiencing a transformation with the advent of DAOs. These organizations offer innovative solutions to longstanding challenges, such as high administrative costs and lack of transparency.18

Decentralized Risk Pools

DAOs enable the creation of decentralized risk pools where individuals can collectively manage insurance coverage (Kaal et al, Decentralized Underwriting. Through smart contracts, premiums are pooled, and claims are automatically disbursed based on predefined conditions, improving efficiency and transparency.19

Blockchain technology ensures transparency in claims processing, with smart contracts automating verification and settlement. This reduces administrative costs and increases the speed and accuracy of claims processing.20

DAOs facilitate community-based insurance models where individuals with similar risks form insurance pools with tailored rules, premiums, and coverage terms. This decentralized approach enhances governance and decision-making within the community.21

DAOs in the Service Provider Industry

Service providers are leveraging DAOs to revolutionize various sectors, including finance, healthcare, and logistics. DAOs enable decentralized service delivery models, connecting providers directly with consumers, thus eliminating intermediaries.22

By utilizing blockchain-based identity verification and reputation tracking, DAOs enhance trust and reliability in service provision. Transparent pricing mechanisms and cost optimization strategies further improve the efficiency of service delivery.23

- 18 Schwartz [2020]

> 19 Tapscott and Tapscott [2016]

> 20 PWC [2017]

> 21 Lamberti et al. [2020]

> 22 Wright and De Filippi [2015]

- 23 Davidson et al. [2016]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Tokenization and Incentivization

DAOs create utility tokens to incentivize consumer engagement and participation. These tokens can be used for accessing services, participating in governance, or receiving rewards, fostering a more inclusive and decentralized service landscape.24

DAOs in the Media Industry

The media industry is being reshaped by DAOs, which enable decentralized content creation, curation, and distribution. Creators can collaborate with a global community, and through DAO governance, community members influence content selection and promotion.25

DAOs introduce decentralized crowdfunding mechanisms, allowing supporters to contribute directly to media projects. Transparent revenue sharing models ensure fair compensation for creators and contributors.26

DAOs facilitate direct engagement between creators and audiences, fostering a sense of community ownership. Blockchain technology provides secure and transparent intellectual property management, enhancing copyright protection and royalty distribution.27

DAOs in Non-Profits

DAOs are revolutionizing the non-profit sector by providing decentralized and transparent governance structures. They enable community participation in decision-making, innovative fundraising models, and efficient resource allocation.28

> 24 Cong et al. [2020]

> 25 Jain et al. [2020]

> 26 Napoli [2020]

> 27 De Filippi [2017]

> 28 Allen [2017]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Non-profits can leverage DAOs to democratize decision-making processes and introduce token-based fundraising campaigns. This fosters deeper donor engagement and ensures transparency in fund utilization.29

# Global Community Engagement

DAOs facilitate global community engagement, enabling cross-cultural collaboration and knowledge sharing. This broadens the reach of non-profit organizations and enhances their impact.30

DAOs are transforming political action by democratizing decision-making, enhancing transparency, and enabling grassroots mobilization. They provide secure voting systems and facilitate advocacy and lobbying efforts.31

DAOs empower individuals to participate in political decision-making and fundraising. Blockchain-based tokens represent participation in political campaigns, promoting grassroots involvement and transparency in resource allocation.32

DAOs offer blockchain-based voting mechanisms, ensuring the integrity and transparency of the electoral process. They also facilitate decentralized advocacy, empowering individuals and interest groups to collectively influence policy decisions.33

# Open Challenges

Despite their potential, DAOs face challenges such as scalability, governance issues, and the need for robust security measures. Addressing regulatory concerns and building trust among traditional financial institutions are also critical for the widespread adoption of DAOs in the financial sector. As the technology matures, DAOs are likely to play a more significant role in decentralized lending, insurance, derivatives, and cross-border transactions, creating a more inclusive, transparent, and efficient financial ecosystem.34

- 29 Swartz [2018]

> 30 Hassan and De Filippi [2021]

> 31 Allen [2017]

> 32 Wright and De Filippi [2015]

> 33 Schwartz [2020]

- 34 Swan [2015]

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# DAO Market Analysis

# Dataset

The DAO market analysis data (n=50) was generated by a team of research assistants, under the guidance of Professor Wulf Kaal, at the University of St. Thomas. The paper provides an analysis of six major factors of each individual DAO and scores them on their performance in each category. The six factors considered are: Decentralization, Work to Earn, Attack Resistance, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, and Organizational Communication. Each DAO was given a score between zero (0) and ten (10) by the analyzing teams based on publicly available information and the organization’s whitepaper, if it has one.

The DAOs were further separated into market categories based on their primary purpose in the industry. The market categories are: Investment DAOs, Political Action DAOs, Oracle DAOs, Decentralized Insurance, Charity DAOs, Media DAOs, and Services DAOs. The support for each metric’s score can be found in the appendix. The following graphs illustrate how each DAO was scored in comparison with their peers and provide valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each DAO and their respective market category.

# Scoring Methodology

To assess the performance and characteristics of various decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), the author created a comprehensive scoring metric. This metric evaluates six key attributes essential for the sustainability and effectiveness of a DAO: Decentralization, Attack Resistance, Governance, Regulatory Compliance, Work to Earn, and Organizational Communication. Each attribute is scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with higher scores indicating better alignment with the ideals of a sustainable DAO

Decentralization (“D”) scores reflect the distribution of power and decision-making authority within the DAO. A score of 10 suggests a fully decentralized organization with anonymous participation, minimal barriers to entry, and well-distributed power. Lower scores indicate increasing centralization, with power concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or a central authority.

Attack Resistance scores (“A”) assess a DAO's ability to withstand common attacks, such as 51% attacks or Sybil attacks. Higher scores suggest robust security measures, such as the use of reputation-based governance, multi-signature wallets, or other protective mechanisms. Lower scores indicate vulnerability to attacks, often due to the use of easily purchasable or transferable governance tokens.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Governance scores (“G”) evaluate the sustainability and effectiveness of a DAO's governance protocols. High scores, such as 9 or 10, indicate the presence of mechanisms to prevent common governance failures, such as the tyranny of the majority or the tragedy of the commons. These may include reputation-based voting, multi-round voting, or incentive structures that align individual interests with the overall health of the DAO. Lower scores suggest a lack of safeguards against governance failures and potential centralization of decision-making power.

Regulatory Compliance scores (“R”) reflect a DAO's ability to operate within legal frameworks and interact with real-world entities. Higher scores indicate the use of appropriate legal wrappers, such as LLC or foundation structures, and compliance with relevant regulations in the DAO's jurisdiction. Lower scores suggest a lack of legal recognition or a failure to address regulatory requirements.

Work to Earn scores (“W”) assess the opportunities for individuals to contribute to the DAO and earn rewards based on their work. High scores indicate the presence of well-defined contribution mechanisms, such as bounty systems or reputation-based reward distribution. Lower scores suggest limited opportunities for meaningful contribution or a lack of clear incentive structures. Organizational Communication scores (“O”) evaluate a DAO's ability to facilitate effective communication and collaboration among its members. Higher scores indicate the use of dedicated communication platforms, such as forums or chat systems, and the presence of mechanisms to encourage meaningful discussion and reward valuable contributions. Lower scores suggest a reliance on third-party platforms or a lack of incentives for active engagement.

By considering the scores across these six attributes, it is possible to gain insight into the strengths, weaknesses, and overall sustainability of different DAOs. While no scoring system is perfect, and that some attributes may have changed by the time of publication, this metric aims to provide a structured approach to evaluating the key characteristics that contribute to the success or failure of decentralized organizations.

Descriptive statistics

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Total Scores of DAOs by Industry Total 60 50 40 30 20 10 Investment DAOsMantleDecubateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFingerprintsArt and Culture DAOsSuperRareRari FoundationBto MoaDAOT olsGnosis SN3 UNAGbaaxe oqs Decentralized Finance DAOsMakerDAO Qi DAO Olympus DAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentral ized Sience DAOsResearchHubHaiDDAOVtaDAOMoonDAOData LakeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSed clbPush ProtocolBankle s DAOGlobal Coin Research Gaming DAOsMagic Square Decentral andMerit Circle PageAOwlnyAn]Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDtravelNOUDAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSilo FinanceUXDt c0l KlimDAOPaladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsArbhtum Polygon Polkadot DIMO BrainDAOGelato DAOddegeaepAPIETomiDAOHo DAOData Analysis DAOsTheg rphRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAODapp RadarBakery DAO

Figure 1: This graph displays the total scores of DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) across various industries. The scores range from 0 to 60, with notable fluctuations between different industries. The data indicates that no single industry consistently outperforms others, suggesting a diverse performance landscape for DAOs across different sectors.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

DAO Scoring Card 50 Infrastructure DeScience DAOs 45 DAOs Data DAO Analysis 40 Tools DAOs Political/Greater 3035Investment DAOsArt & Culture DAOsDeFi DAOsGaming Work &FundingDAOs Good DAOs 25DAOs 20 15 Media & Communication 10 DAOs 5 MantleDecubateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFingerprintsArt and Culture DAOsSuperRareRari FoundationBtloRaayModaDAO ToolsGnosis SN3UMA Galaxe os Decentralized Finance DAOsMakerDAO Qj DAO Olympus DAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentralized Sdence DAOsResearchHubHaiJDAOVitaDAOMoonDAOData LakeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSeed ClubPush ProtocolBankle s DAOGlobal Coin ResearchMal3Gaming DAOsMagic SquareDecentraland Merit Circle ParagonsDAO Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDtravelNounsDAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSilo FinanceUXt cC0lKlimaDAO Paladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsArbitrum Poyon Polkadot DIMO BrainDAOGelato DAOInstaDappAPI3TomiDAOH DAOData Anal ysis DAOsThe GraphRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAODapp Ra darBakery DAO Decentralization Attack Resistance Governance Reg ulatory Compliance Work to Earn Organizational Communication Total

Figure 2: This graph presents a detailed scoring card for DAOs across various industries, highlighting their performance in different categories such as decentralization, attack resistance, governance, regulatory compliance, work to earn, and organizational communication. The total scores, represented by the line graph, show significant variation among the industries, with DeScience DAOs and Data Analysis DAOs scoring the highest. The bar chart beneath each industry segment provides insight into the specific performance metrics contributing to the overall scores, revealing a multifaceted evaluation of each DAO's strengths and weaknesses.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Decentralization

- Average Score of 4.25/10

Decentral ization • High of 9/10 • Low of 1/10 MantleDeaeteApeeoinMetacartel Venture Art and Culture DAOsSupareRari FoundationBtoRalyMmodaDAO Tools GnosisSNEWNGalaxe0s Decentral ized Finance DAOsMakDDAO QI DAO Aave Goldfinch DAODecentralized Scence DAOsReehiubHaiODAOVaDAOMoonDAOData ekaeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSeed ClubPUushh ClBankle s DAOGlobal Coin ResearchMaiGaming DAOsMagic SquarDcentraland e Merit Circle PavraoAOIlvwumWork and Funding DAOsveld d mesRadicle Gitcoin DtrvelNOuDAOPdite eGDAosSIlon nceUX t 0C0l KliaOPaladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsAbhiunm PonPoladtDIMO BrainDAOGatDAOInstaDappAPI3TomiDAOHop DAOData Anal ysis DAOsThe rphRodketStar FoundationCrunchDAODapp RadBkery DAO a r DAOs

- High of 9/10

Figure 3: This graph illustrates the decentralization scores of various DAOs, with scores ranging from 1 to 10. The average decentralization score across all DAOs is 4.25, with the highest score being 9 and the lowest being 1. The data shows a wide distribution of decentralization levels among the DAOs, indicating significant variability in how decentralized these organizations are.

# Attack Resistance

- Average Score of 3.65/10

• High of 9/10 Attack Resistance • Low of 0/10 10 9 ManntleDecubateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFingerprintsArt and Culture DAOsSupreRari FoundationBto Rly MoodaaDAO Tools groseSN3UMAGalaxe0rs Decentral ized Finance DAOsMakerDAO ova (O Olympus DAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentralized Sdence DAOsResearchHubHDDAOVitaDAOMAOData LakeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSed clubPush ProtocolBankle s DAOGlobal Coin ResearchMaail3Gaming DAOsMae r Dcentral and e Merit Circle ParagonsDAO Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDatavelNoDAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSIln anceUX oCOlK l imaDAO Paladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsArbitrumPolygonPolkeadt DIMO BrainDAOGelato DAO AP13TomiDAOHop DAOData Anal y s i DAOsThe GraphRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAODepda ddBkery DAO a r DAOs

Figure 4: This graph shows the attack resistance scores of various DAOs, with scores ranging from 0 to 10. The average score is 3.65, with the highest score being 9 and the

Version 10.0 - May 2024

lowest being 0. The data reveals a broad range of attack resistance across the DAOs, indicating that some are highly resistant to attacks, while others are much more vulnerable.

Governance 10 MantleDecubateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFingerprintsArt and Culture DAOsSuperRareRari FoundationBotto Rally ModaDAO ToolsGnosis SN3UMA Galaxe os D e cntralized Finance DAOsMakerDAO ODO Olympus DAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentralizedSdenc DAOsResearchHubHaiDDAOVitaDAOMoonDAOData LakeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSeed ClubPush ProtocolBankle s DAOGlobal Coin ResearchMai3Gaming DAOsMagic SquarDcentral and e Merit Circle Parag onsDAO Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDravelNounsDAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSilo FinanceUXD Protocol KlimaDAOPaladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsArbitrum PolygonPolkadotDIMO BrainDAOGelato DAOInstaDappAPI3TomiDAOHop DAOData Anal ysis DAOsThe GraphRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAODapp RadarBakery DAO DAOs

Figure 5: This graph presents the governance scores of various DAOs, with scores ranging from 0 to 10. The data indicates that there is considerable variation in governance quality among the DAOs, with some scoring as high as 9 while others score much lower. This suggests that while some DAOs have strong governance structures in place, others may need to improve their governance mechanisms to achieve better organizational performance and reliability.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Regulatory Compliance

- Average Score of 3.22/10

- High of 9/10

Reg ulatory Compliance 10 ManteDecubateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFingerprintsArt and Culture DAOsSupaareRari FoundationBt Raly ModaDAO Toolsbnosis SN3UMA Galaxe 0s Decentral ized Finance DAOsMaDAO Qj DAO Olympus DAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentralized Scenoe DAOsResearchHubHaiDAOVitaDDAOMoonDAOData LakeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSed clubPush ProtocolBanl BeDAoGlobal Coin ResearchMaiGaming DAOsMagic SquarDcentraland e Merit Circle ParagonsDAO Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDtraevelNODAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSilo FinanceUXt ocoOl KlimaDAOPaladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsArbitrum PolygonPol adotOIMO BraDAOGelato DAO API3TomiDAOH DAOData Analysis DAOsThe rphRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAODapp RadarBakery DAO DAOs

- Low of 1/10

Figure 6: This graph displays the regulatory compliance scores of various DAOs, with scores ranging from 1 to 10. The average score is 3.22, with the highest score being 9 and the lowest score being 1. The distribution of scores suggests that many DAOs struggle with regulatory compliance, with only a few achieving higher scores. This indicates that regulatory compliance is a challenging area for many DAOs, and there is significant room for improvement across the sector.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Work to Earn Work to Eam 10 9 8 7 6 5 • Average Score of 4.1/10 • High of 9/10 • Low of 1/10 MmanteenatApeCoinMear rnture Art and Culture DAOsSuprnreRari Foundationgt Raly MdaDAoo ols groig UAGalaxe Decentralized Finance DAOsMakerDAO Qi DAO AaveGoldfinchDAODecentral ized Sdence DAOsResearchHubHairDAOVtaAOMoDODa exa Seed CubPushtd cdlBankle s DAOGlobal Coin ResearchMRRIcam DAOsMaec ereDeeeeland Merit Circle ParseAO Work and Funding DAOsVved i aesRadidaeGto l nealNonDAOPol i tcal/Greater G o d DAOsSl n nceUX CO0I Plein Infrastructure DAOshunm uoBApn pdexd OMMO gvuDA ddege�sup)AldETomDAOH dDAO ee apnRocketStar FoundationCrunchDAOJaepapdearBay BeAoO Media and Comm DAOs

Figure 7: This graph illustrates the "Work to Earn" scores for various DAOs, with values ranging from 1 to 10. The average score across all DAOs is 4.1, with the highest score being 9 and the lowest score being 1. The distribution of scores indicates that there is a moderate level of effectiveness in the work-to-earn mechanisms across most DAOs, with some performing significantly better than others. This variability suggests that while some DAOs have well-developed systems for rewarding work, others may need to improve their structures to enhance incentives for contributors.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Organizational Communication

Organizational Communication • Average Score of 4.32/10 • High of 10/10 • Low of 1/10 Invt DAOsMantieDecuateApeCoinMetacartel VentureFnerrnitsArt and Culture DAOsSuprareRari FoundationBtl ModaDAO ToolsGnosis SN3UMA Galaxe os Decentralized Finance DAOsMaeDAO Qi DAO Oly uuAOAaveGoldfinch DAODecentralized Sdence DAOsResearchHubHaiOAO VtaDAO MoonDAOData eeMedi a nd Co m unication DAOsSeed ClubPush ProtocolBans s DAoGlobal Coin ResearchMaiIGaming DAOs Magic SquarDcene e t andMerit Circle ParagonsDAO Work and Funding DAOsYield Guild GamesRadicleGitcoinDtrevelNnDAPol i tcal/Greater G o SIlen anced DAOs UXD Protocol KlimaDAOPaladin Pool TogetherInfrastructure DAOsAbhtum Pdlkxadot DIMO BrainDAOGetDAO API3TomlDAO Hp DA Data Anal ysis DAOsThee rphRodketStar FoundationCnthDAODaepdearBakery DAO DAOs

Figure 8: This graph depicts the organizational communication scores of various DAOs, with scores ranging from 1 to 10. The average score is 4.32, indicating a moderate level of effectiveness in communication across these organizations. The highest score is 10, showing that some DAOs excel in this area, while the lowest score is 1, suggesting significant room for improvement in others. The distribution of scores highlights the variability in how well DAOs communicate within their organizations, impacting their overall coordination and efficiency.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Investment DAOs Fingerprints Meta cartel Venture ApeCoin Decubate Mantle 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Complia nce Governance Attack Resistance Decentral izat ion

Figure 9: This graph compares the scores of five Investment DAOs (Fingerprints, Metacartel Venture, ApeCoin, Decubate, and Mantle) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Each DAO exhibits a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses. For instance, Metacartel Venture has high decentralization and organizational communication scores, while Fingerprints excels in regulatory compliance and governance. In contrast, ApeCoin shows balanced scores across most categories but has lower decentralization. Decubate and Mantle demonstrate varied performance, with Decubate scoring higher in governance and organizational communication, whereas Mantle has a more balanced yet lower overall score. This comparison highlights the diverse capabilities and focus areas within Investment DAOs.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Art and Culture DAOs Moda Rally Botto Rari Foundation SuperRare 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Compliance Governance Attack Resistance Decentral izat ion

Figure 10: This graph compares the scores of five Art and Culture DAOs (Moda, Rally, Botto, Rari Foundation, and SuperRare) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Moda shows a balanced profile with moderate scores in most categories, while Rally excels in organizational communication but lags in decentralization and regulatory compliance. Botto has high scores in decentralization and work to earn but lower scores in other areas. Rari Foundation stands out in organizational communication and work to earn but falls short in attack resistance. SuperRare displays a high level of decentralization and organizational communication but lower scores in governance and attack resistance. This analysis highlights the diverse strengths and weaknesses among Art and Culture DAOs, indicating varying levels of focus and development in key operational areas.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

DAO Tools Orbs Galaxe UMA ENS Gnosis 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Compliance Governance Atta ck Resistance Decentralization

Figure 11: This graph compares the performance of five DAO Tools (Orbs, Galaxe, UMA, ENS, and Gnosis) across seven categories: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Orbs and Galaxe exhibit balanced profiles with moderate scores in most categories, though Galaxe has a lower score in governance. UMA shows strong performance in organizational communication and regulatory compliance, but lower in attack resistance. ENS stands out with high regulatory compliance but has lower scores in work to earn and attack resistance. Gnosis shows balanced performance across all categories, with slightly higher scores in decentralization and regulatory compliance. This comparison highlights the diverse capabilities and focus areas among the DAO Tools, indicating varying levels of development and strengths in different operational aspects.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Decentralized Finance DAOs Goldfinch DAO Aave Olympus DAO QiDAO MakerDAO 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulator y Complia nce Governance Attack Resistance Decentralizat ion

Figure 12: This graph evaluates five Decentralized Finance (DeFi) DAOs (Goldfinch DAO, Aave, Olympus DAO, QiDAO, and MakerDAO) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Goldfinch DAO shows balanced scores across all categories, with a slight strength in governance. Aave excels in decentralization and organizational communication but has lower scores in regulatory compliance and attack resistance. Olympus DAO has high decentralization and work-to-earn scores, indicating strong incentives and autonomy, but scores lower in other areas. QiDAO demonstrates a balanced performance with moderate scores in all categories. MakerDAO excels in decentralization and governance but has lower scores in attack resistance and regulatory compliance. This analysis highlights the diverse strengths and areas for improvement among DeFi DAOs, with a particular emphasis on decentralization and governance.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Decentralized Science DAOs Data Lake MoonDAO VitaDAO HairDAO Researchhub 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ula tory Compliance Governance Attack Resistance Decentralizat ion

Figure 13: This graph compares the scores of five Decentralized Science DAOs (Data Lake, MoonDAO, VitaDAO, HairDAO, and Researchhub) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Data Lake exhibits strong performance in organizational communication and decentralization but lower in regulatory compliance and governance. MoonDAO shows balanced scores across all categories, with slightly higher performance in decentralization. VitaDAO excels in work to earn and organizational communication, indicating strong incentive structures and effective communication, but scores lower in regulatory compliance. HairDAO has high regulatory compliance and decentralization scores but lower scores in governance and attack resistance. Researchhub shows balanced scores with slightly higher performance in governance and decentralization, indicating a well-rounded approach to decentralized science. This analysis highlights the varied strengths and focus areas of Decentralized Science DAOs, reflecting their unique approaches to achieving scientific collaboration and innovation.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Media and Communication DAOs Mail3 Global Coin Research Bankless DAO Push Protocol Seedclub 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Regulatory Compliance Governance Attack Resistance Decentral izat ion

Figure 14: This graph evaluates five Media and Communication DAOs (Mail3, Global Coin Research, Bankless DAO, Push Protocol, and Seedclub) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Mail3 shows moderate scores across all categories, with slightly higher performance in organizational communication. Global Coin Research has balanced scores, with a notable strength in organizational communication and decentralization. Bankless DAO stands out with high decentralization and organizational communication scores but lower in attack resistance and regulatory compliance. Push Protocol shows a balanced performance, with relatively high scores in regulatory compliance and governance. Seedclub exhibits strong decentralization and work-to-earn scores but lower in attack resistance and governance. This analysis highlights the varied strengths and areas for improvement among Media and Communication DAOs, with decentralization and organizational communication being key strengths.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Gaming DAOs Illuvium Parag ons DAO Merit Circle Decentral and Magic Square 0 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Regulatory Compliance Governance Attack Resistance Decentralization

Figure 15: This graph evaluates five Gaming DAOs (Illuvium, ParagonsDAO, Merit Circle, Decentraland, and Magic Square) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Illuvium shows balanced scores with moderate performance in most categories, particularly in organizational communication and decentralization. ParagonsDAO has lower scores overall, with slightly higher performance in governance and organizational communication. Merit Circle exhibits balanced and moderate scores across all categories, with a slight edge in decentralization and organizational communication. Decentraland stands out with high scores in decentralization and organizational communication but lower in regulatory compliance and attack resistance. Magic Square shows strong performance in attack resistance and organizational communication but lower scores in other areas. This analysis highlights the strengths and areas for improvement among Gaming DAOs, with decentralization and organizational communication being notable strengths for some DAOs.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Work and Funding DAOs NounsDAO Dtravel Gitcoin Radicle Yield Guild Games 0 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Compliance Governance Attack Resistance Decentralization

Figure 16: This graph compares the performance of five Work and Funding DAOs (NounsDAO, Dtravel, Gitcoin, Radicle, and Yield Guild Games) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. NounsDAO exhibits balanced scores across all categories, with a slight emphasis on decentralization and governance. Dtravel shows strong performance in regulatory compliance and governance but lower in attack resistance and work to earn. Gitcoin excels in regulatory compliance and decentralization but has lower scores in organizational communication and attack resistance. Radicle has high decentralization and governance scores but falls short in attack resistance and regulatory compliance. Yield Guild Games demonstrates strong decentralization and work to earn scores, indicating effective incentive structures, but lower performance in regulatory compliance and governance. This analysis highlights the diverse strengths and focus areas among Work and Funding DAOs, with decentralization being a common strength across most DAOs.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Political/Greater Good DAOs Pool Tog ether Paladin KlimaDAO UXD Protocol Silo Finance 0 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Complia nce Governance Atta ck Resistance Decentralization

Figure 17: This graph evaluates five Political/Greater Good DAOs (Pool Together, Paladin, KlimaDAO, UXD Protocol, and Silo Finance) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Pool Together shows balanced scores across all categories, with slightly higher performance in organizational communication and governance. Paladin has similar balanced scores but excels in decentralization and governance. KlimaDAO demonstrates moderate performance in all areas, with a slight emphasis on regulatory compliance and governance. UXD Protocol stands out with a high score in regulatory compliance but lower scores in decentralization and organizational communication. Silo Finance exhibits balanced scores, with strengths in organizational communication and governance but slightly lower in attack resistance and regulatory compliance. This analysis highlights the varied strengths and focus areas of Political/Greater Good DAOs, with governance and organizational communication being common strengths.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Infrastructure DAOs Hop DAO TomiDAO API3 InstaDapp Gelato DAO BrainDAO DIMO Polkadot Polygon Arbitrum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Organizational Communication Work to Earn Reg ulator y Complia nce Governance Atta ck Resistance Decentralization

Figure 18: This graph evaluates the performance of ten Infrastructure DAOs (Hop DAO, TomiDAO, API3, InstaDapp, Gelato DAO, BrainDAO, DIMO, Polkadot, Polygon, and Arbitrum) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Hop DAO and TomiDAO exhibit balanced profiles with moderate scores across most categories, although TomiDAO excels slightly in decentralization and governance. API3 shows strong performance in decentralization and governance but lower in attack resistance and work to earn. InstaDapp has balanced scores with higher performance in regulatory compliance and governance. Gelato DAO stands out with high scores in attack resistance but lower in organizational communication and governance.

BrainDAO exhibits strong performance in decentralization and attack resistance but falls short in regulatory compliance and work to earn. DIMO has moderate scores across all categories, with a slight emphasis on decentralization and organizational communication. Polkadot, Polygon, and Arbitrum display high scores in most categories, with Polkadot and Polygon excelling in organizational communication and regulatory compliance, while Arbitrum shows strong attack resistance and decentralization. This analysis highlights the diverse strengths and focus areas among Infrastructure DAOs, with decentralization, governance, and regulatory compliance being key strengths for many of these organizations.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Data Analysis DAOs Bakery DAO Dapp Radar CrunchDAO RocketStar Foundation The Graph 0 2 4 6 8 10 Organizational CommunicationWork to Earn Reg ulatory Complia nce Governance ■Attack Resistance Decentralization

Figure 19: This graph evaluates five Data Analysis DAOs (Bakery DAO, Dapp Radar, CrunchDAO, RocketStar Foundation, and The Graph) across seven criteria: Organizational Communication, Work to Earn, Regulatory Compliance, Governance, Attack Resistance, and Decentralization. Bakery DAO shows balanced scores across all categories, with moderate performance in organizational communication and governance. Dapp Radar excels in decentralization but has lower scores in regulatory compliance and attack resistance. CrunchDAO stands out with high scores in decentralization and organizational communication but lower in governance. RocketStar Foundation demonstrates balanced performance with slightly higher scores in organizational communication and decentralization. The Graph shows strong performance in decentralization and attack resistance but lower in regulatory compliance and governance. This analysis highlights the varied strengths and areas for improvement among Data Analysis DAOs, with decentralization and organizational communication being common strengths.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Conclusion

This study introduces a comprehensive scoring metric to evaluate the performance and sustainability of various Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) across six key attributes: Decentralization, Attack Resistance, Governance, Regulatory Compliance, Work to Earn, and Organizational Communication. Each attribute is assessed on a scale of 1 to 10, where higher scores indicate better alignment with the ideals of a sustainable DAO. By analyzing these attributes, we can identify the strengths and weaknesses of DAOs and gain insights into their overall sustainability and effectiveness.

Decentralization is crucial for the equitable distribution of power within a DAO. Higher decentralization scores indicate that power and decision-making are well-distributed among participants, promoting a truly decentralized governance structure. On the other hand, lower scores suggest centralization of authority, potentially undermining the core principles of a DAO.

Attack Resistance measures the ability of a DAO to withstand common security threats, such as 51% attacks or Sybil attacks. High scores in this category reflect robust security mechanisms, such as reputation-based governance and multi-signature wallets, while lower scores indicate vulnerabilities that could compromise the organization's integrity.

Governance assesses the mechanisms in place to ensure effective and sustainable decision-making. DAOs with high governance scores typically implement advanced voting systems and incentive structures that prevent governance failures and align individual interests with the overall health of the organization. Conversely, lower scores highlight the need for improved governance protocols to avoid potential centralization and inefficiencies.

Regulatory Compliance evaluates how well a DAO adheres to relevant legal frameworks. High scores in this area indicate the use of appropriate legal structures and compliance with jurisdictional regulations, essential for the DAO's legitimacy and ability to interact with real-world entities. Low scores suggest a lack of legal recognition and potential risks associated with regulatory non-compliance.

Work to Earn measures the opportunities available for individuals to contribute to the DAO and earn rewards. High scores reflect well-defined mechanisms for rewarding contributions, such as bounty systems and reputation-based reward distribution, ensuring that contributors are fairly compensated for their efforts. Lower scores indicate limited opportunities and unclear incentive structures, which could hinder member engagement and participation.

Organizational Communication assesses the effectiveness of communication within the DAO. High scores denote the use of dedicated platforms that facilitate meaningful discussions and collaborations, encouraging active member participation. Lower scores suggest reliance on third-party platforms and a lack of incentives for engagement, which can impair the organization's overall coordination and efficiency.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

The descriptive statistics and visual representations provided offer a detailed view of the performance landscape for DAOs across different sectors. For instance, DeScience and Data Analysis DAOs generally score higher in overall performance metrics, while Investment and Art and Culture DAOs exhibit unique profiles of strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, detailed graphs illustrate specific attributes like decentralization, attack resistance, governance, and regulatory compliance, highlighting the variability in performance among different DAOs.

The analysis of these attributes reveals significant variability in the decentralization, security, governance, regulatory compliance, work incentives, and communication effectiveness of DAOs. Some DAOs excel in particular areas while others need substantial improvement, emphasizing the diverse approaches and developmental stages of DAOs across industries.

This comprehensive evaluation framework aims to provide a structured approach to understanding the key characteristics that contribute to the success or failure of decentralized organizations. By identifying areas for improvement and leveraging strengths, DAOs can enhance their sustainability and effectiveness, fostering a more robust and resilient ecosystem in the decentralized landscape.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

APPENDIX A: DAO Dataset

All DAOs that were used in this dataset are listed and generically described below .

# **ResearchHub**

ResearchHub is a decentralized platform that leverages blockchain for scientific research, sharing, and funding. It plans to distribute editorial powers to top users, indicating moderate decentralization (D: 4). The platform needs more robust defenses against common DAO attacks (A: 4). ResearchHub has an evolving tokenized reputation system, but centralization risk persists (G: 6) . It operates as a privately held corporation and is not registered as a DAO (R: 4). Nonetheless, it has a strong model for reputation and token rewards aligned with user contributions (W: 8) and facilitates structured discussions effectively (O: 7).

# **HairDAO**

HairDAO leverages the Ethereum blockchain for democratic participation in the hair care industry. It boasts a high level of decentralization through Ethereum and democratic token distribution (D: 8) . However, it still needs to improve its defenses against token hoarding despite using a multi-sig wallet (A: 4). Governance remains somewhat centralized as voting tokens are purchasable (G: 4), although it is legally robust, being registered in Wyoming (R: 9) . The DAO rewards contributions with $HAIR tokens but lacks nuance in assessing the quality of contributions (W: 6). Communication within the DAO is facilitated via Discord, though there's room for better integration of tools to ensure all voices are heard (O: 6).

# **VitaDAO**

VitaDAO is an Ethereum-based DAO designed to democratize participation in biomedical research decision-making. It operates with high decentralization and encourages wide community involvement (D: 8) . The DAO employs NFTs to protect intellectual property and benefits from Ethereum's security (A: 7). Its governance structure is robust, encouraging community debate before voting (G: 8) . Although it employs novel approaches for IP with NFTs, regulatory guidelines need to be clearer across jurisdictions (R: 6). Researchers earn VITA tokens for their contributions, aligning with the DAO’s goals, but incentives could be improved (W: 7) . VitaDAO uses Discord and forums to facilitate transparent and inclusive governance discussions (O: 8).

# **MoonDAO**

MoonDAO combines various governance structures, balancing power across groups but maintaining some centralized elements like a Senate and Executive Branch, resulting in moderate decentralization (D: 4) . Despite using governance tokens and staking to

Version 10.0 - May 2024

distribute power, some attack vulnerabilities persist (A: 6). The governance structure aims for democratic balance but the fixed token supply could result in centralized power over time (G: 4) . Regulatory compliance is weak as it operates under LuckDAO Limited without comprehensive strategies across jurisdictions (R: 3). Token earnings via projects and governance are currently limited and benefit existing holders (W: 4) . The DAO holds regular meetings for transparency but relies significantly on third-party platforms (O: 6).

# **Data Lake**

Data Lake leverages blockchain technology to decentralize medical data management, focusing on access and consent (D: 4) . It uses blockchain for security but could improve defenses against sophisticated attacks (A: 6). The governance contains some centralization, with strategic decisions led by the founders, but aims for token-based community voting (G: 5) . Being organized in Poland, Data Lake complies with EU data privacy laws such as GDPR (R: 7). The DAO incentivizes data-sharing participation with $LAKE tokens, creating a sustainable ecosystem (W: 7) . It facilitates communication between researchers and providers effectively but could expand community tools (O: 6).

# **Gelato DAO**

Gelato DAO is the governance framework overseeing the Gelato protocol, facilitating automated smart contract executions on Ethereum. It is highly centralized as users must purchase governance tokens to vote, limiting power to majority token holders (D: 1). The platform is highly vulnerable to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to the purchasable governance tokens (A: 1). Governance favors majority token holders and could benefit from incorporating a reputation-based system and incentives (G: 1). Regulatory compliance is ensured through a GmbH (LLC equivalent) but lacks jurisdictional clarity (R: 5). While it allows staking for the right to earn fees, the system lacks nuanced, reputation-based token distribution (W: 3). Communication is facilitated through both DAO-run and third-party forums, but incentives for rewarding meaningful content are absent (O: 4).

# **Instadapp**

Instadapp is a DeFi platform offering simplified tools for interacting with Ethereum’s DeFi protocols. The governance is centralized as users must purchase governance tokens, giving majority power to token holders (D: 1). It remains highly vulnerable to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to the governance token model (A: 1). Governance also favors majority token holders and lacks incentives tied to a reputation-based system (G: 1). It employs an LLC legal wrapper, but the jurisdiction is unknown (R: 4). Users can participate in a bug bounty program with fixed payouts, providing better work-to-earn opportunities than other DAOs in this list (W: 4). Communication is

Version 10.0 - May 2024

structured through both DAO-run and third-party forums but could be enhanced by incentivizing valuable contributions (O: 4).

# **API3**

API3 is a decentralized oracle solution designed to bridge real-world data with blockchain smart contracts. Despite its innovative approach, governance is centralized, requiring users to purchase governance tokens (D: 1). While token staking offers some security, it is inadequate to prevent centralization and governance token accumulation (A: 2). Governance is similarly centralized, favoring major token holders and lacking a reputation-based system (G: 1). It operates under a Cayman Islands foundation, necessitating a physical office (R: 5). Users can earn via inflationary staking rewards, but there is room for improvement in terms of reputation-based distribution (W: 3). Like others, it uses both DAO-run and third-party forums for communication, though there are no significant incentives for rewarding meaningful content (O: 4)

# **TomiDAO**

TomiDAO is focused on governance and participation in the TOMI DeFi ecosystem on Ethereum. With a one-person, one-vote structure and small centralized committees, it maintains moderate decentralization (D: 5). The one-person, one-vote model increases resistance to 51% and sock puppet attacks (A: 6). Governance could still improve with a reputation-based system, staking, and salary incentives (G: 5). The lack of a legal wrapper poses substantial risks, as it could be deemed a partnership by estoppel if sued (R: 1). In terms of work-to-earn, it allows bug bounty participation with fixed payouts, but the system lacks reputation-based distribution (W: 4). The DAO uses third-party forums for communication, which could be enhanced by creating internal systems to reward valuable content (O: 4).

# **Hop DAO**

Hop DAO focuses on cross-chain interoperability and liquidity provisioning. Its governance is highly centralized, as users must purchase governance tokens, limiting power to majority token holders (D: 1). It remains highly susceptible to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to the purchased governance tokens (A: 1). The governance structure favors majority token holders, indicating a need for a reputation-based system and incentives (G: 1). Lacking a legal wrapper, it is at risk of being deemed a partnership by estoppel in legal disputes (R: 1). The DAO does not offer paid work opportunities for participants, stifling engagement (W: 1). Communication happens through both DAO-run and third-party forums, but there are no incentives to encourage meaningful content creation (O: 3).

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **Magic Square**

Magic Square is an algorithmic trading and investment strategies DAO that leverages collective intelligence. The DAO aims to distribute power, but there are risks of centralization in the validation process (D: 4). It has some security measures, but potential vulnerabilities exist in the concentration of power among its validators (A: 4) . The governance structure lacks detailed mechanisms to prevent common failures such as tyranny of the majority or tragedy of the commons (G: 4). Although efforts have been made for regulatory compliance, detailed information on legal status and compliance is lacking (R: 3). While there are opportunities for developers and validators to earn, the lack of specifics on outsourcing limits these opportunities (W: 5). Organizational communication exists, but its effectiveness and responsiveness are unclear (O: 4) .

# **Decentraland**

Decentraland is a virtual world DAO governed by its inhabitants, shaping digital economies and communities. The DAO emphasizes decentralization but lacks details on governance structures and voting mechanisms, leading to moderate decentralization (D: 5) . It has implemented measures like blockchain and decentralized ledgers to enhance attack resistance, but specifics are missing (A: 6). While it has a governance structure, explicit information on the mechanisms to prevent common pitfalls is lacking (G: 5). Regulatory compliance is another weak area, as Decentraland may not have explicit legal recognition or compliance (R: 3). There is potential for monetization, but it lacks specific implementation details or success data (W: 4). Communication focuses on technical and economic aspects but lacks detail on communication tools or processes (O: 4) .

# **Merit Circle**

Merit Circle is a DAO supporting philanthropic endeavors and incentivizing positive contributions. It provides a foundational framework for decentralization but lacks detailed information on voting power distribution and risk mitigation (D: 5) . The role of the $BEAM token is highlighted, but explicit information on security protocols or measures against attacks is missing (A: 4). Positive elements like tokenholder voting are present, but detailed mechanisms to mitigate common risks are lacking (G: 5). Though the DAO considers compliance to some extent, it lacks deep details on legal status or compliance steps (R: 4). The "Work to Earn" model is general and lacks specifics on the process, transparency, and inclusivity of opportunities (W: 5). Though a resource hub is mentioned, detailed information on communication tools or platforms is absent (O: 4) .

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **ParagonsDAO**

ParagonsDAO focuses on bridging traditional and decentralized finance through asset tokenization and management. The DAO outlines a permissionless lending system but lacks details on decision-making authority and inclusivity, leading to moderate decentralization (D: 4) . It implements permissionless lending and a reputation-based protocol, but the lack of technical implementation specifics reduces attack resistance (A: 5). The governance structure is weak, lacking detailed information on how it addresses common pitfalls (G: 3). Regulatory compliance is also minimal, with no clear indication of addressing compliance or legal recognition (R: 2). Opportunities exist to earn reputation through gameplay, but other avenues are not explicitly mentioned (W: 4). Communication protocols or platforms for member discussion are not explicitly outlined (O: 3) .

# **Illuvium**

Illuvium pioneers decentralized gaming, redefines the gaming experience through player-owned economies and community-driven development. Though the liquidity mining program aims to distribute tokens, it lacks clarity on voting power distribution and centralization risks (D: 5) . Decentralized governance and the use of blockchain provide some resistance to attacks, but specific details on security measures are missing (A: 4). Governance shows commitment to community involvement but lacks detailed mechanisms to address common failures (G: 4). There is limited information on legal recognition and interactions with real-world entities, affecting regulatory compliance (R: 2). While there are opportunities to propose and work on projects, the DAO lacks specifics on accessibility and inclusivity (W: 5). Illuvium prioritizes community involvement and transparency but lacks detailed information on communication tools and processes (O: 5) .

# **ENS (Ethereum Name Service)**

ENS (Ethereum Name Service) is a distributed naming system built on the Ethereum blockchain that provides human-readable names for Ethereum addresses. Its structure and working groups promote decentralized decision-making, although the presence of a Cayman Islands foundation and core team members introduces some centralization (D: 6). Utilizing off-chain voting through the Snapshot platform aligns with the "1 person, 1 vote" principle, but it lacks extensive details on defense mechanisms against specific attack vectors (A: 5). The governance structure, while participative through executable proposals and working groups, lacks explicit reputational governance mechanisms and incentives (G: 5). The Cayman Islands foundation provides a legal wrapper, but the connection between the legal structure and internal governance is unclear (R: 5). Contributors can engage through working groups and steward roles, yet detailed token-based reputation systems or explicit work-to-earn incentives are absent (W: 4).

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Communication is facilitated through forums and open discussion platforms, but lacks formal token-based incentivization for participation (O: 5).

# **Gnosis**

Gnosis is a platform for creating and trading prediction markets, enabling speculation on event outcomes. It utilizes a diverse validator set and encourages community participation in governance, projecting a high level of decentralization tempered by the influence of the Gnosis Foundation and core team (D: 6). While its large validator set offers some protection against attacks, detailed information on specific attack scenarios or mitigation strategies is lacking (A: 5). The DAO structure enables community members to submit proposals and vote, though discussions on long-term sustainability or reputational incentives are minimal (G: 6). As a decentralized platform with potential for legal recognition, Gnosis navigates the regulatory landscape effectively (R: 7). Users can participate in governance and benefit from prediction market success, though explicit work-to-earn programs or incentives are limited (W: 4). Forums and channels facilitate community discussion, but token-based incentivization for participation is absent (O: 5).

# **UMA (Universal Market Access)**

UMA is a decentralized platform that enables the creation of financial contracts and synthetic assets on Ethereum. It facilitates decentralized financial contracts without relying on centralized intermediaries, although the influence of its core team and a U.S.-based legal entity suggests incomplete decentralization (D: 5). Economic incentives and the Data Verification Mechanism (DVM) help mitigate risks, but a more detailed quantitative analysis of potential attack vectors is needed (A: 5). The governance model includes token voting and DVM, although it lacks an in-depth discussion of long-term sustainability and resilience (G: 5). The U.S.-based legal entity provides some regulatory clarity, but compliance with various jurisdictions' laws is uncertain due to the evolving landscape (R: 4). Users can earn rewards by creating and providing liquidity to contracts or participating in dispute resolution, but explicit work-to-earn programs or incentive structures are missing (W: 3). Communication channels exist to inform and engage the community, but token-based incentives for participation are not in place (O: 5).

# **Galaxe**

Galaxe is a decentralized identity protocol that leverages zero-knowledge proofs and verifiable credentials for secure, private identity management. It employs decentralized architecture and allows users to store identity data locally, but some centralized components persist (D: 5). While zero-knowledge proofs and blinded credentials provide strong privacy protection, more detailed analysis of potential attack scenarios

Version 10.0 - May 2024

and countermeasures is needed (A: 4). The high-level governance process involves community participation but lacks detailed mechanisms for proposing, debating, and implementing changes (G: 2). Emphasis on user control and privacy may conflict with various regulatory requirements, presenting significant compliance challenges (R: 1). Users can potentially monetize identity data by selectively sharing with third parties, but structured work-to-earn programs or incentive mechanisms are insufficient (W: 2). Communication channels exist to inform the community and facilitate discussions, though explicit token-based participation incentives are absent (O: 4).

# **Orbs**

Orbs is a public blockchain infrastructure that supports large-scale decentralized applications and interoperability with EVM-based Layer 1 blockchains. It relies on a decentralized set of permissionless validators to promote an open and inclusive ecosystem, although the role of the Orbs team in appointing block producers suggests some centralization (D: 5). It employs the Randomized Proof-of-Stake consensus and a large validator set to enhance network resilience, but greater analysis of specific attack vectors and defense mechanisms is necessary (A: 5). Governance tools like the Orbs Voting Weight mechanism facilitate stakeholder participation, but a comprehensive governance model is lacking (G: 4). The focus on public blockchain infrastructure and integration with various Layer 1 networks subjects the DAO to complex regulatory requirements across jurisdictions (R: 4). Validators and delegators can earn rewards for securing the network and participating in consensus, but explicit work-to-earn programs or incentive mechanisms for contributors are missing (W: 3). Communication channels aim to inform stakeholders and facilitate discussions, yet lack clear token-based incentives for participation (O: 4).

# **Maker DAO**

Maker DAO is a decentralized finance platform focused on creating and managing the stablecoin DAI. Its decentralization efforts are hindered by its bootstrap to the Maker Foundation and the purchasable nature of the governance token (D: 3). Built-in protections like oracles, keepers, 2-step voting, and emergency shutdowns bolster its security, but it remains vulnerable to 51% attacks due to the purchasable governance token (A: 4). The governance process includes 2-step voting with temperature checks, but the purchasable governance token makes true decentralization nominal (G: 4). Maker DAO lacks separation from its founding entity, providing no compatible legal wrapper for DAOs and possibly being based in Denmark (R: 1). There are no work-to-earn opportunities, with DAI or MKR only obtainable through investment (W: 2). Although the DAO has its own forums with substantial participation and sub-forums, it lacks a reputation system for participation (O: 4) .

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **Qi DAO**

Qi DAO is a decentralized finance platform aimed at stabilizing the stablecoin MAI. Despite its claims that Qi can be received through participation and work, the documentation is unclear and not transparent, affecting its decentralization score (D: 5). Community voting is based on Qi holdings, with no apparent defense against 51% attacks, although it may resist sockpuppet attacks if holders are unwilling to sell (A: 2). The platform lacks a reputation system, 2-step voting, and clear payouts based on Qi holdings; it only offers proportional voting through Snapshot (G: 3). The founders are anonymous, and there is no information indicating a legal entity (R: 1). Work-to-earn opportunities are claimed but unclear, and profits can be withheld (W: 3). Communication is limited to Discord, with no differentiation of members based on participation and no engagement measurement (O: 2) .

# **Olympus DAO**

Olympus DAO is a decentralized reserve currency protocol. While the governance council leads rather than votes, and emergency status guardians are appointed, governance tokens are obtained through investment, leading to a fairly decentralized structure (D: 6). It has a transparent voting process using 2-step voting, staking on votes, and Snapshot, but the voting power is purchasable by wrapping assets (A: 4). The governance token, gOHM, is used for loans but remains purchasable, making the governance process somewhat transparent but centralized (G: 3). Without legal registration, Olympus DAO relies on anonymity to avoid legal action (R: 1). The DAO does not offer work-to-earn opportunities, as gOHM is purchased rather than earned through working (W: 1). Forums are used primarily for voting, and discussion predominantly occurs on Discord without reputation for discussion (O: 3) .

# **Aave**

Aave is a decentralized lending platform. It maintains a high level of decentralization; contributors are welcome to join groups, work on the Protocol, or complete bounties. However, delegation and community-elected guardians can centralize power to some extent (D: 7). The governance involves 2-step voting, proportional voting, and guardians with vetoes, providing some protection despite its vulnerability to 51% attacks (A: 4). Governance is not reputation-based, as the tokens can be purchased, reducing the overall effectiveness of decentralization (G: 2). The DAO lacks a legal wrapper, and although a proposal to add a Cayman Foundation failed, the Cayman Islands' crypto-friendliness adds a slight advantage (R: 2). Bounties are available within Aave, allowing profit through work, though there is no general structure for payouts or work-to-earn opportunities (W: 5). Communication is strong, using Discord, Snapshot, and Aave forums with impressive community engagement, yet lacking measures for engagement or reputation (O: 5) .

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **Goldfinch DAO**

Goldfinch DAO is a decentralized credit platform. It allows open investing and borrowing, awarding GFI to investors, yet the Goldfinch Council has the final say on any vote, balancing community input with centralized decision-making (D: 3). The council's veto power offers resistance to external attacks but risks internal corruption, and quadratic voting is used for community decisions (A: 5). The governance process involves all community votes being reviewed by the council, which is not democratically elected (G: 2). There is no apparent legal wrapper, making it likely susceptible to joint and several liability if sued, given its founding in California (R: 1). The DAO provides tokens akin to investments, awarding GFI for work in the past, but no regular payouts exist for holding GFI (W: 3). Communication occurs on Discord, Twitter, and Snapshot, yet there is no metric for assessing community engagement or differentiating contributors (O: 2) .

# **Seed Club**

Seed Club serves as a collaborative and educational hub, nurturing decentralized communities through cohort-based programs. It scores moderately in decentralization, with governance largely steered by the community through the $CLUB token, though preferential token allocation and elevated member statuses introduce some centralizing factors (D: 6). While the decentralized voting process is a positive feature, the lack of clarity on specific protective measures against token accumulation leaves attack defenses ambiguous (A: 5). Governance revolves around the $CLUB token, distributing voting power based on ownership rather than the "one person, one vote" principle (G: 5). The DAO offers no disclosed information regarding the implementation of a legal wrapper (R: 1). Participants are rewarded with $CLUB tokens, aligning incentives with contributions, but the absence of a specialized reputation system limits the recognition of nuanced contributions (W: 7). Organizational communication is encouraged through $CLUB token rewards, town hall meetings, and governance conversations, but access to exclusive channels is controlled by token ownership (O: 5).

# **Push Protocol**

Push Protocol is a decentralized communication network for the web3 universe, facilitating notifications triggered by on-chain and off-chain activities. Despite aiming for community involvement with $PUSH token governance, centralization concerns arise from the power held by PUSH Delegatees and potential token concentration through market purchases (D: 4). Its resilience is undermined by the fungible, publicly tradable $PUSH tokens, which expose it to risks such as 51% attacks (A: 2). Governance processes are vulnerable to centralizing decision-making power due to the lack of a dual voting system, leaving the protocol imbalanced and favoring larger token holders

Version 10.0 - May 2024

(G: 3). Although it hints at a formal legal entity in adherence to Singapore's regulations, transparent information on its legal wrapper or alignment with specific DAO stipulations is missing (R: 4). It offers earning potential through a grant system and community-led initiatives, but the clarity on grant distribution is still nascent (W: 5). The protocol engages its community across multiple digital platforms, showing strategic evolution, but lacks a system to formally recognize and reward individual efforts within forums (O: 6).

# **Bankless DAO**

Bankless DAO is a global collective focused on creating and disseminating media and educational content to empower individuals in a banking-free world. Its token-weighted voting and contributor levels based on BANK token ownership introduce barriers to entry and potential for power concentration, partially offsetting decentralization (D: 4). Though token-weighted voting could lead to potential power concentration and vulnerability to 51% attacks, transparency and community-driven processes offer some resilience (A: 4). The tiered membership model ties rights and influence to token holdings, creating an imbalance and centralization element in its governance (G: 4). The DAO operates without a legal wrapper, lacking a legal structure to formalize operations and define regulatory compliance interactions (R: 1). Members earn BANK tokens for project participation in a meritocratic model, supported by the ecosystem's funding structure and membership hierarchy (W: 6). Organizational communication utilizes a multilayered approach with Discord and forums, where access and discussion depth are stratified by token ownership (O: 5).

# **Global Coin Research**

Global Coin Research is a research and investment-focused DAO providing resources, insights, events, learning opportunities, and direct involvement in deal-flow. Despite substantial token allocation for community-driven endeavors and multisig treasury management, open market token purchases and a tiered access model could lead to power imbalances (D: 4). Purchasable governance tokens may skew power dynamics and increase vulnerability to attacks like 51%, although the community-managed treasury provides some defense (A: 3). Governance is primarily directed towards community initiatives, but the ability to acquire voting power through purchases risks centralizing governance (G: 4). The DAO operates without transparently disclosing its use of legal frameworks or protective measures such as a legal wrapper (R: 1). Active involvement is rewarded with incentives like research access and investment opportunities, yet a more nuanced approach recognizing individual reputation and expertise is needed (W: 5). The multi-platform strategy enables dialogue and cooperative action but may restrict participation in pivotal debates due to tiered membership based on token holdings (O: 6).

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# **Mail3**

Mail3 is a foundational framework for web3 communications, serving as a hub for social metrics like relationships, reputation, and trust. While it supports a decentralized communication system across blockchains, a lack of detailed explanations about user involvement in wider governance raises centralization questions (D: 3). Although encrypted data and a decentralized network suggest inherent resistance to some attacks, the scarcity of explicit defense mechanisms lowers confidence (A: 3). The Postoffice DAO initiative indicates a drive towards decentralized governance, but vagueness about token allotment and centralization countermeasures casts uncertainty (G: 2). The absence of available information regarding a legal framework and legal wrapper complicates the assessment of regulatory compliance alignment (R: 1). The "Communicate to Earn" model points to a unique incentive framework, but the lack of clarity on the quantification and impact of contributions raises questions (W: 2). Specific tools and processes for internal DAO communication, collaborative decisions, and feedback loops are not delineated, along with a lack of transparency about engagement strategies (O: 3).

# **Arbitrum**

Arbitrum enhances the speed and cost-effectiveness of Ethereum transactions by providing tools for developers to create accessible dApps using Rollup and AnyTrust protocols. The DAO allows anyone to submit and vote on proposals, achieving a high degree of decentralization, but the presence of committees suggests potential for further decentralization (D: 7) . The tiered voting system incorporating temperature checks and token holder percentages robustly defends against common DAO attacks (A: 8) . Governance sustainability is facilitated by decentralized proposals and a Security Committee, though the presence of committees slightly impacts long-term sustainability (G: 8) . Regulatory compliance is well-managed within a Cayman Islands Foundation framework, ensuring adherence to legal standards (R: 8) . However, the 'Work to Earn' framework is limited, offering few incentives beyond coin contributions (W: 4) . Communication relies on its own platform supplemented by third-party services, which could be improved to facilitate meaningful discussions (O: 5) .

# **Polygon**

Polygon is a Layer 2 blockchain built on Ethereum, leveraging Proof of Stake and ZK rollup technology for scaled, cost-effective, and rapid transactions. The DAO permits any member to propose and comment on issues but final decisions are made by a select committee, which results in moderate decentralization (D: 5) . Although lacking a tiered voting system, the extensive discussion process potentially limits common exploits (A: 7) . Governance is less sustainable with limited member contribution and the absence of multi-level voting (G: 5) . Regulatory compliance is robust, structured as

Version 10.0 - May 2024

a Cayman Islands Foundation with a comprehensive privacy policy (R: 8) . There are limited opportunities to work and earn within the DAO, with few avenues beyond specific job roles and contributing to Polygon Improvement Proposals (PIPs) (W: 4) . Organizational communication excels with a very active community forum and dynamic discussions (O: 9) .

# **Polkadot**

Polkadot is a fully sharded, layer 0 blockchain that provides the foundation and security for specialized-application layer 1 parachains. The governance model includes elected officials proposing referenda and exercising veto power, with DOT token holders voting, which limits wider decentralization (D: 5) . While active DOT token holders secure the network and collect rewards by staking, the implementation lacks details on tiered voting mechanisms (A: 7) . Governance is somewhat compromised, lacking measures to counteract common failures and exhibiting potential for tyranny due to the power of elected officials (G: 5) . Polkadot is based in Switzerland but offers minimal information on adherence to broader regulatory standards (R: 4) . Work-to-earn opportunities are limited, with few incentives beyond full-time roles or hosting meetups (W: 3) . Organizational communication relies on third-party platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and Discord, and lacks independent forums for structured discussions (O: 5) .

# **DIMO**

DIMO is an open-source, community-governed protocol for vehicles and IoT devices, merging web2 technologies with decentralized data validity on Polygon. It operates in a very centralized manner, with a standard organizational chart and no real decentralization mechanisms (D: 2) . The project lacks specific details on attack resistance due to its centralized nature, making it difficult to evaluate (A: 1) . Governance is weak, with the platform operating as a centralized entity, potentially making it more susceptible to organizational failures (G: 2) . Regulatory compliance is somewhat covered by an extensive privacy policy across various jurisdictions, though the exact incorporation location is unclear (R: 5) . Work-to-earn opportunities are severely limited, primarily available to those building software compatible with DIMO (W: 2) . Organizational communication is facilitated through the DIMO network and an active Discord channel, but these remain effective within a centralized context (O: 5) .

# **BrainDAO**

BrainDAO governs the IQ ecosystem, supporting crypto education, research, and analysis tools such as IQ.Wiki, IQ token, and IQ GPT. It leverages a content-liking mechanism for decisions, ensuring that no single entity or small group can exert excessive control while auto-publishing at like thresholds, leading to high decentralization (D: 8) . The decision-making process is vested in token holders,

Version 10.0 - May 2024

offering robust resistance to attacks, but some vulnerabilities remain (A: 8) . Governance is reasonably sustainable, lacking layered voting but supporting a decentralized structure without power concentration (G: 7) . Detailed information on legal structure and compliance measures is hard to find, making regulatory compliance opaque (R: 1) . Favorable conditions exist for contributors to earn IQ tokens for the quality and popularity of their contributions, but they cannot propose software upgrades, limiting broader contributions (W: 7) . The absence of a dedicated discussion platform and poor engagement on third-party accounts hinder meaningful discussions and collaboration (O: 1).

# **Silo Finance**

Silo Finance focuses on De-Fi services leveraging blockchain for permissionless and risk-isolated lending markets. The structure features multiple barriers to entry, with a council holding authority and the centralized ownership by SiloDAO, leading to moderate decentralization (D: 4) . It uses purchasable governance tokens, allowing a few individuals to amass significant control, though token holder voting provides some resistance (A: 2) . The SILO token is used strictly for governance with off-chain voting via Snapshot and Tally, indicating limited sustainability (G: 2) . Registered as an LLC in Texas, it offers some legal protection, but Texas does not recognize DAOs (R: 5) . Silo Finance incentivizes bug identification with varying rewards, but lacks a merit-based system (W: 5) . Organizational communication relies on third-party software like Discord, featuring different channels based on user engagement (O: 5) .

# **UXD Protocol**

UXD Protocol advances user experience design through blockchain collaboration and innovation, dedicated to a non-custodial stable coin on Solana. A small group retains significant control, limiting decentralization (D: 4) . Being newly created, it lacks sufficient measures to mitigate risks and shows no voting mechanism to prevent attacks (A: 1) . The governance structure, uncertain in its infancy, operates using the Solana system (G: 3) . Domiciled in the UAE, it benefits from recent laws offering protection and benefits to DAOs but implementation is yet to be observed (R: 7) . There are no found opportunities for users to perform services or earn a reputation (W: 1) . Limited information on facilitating discussion and participation, relying heavily on third-party software, and engagement channels lack details (O: 2) .

# **Klima DAO**

Klima DAO tackles climate change by incentivizing carbon offsetting initiatives using blockchain. With substantial control retained by the Core Team and barriers for entry, it scores low on decentralization (D: 2) . It uses Snapshot for voting, receiving recognition for token-weighted voting and incentives despite centralization concerns (A: 5) .

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Governance is controlled by the Core Team, with token holders' rights proportional to tokens held, moving slowly towards decentralization (G: 5) . Registered in California, it faces potential treatment as a partnership under existing laws (R: 5) . Work-to-earn opportunities exist for identifying issues or working on tasks, but accountability for merit is lacking (W: 4) . Communication is active through Discord, despite reliance on third-party channels (O: 5) .

# **Paladin**

Paladin enhances De-Fi security by providing decentralized insurance and risk management for crypto assets. It elects small pockets of centralized key players, promoting a balance in power distribution (D: 5) . Users can stake votes and anticipate rewards, although it relies on Snapshot for voting (A: 5) . Governance fosters active participation through delegation mechanisms and safeguards (G: 6) . Organized under French law, it lacks specific DAO statutes but benefits from certain protections under the 1901 statute (R: 6) . Utilizing the Quest method, it incentivizes community engagement although specifics about bug reporting compensation are unclear (W: 4) . Communication is facilitated via Discord and Twitter, emphasizing active member participation (O: 5) .

# **Pool Together**

Pool Together promotes prize savings through pooled user funds with interest accrued going to one winner, encouraging financial inclusion. The Core Team acts as the interim governance body with hierarchy and entry barriers, resulting in low decentralization (D: 1) . Despite having a protocol that indicates strong defense mechanisms, the centralized control poses risks (A: 4) . Governance is determined by the purchasable POOL token, using Snapshot for off-chain voting (G: 1) . Based in New York, it lacks a legal wrapper and operates without specific DAO recognition or tax advantages (R: 1) . There is no information available on work-to-earn opportunities (W: 1) . Communication relies on multiple platforms, including Discord and Twitter, although it lacks incentives for meaningful participation beyond engagement (O: 4).

# **Mantle**

Mantle aims to enhance Ethereum's scalability with an EVM-compatible technology stack. However, it faces significant centralization issues due to heavy moderation and a hierarchical structure based on affiliations (D: 3). Its reliance on purchasable and fungible governance tokens makes it highly vulnerable to attacks, lacking essential defenses like reputational governance and sustainable voting mechanisms (A: 1). The governance system is weak, with token holders able to propose and vote but without key features for sustainability (G: 1). There is no information on the legal wrapper, which affects its regulatory compliance (R: 1). Mantle offers limited opportunities for individuals

Version 10.0 - May 2024

to engage, with its work-to-earn model relying on basic grants (W: 3). Organizational communication is facilitated through third-party software but lacks mechanisms for meaningful discussions or engagement tracking (O: 4).

# **Decubate**

Decubate is a tokenization DAO supporting web3 entrepreneurs, but it fails to uphold decentralization principles, with centralized control pervading the organization (D: 2). The DAO is highly vulnerable to attacks due to reliance on purchasable governance tokens (A: 2). Governance is severely compromised, with decisions driven by purchasing power, leading to power centralization (G: 2). It operates under the Netherlands' legal framework, which provides some regulatory compliance, but navigating regulatory complexities remains challenging (R: 6). While the DAO offers opportunities to contribute and earn rewards, it falls short in recognizing merit proportional to work performed (W: 4). Communication is conducted via Discord, but there are no incentives to engage meaningfully (O: 5).

# **ApeCoin**

ApeCoin fosters web3 culture within the Bored Ape Yacht Club, displaying some decentralized traits but compromised by a centralized committee (D: 5). Governance mechanisms are susceptible to manipulation, with proposal centralization presenting risks (A: 4). Governance attempts to be robust but falls short in fully addressing common failures (G: 4). No legal compliance information is available, impacting transparency (R: 1). Participation in work-to-earn is severely limited, prohibiting outside individuals from involvement (W: 1). Organizational communication relies on third-party platforms, lacking mechanisms to track and reward engagement (O: 4).

# **MetaCartel Ventures**

MetaCartel Ventures supports early-stage dApps and web3 projects through investments and mentorship, exhibiting a centralized decision-making structure (D: 3). It lacks transparency on attack resistance measures, posing potential vulnerabilities (A: 2). Governance information is sparse, affecting transparency and engagement (G: 2). There are no disclosed details on the legal wrapper or jurisdiction (R: 1). Information about work-to-earn processes is missing, limiting transparency (W: 1). Organizational communication is deficient, with efforts needing improvement despite using "Townhalls" (O: 2).

# **FingerPrints DAO**

FingerPrints DAO curates and promotes on-chain artwork but maintains centralized oversight by a committee (D: 5). The DAO is vulnerable to attacks due to purchasable governance tokens, lacking safeguards against token concentration (A: 2). Governance

Version 10.0 - May 2024

is weak, facing significant issues with decentralization and manipulation risks (G: 2). No information on the legal wrapper exists, affecting transparency and compliance (R: 1). Its work-to-earn approach is underdeveloped, introducing centralization and potential biases (W: 2). Efforts in communication are noted but fall short due to the lack of mechanisms to track meaningful discussions (O: 4).

APPENDIX B: DAO Scoring

Set 1

# ResearchHub

Decentralized platform leveraging blockchain for scientific research, sharing, and funding.

- Decentralization: 3, not fully decentralized, plans to distribute editorial powers to top users.

- Attack Resistance: 3, needs to bolster defense against common DAO attacks like Sybil attacks.

- Governance: 5, evolving, tokenized reputation system, but risk of centralization with top contributors.

- Regulatory Compliance: 4, privately held corporation, not registered as a DAO.

- Work To Earn: 7, robust model, users gain reputation and tokens for quality contributions.

- Organizational Communication: 7, facilitates structured discussions, peer reviews, tracks communication in "Hubs".

# HairDAO

DAO using Ethereum blockchain for democratic participation in the hair care industry.

- Decentralization: 7, high level through Ethereum and democratic token distribution.

- Attack Resistance: 3, multi-sig wallet for treasury security, but lacks protections against token hoarding.

- Governance: 3, flexible voting schemes, but voting tokens are purchasable, potentially skewing decisions.

- Regulatory Compliance: 9, registered DAO in Wyoming, allows member anonymity and indemnification.

- Work To Earn: 7, rewards contributions with $HAIR tokens, but lacks nuance for quality/impact.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Organizational Communication: 6, uses Discord, could better integrate tools for equal voice.

# VitaDAO

- Ethereum-based DAO enabling broad participation in biomedical research decision-making. - Decentralization: 8, operates with high decentralization, encouraging wide community involvement.

- Attack Resistance: 7, uses NFTs to protect IP, benefits from Ethereum security and own protocols.

- Governance: 8, strong with formal proposal process encouraging community debate before voting.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, novel NFT approach for IP, but needs clearer guidelines across jurisdictions.

- Work To Earn: 6, researchers earn VITA tokens, aligning with DAO goals, but could improve incentives.

- Organizational Communication: 7, uses Discord and forums for transparent, inclusive governance discussions.

# MoonDAO

DAO with complex governance balancing power across groups, but with some centralized bodies.

- Decentralization: 5, governance model includes centralized Senate and Executive Branch.

- Attack Resistance: 7, governance tokens and staking help distribute power, but some vulnerabilities remain.

- Governance: 4, aims for democratic balance, but fixed token supply could centralize power over time.

- Regulatory Compliance: 2, entity under LuckDAO Limited, lacks comprehensive cross-jurisdiction strategies.

- Work To Earn: 4, earn tokens via projects/governance, but benefits existing holders, limits wider participation.

- Organizational Communication: 7, regular meetings crucial for transparency, but third-party platform reliance.

# Data Lake

Blockchain platform decentralizing medical data management, focused on access and consent.

- Decentralization: 3, aims to decentralize medical data management through blockchain.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Attack Resistance: 6, uses blockchain for security, but room to improve against sophisticated attacks.

- Governance: 5, some centralization in strategic decisions by founders, aims for token-based community voting.

- Regulatory Compliance: 6, organized in Poland, complies with EU data privacy laws like GDPR.

- Work To Earn: 8, $LAKE tokens incentivize data-sharing participation, creating a sustainable ecosystem.

- Organizational Communication: 7, facilitates researcher/provider communication, could expand community tools.

# Set 2

# Gelato DAO

Governance framework overseeing the Gelato protocol for automated smart contract executions on Ethereum.

- Decentralization: 1, users must purchase governance tokens to vote, power limited to majority token holders.

- Attack Resistance: 1, vulnerable to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to purchasable governance tokens.

- Governance: 1, favors majority token holders, could improve with reputation-based system and incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, uses a GmbH (LLC equivalent) legal wrapper, jurisdiction not listed.

- Work To Earn: 4, allows staking for right to earn fees, could improve with reputation-based token distribution.

- Organizational Communication: 4, uses both DAO-run and third-party forums, could reward meaningful content.

# Instadapp

DeFi platform offering tools to simplify interactions with Ethereum DeFi protocols.

- Decentralization: 1, users must purchase governance tokens, power limited to majority token holders.

- Attack Resistance: 1, vulnerable to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to purchasable governance tokens.

- Governance: 1, favors majority token holders, could improve with reputation-based system and incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, uses an LLC legal wrapper, jurisdiction unknown.

- Work To Earn: 5, allows participation in bug bounty program with fixed payouts.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Organizational Communication: 4, uses both DAO-run and third-party forums, could reward meaningful content.

# API3

- Decentralized oracle solution bridging real-world data and blockchain smart contracts.

- Decentralization: 1, users must purchase governance tokens, power limited to majority token holders.

- Attack Resistance: 1, token staking inadequate to prevent governance token accumulation, centralization.

- Governance: 1, favors majority token holders, could improve with reputation-based system and incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, uses Cayman Islands foundation, requires physical office.

- Work To Earn: 3, users can earn via inflationary staking rewards, could improve with reputation-based distribution.

- Organizational Communication: 4, uses both DAO-run and third-party forums, could reward meaningful content.

# TomiDAO

DAO focused on governance and participation in the TOMI DeFi ecosystem on Ethereum.

- Decentralization: 5, one-person, one-vote structure with small centralized committees.

- Attack Resistance: 5, one-person, one-vote structure more resistant to 51% and sock puppet attacks.

- Governance: 5, one-person, one-vote, could improve with reputation-based system, staking, salary incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no legal wrapper, risks being deemed partnership by estoppel if sued.

- Work To Earn: 5, allows bug bounty participation with fixed payouts, could improve with reputation-based distribution.

- Organizational Communication: 3, uses third-party forum, could create internal one rewarding meaningful content.

# Hop DAO

DAO focused on cross-chain interoperability and liquidity provisioning.

- Decentralization: 1, users must purchase governance tokens, power limited to majority token holders.

- Attack Resistance: 1, vulnerable to 51% and sock puppet attacks due to purchasable governance tokens.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Governance: 1, favors majority token holders, could improve with reputation-based system and incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no legal wrapper, risks being deemed partnership by estoppel if sued.

- Work To Earn: 1, does not offer opportunities for participants to contribute paid work.

- Organizational Communication: 4, uses both DAO-run and third-party forums, could reward meaningful content.

# Set 3

# SuperRare

NFT marketplace DAO prioritizing decentralization, community governance, and artist empowerment.

- Decentralization: 5, channels network value to community treasury, overseen by community governance.

- Governance: 5, transparent and adaptable, all token holders participate, governance council ensures security.

- Attack Resistance: 2, vulnerabilities due to lack of preventive measures and token-based governing power.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, concerns arise due to lack of information.

- Work to Earn: 9, incentivizes participation with token allocation, staking rewards, and commissions.

- Organizational Communication: 5, structured approach using Discourse and SIP procedures for inclusive decision-making.

# Rarible

NFT marketplace with $RARI token rewards for engagement, legal entity in Cayman Islands.

- Decentralization: 3, governance primarily revolves around a governor, reflecting centralized decision-making.

- Governance: 3, delegates chosen by token holders wield decision-making power, participation through token locking.

- Attack Resistance: 3, lacks clarity on preventive measures against attacks, focuses on long-term sustainability.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, RARI Foundation provides legal representation, challenges in defining guidelines persist.

- Work to Earn: 2, limited information on incentive programs hinders active participation and growth.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Organizational Communication: 7, community engagement crucial, transparency through RRCs, autonomous initiatives.

# Botto

AI-generated art DAO with weekly voting, minting, and auctioning process.

- Decentralization: 4, transparency in creative process and finances, managed by centralized group of stewards.

- Governance: 4, rigorous process requiring token ownership, governed by non-anonymous board of "Stewards".

- Attack Resistance: 1, lacks clear preventive measures against potential attacks.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no information available regarding compliance measures.

- Work to Earn: 7, stakeholders rewarded for feedback through percentage of artist's earnings, driving improvement.

- Organizational Communication: 5, active member participation in shaping direction through snapshot voting.

# Rally

Platform empowering creators to launch social tokens and NFTs, focusing on sustainability.

- Decentralization: 1, operates with minimal environmental impact using small number of computers.

- Attack Resistance: 4, implements flow control to restrict coin transfer and conversion, ensuring fair transactions.

- Governance: 1, no information available.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no information available.

- Work to Earn: 1, no information available.

- Organizational Communication: 1, no information available.

# MODA DAO

Web3 music community fostering fair, sustainable, and artist-centric progressions in the music industry.

- Decentralization: 5, decentralized structure with team, backers, and partners, separate legal entity for fund management.

- Governance: 5, formal participation requires token ownership, decision-making distributed among organizer working group.

- Attack Resistance: 3, structured into eight separate but equal groups to mitigate centralized control.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, Australian-based, operates without traditional shareholders, utilizes legal wrapper.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Work to Earn: 5, rewards sustainable engagement, reinvests revenue to buy back tokens for rewards pool.

- Organizational Communication: 5, communicates via Snapshot, Discord, and Twitter for voting and announcements.

# Set 4

# Magic Square

Algorithmic trading and investment strategies DAO leveraging collective intelligence.

- Decentralization: 5, aims to distribute power but risks centralization in validation process.

- Attack Resistance: 5, some security measures but potential vulnerabilities in validation and power concentration.

- Governance: 4, lacks detailed mechanisms to prevent common failures like tyranny of majority or tragedy of commons.

- Regulatory Compliance: 4, efforts made but lacks detailed information on legal status and compliance with laws.

- Work to Earn: 6, some opportunities for developers and validators to contribute and earn, but lacks specifics on outsourcing.

- Organizational Communication: 5, infrastructure for interaction exists, but effectiveness and responsiveness unclear.

# Decentraland

Virtual world DAO governed by its inhabitants, shaping digital economies and communities.

- Decentralization: 6, emphasizes decentralization but lacks detail on governance structures and voting mechanisms.

- Attack Resistance: 7, implements measures like blockchain, decentralized ledger, and peer-to-peer networks, but lacks specifics.

- Governance: 5, has governance structure but lacks explicit information on mechanisms to prevent common pitfalls.

- Regulatory Compliance: 3, operates in decentralized virtual world, may not have explicit legal recognition or compliance.

- Work to Earn: 4, mentions potential for monetization but lacks specific examples, implementation details, or success data.

- Organizational Communication: 4, focuses on technical and economic aspects, limited detail on communication tools or processes.

# Merit Circle

DAO supporting philanthropic endeavors and incentivizing positive contributions.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Decentralization: 6, provides foundational framework but lacks detailed information on voting power distribution and risk mitigation.

- Attack Resistance: 5, highlights $BEAM token role but lacks explicit information on security protocols or measures against attacks.

- Governance: 6, has positive elements like tokenholder voting but lacks detailed mechanisms to mitigate common risks.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, considers compliance to some extent but lacks deep details on legal status or compliance steps.

- Work to Earn: 5, provides general overview but lacks specifics on process, transparency, and inclusivity of opportunities.

- Organizational Communication: 4, mentions resource hub and communication importance but lacks details on tools or platforms.

# ParagonsDAO

DAO bridging traditional and decentralized finance through asset tokenization and management.

- Decentralization: 5, outlines permissionless lending system but lacks details on decision-making authority and inclusivity.

- Attack Resistance: 6, implements permissionless lending and reputation-based protocol but lacks technical implementation specifics.

- Governance: 4, lacks detailed information on governance mechanisms and how they address common pitfalls.

- Regulatory Compliance: 2, unclear if regulatory compliance or legal recognition has been addressed.

- Work to Earn: 5, offers opportunities to earn reputation through gameplay but does not explicitly mention other avenues.

- Organizational Communication: 3, does not explicitly outline communication protocol or platform for member discussion.

# Illuvium

Pioneer in decentralized gaming, redefining gaming experience through player-owned economies and community-driven development.

- Decentralization: 6, liquidity mining program aims to distribute tokens but lacks clarity on voting power distribution and centralization risks.

- Attack Resistance: 5, decentralized governance and blockchain provide some resistance, but lacks specific details on security measures.

- Governance: 5, demonstrates commitment to community involvement but lacks details on mechanisms to address common failures.

- Regulatory Compliance: 3, limited information on legal recognition and interaction with real-world entities, lacks compliance details.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Work to Earn: 6, offers opportunities to propose and work on projects, but lacks specifics on accessibility and inclusivity.

- Organizational Communication: 6, prioritizes community involvement and transparency, but lacks details on communication tools and processes.

# Set 5

# ENS (Ethereum Name Service)

Distributed naming system built on Ethereum blockchain, providing human-readable names for Ethereum addresses.

- Decentralization: 6, structure and working groups promote decentralized decision-making, but presence of Cayman Islands foundation and core team members introduces some centralization.

- Attack Resistance: 5, utilizes off-chain voting through Snapshot platform, aligning with "1 person, 1 vote" principle, but lacks extensive details on defense mechanisms against specific attack vectors.

- Governance: 6, combination of off-chain voting, executable proposals, and working groups enables community participation, but lacks explicit reputational governance mechanisms and incentives.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, Cayman Islands foundation provides legal wrapper, but connection between legal structure and internal governance remains unclear.

- Work to Earn: 4, contributors can engage through working groups and steward roles, but lacks detailed token-based reputation systems or explicit work-to-earn incentives.

- Organizational Communication: 5, utilizes forums and open discussion platforms, but lacks formal token-based incentivization for participation.

# Gnosis

Platform for creating and trading prediction markets, enabling speculation on event outcomes.

- Decentralization: 6, utilizes diverse validator set and encourages community participation in governance, but presence of Gnosis Foundation and core team influence suggests ongoing transition to full decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 5, large validator set provides some protection against attacks, but lacks detailed information on specific attack scenarios or mitigation strategies.

- Governance: 6, DAO structure enables community members to submit proposals and participate in decision-making through voting, but lacks extensive discussion on long-term sustainability or reputational incentives.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Regulatory Compliance: 7, as a decentralized platform that can exist as a legally recognized entity in its jurisdiction, Gnosis has fewer difficulties navigating the regulatory landscape.

- Work to Earn: 4, users can participate in governance and potentially benefit from prediction market success, but lacks explicit work-to-earn programs or incentives.

- Organizational Communication: 5, provides forums and channels for community discussion and collaboration, but lacks token-based incentivization for participation.

# UMA (Universal Market Access)

Decentralized platform enabling creation of financial contracts and synthetic assets on Ethereum.

- Decentralization: 5, facilitates creation of decentralized financial contracts without relying on centralized intermediaries, but influence of core team and presence of U.S.-based legal entity suggest incomplete decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 5, economic incentives and Data Verification Mechanism (DVM) help mitigate risks, but could benefit from more detailed quantitative analysis of potential attack vectors.

- Governance: 5, token voting and DVM facilitate community involvement, but lacks in-depth discussion of long-term sustainability and resilience of governance model.

- Regulatory Compliance: 4, U.S.-based legal entity provides some regulatory clarity, but compliance with various jurisdictions' laws remains uncertain due to evolving landscape.

- Work to Earn: 3, users can potentially earn rewards by creating and providing liquidity to contracts or participating in dispute resolution, but lacks explicit work-to-earn programs or incentive structures.

- Organizational Communication: 5, maintains various communication channels to inform and engage community, but lacks clear token-based incentives for participation.

# Galaxe

- Decentralized identity protocol leveraging zero-knowledge proofs and verifiable credentials for secure, private identity management. - Decentralization: 6, employs decentralized architecture and enables users to store identity data locally, but presence of some centralized components suggests incomplete decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 5, zero-knowledge proofs and blinded credentials provide strong privacy protection, but could benefit from more detailed analysis of potential attack scenarios and countermeasures.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Governance: 2, outlines high-level governance process involving community participation, but lacks detailed information on specific mechanisms and procedures for proposing, debating, and implementing changes.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, emphasis on user control and privacy may conflict with certain regulatory requirements across jurisdictions, presenting significant compliance challenges.

- Work to Earn: 3, users can potentially monetize identity data by selectively sharing with third parties, but lacks structured work-to-earn programs or incentive mechanisms.

- Organizational Communication: 5, maintains communication channels to inform community and facilitate discussions, but lacks explicit token-based incentives for participation.

# Orbs

Public blockchain infrastructure supporting large-scale decentralized applications and interoperability with EVM-based Layer 1 blockchains.

- Decentralization: 5, relies on decentralized set of permissionless validators, promoting open and inclusive ecosystem, but Orbs team's role in appointing block producers suggests some centralization.

- Attack Resistance: 5, employs Randomized Proof-of-Stake consensus and large validator set to enhance network resilience, but could benefit from more in-depth analysis of specific attack vectors and defense mechanisms.

- Governance: 4, implements governance tools like Orbs Voting Weight mechanism for stakeholder participation, but lacks a clearly outlined comprehensive governance model.

- Regulatory Compliance: 4, focus on public blockchain infrastructure and integration with various Layer 1 networks may subject it to complex regulatory requirements across jurisdictions.

- Work to Earn: 3, validators and delegators can earn rewards for securing network and participating in consensus, but lacks explicit work-to-earn programs or incentive mechanisms for contributors.

- Organizational Communication: 5, maintains communication channels to inform stakeholders and facilitate discussions, but lacks clear token-based incentives for participation.

# Set 6

# Maker DAO

Decentralized finance platform focused on creating and managing the stablecoin DAI.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Decentralization: 4, not fully decentralized yet, bootstrapped to Maker Foundation, governance token is purchasable.

- Attack Resistant: 4, built-in protections like oracles, keepers, 2-step voting, emergency shutdowns, but vulnerable to 51% attacks due to purchasable governance token.

- Governance: 5, 2-step voting with temp checks, but purchasable governance token makes proper DAO aspects nominal.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no separation from founding entity Maker Foundation, likely based in Denmark, no compatible legal wrapper for DAOs.

- Work to Earn: 2, no work to earn in any capacity, Dai or MKR only obtainable through investment.

- Organizational Communication: 4, own forums with significant participation and sub-forums, but no reputation system for participation.

# Qi DAO

# Decentralized finance platform focused on stabilizing the stablecoin MAI.

- Decentralization: 8, states Qi can be received by participation and work, but documentation is unclear and not transparent.

- Attack Resistant: 2, community voting based on Qi holdings, no apparent resistance to 51% attacks, only resistant to sockpuppet attacks if holders unwilling to sell Qi.

- Governance: 3, no reputation system, 2-step voting, or payouts based on Qi holdings, uses Snapshot, only proportional voting present.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no indication of legal entity, founders are anonymous.

- Work to Earn: 3, claims work to earn but unclear if in place or what work can be done, profits can be withheld.

- Organizational Communication: 1, exclusively uses Discord to communicate, no differentiation of members based on participation, no engagement measurement.

# Olympus DAO

- Decentralized reserve currency protocol.

- Decentralization: 7, governance council responsible for leading, not voting, emergency status with appointed guardians, governance tokens obtained through investment.

- Attack Resistant: 3, 2-step voting, staking on votes, voting on Snapshot, voting power can be purchased by wrapping assets, transparent process.

- Governance: 2, purchasable governance token, gOHM can be used for loans, transparent processes.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, not legally registered anywhere, relies on anonymity to avoid legal action.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Work to Earn: 1, gOHM is purchased, not earned by working.

- Organizational Communication: 2, no reputation for discussion, forums and sub-forums but primarily uses Discord, forums only for voting.

# Aave

# Decentralized lending platform.

- Decentralization: 8, legitimately decentralized, contributors welcome to join groups, work on Protocol, or complete bounties, delegation and community-elected Guardians can centralize power to an extent.

- Attack Resistant: 3, AAVE is purchasable, 2-step voting, proportional voting, Guardians have vetoes for malicious attacks, still subject to 51% attacks.

- Governance: 1, nothing is reputation-based, tokens are purchasable.

- Regulatory Compliance: 2, no legal wrapper, vote to add Cayman Foundation failed, extra point because Cayman Islands are friendly to DAOs and crypto.

- Work to Earn: 5, bounties within Aave so profit can be earned by performing work, but no general structure of payouts or work to earn.

- Organizational Communication: 4, uses Discord, Snapshot, and Aave forums, impressive community engagement but no measure of engagement or reputation, operates on trust and speculation.

# Goldfinch DAO

# Decentralized credit platform.

- Decentralization: 2, investing and borrowing open to anybody, GFI awarded to investors, but Goldfinch Council has final say on any vote after community voting.

- Attack Resistant: 5, council can veto any community action, resistant to outside attacks but susceptible to corruption, quadratic voting for community votes.

- Governance: 1, all community votes are then voted on by the council, council does not appear to be democratically elected.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1, no apparent legal wrapper, founded in CA, would likely be a partnership with joint and several liability if sued.

- Work to Earn: 3, tokens are more like crypto investments, lending money can earn payouts, GFI has been awarded for work in the past but no payouts for holding GFI.

- Organizational Communication: 2, operates on Discord, Twitter, and Snapshot, no community engagement measurement or differentiation of contributors.

# Set 7

# Seed Club

A hub for collaboration and education, nurturing the growth and innovation of decentralized communities through cohort-based programs.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Decentralization: 6/10, governance largely steered by community and democratic use of $CLUB token, but some centralizing factors like preferential token allocation and elevated status of certain members.

- Attack Resistant: 5/10, decentralized voting process is positive, but lack of clarity on specific protective measures against token accumulation leaves defense mechanisms ambiguous.

- Governance: 5/10, $CLUB token system distributes voting power based on ownership, diverging from "one person, one vote", and lacks details on token fungibility for acquiring governance influence and procedural aspects of voting.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no disclosed information regarding the implementation of a legal wrapper.

- Work to Earn: 7/10, rewards participants with $CLUB tokens, aligning incentives with contributions, but lacks specialized reputation system to fully capture nuanced value of contributions.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, promotes dialogue among members through $CLUB token rewards, town hall meetings, and governance conversations, but access to exclusive channels controlled by token ownership.

# Push Protocol

- A decentralized communication network for the web3 universe, facilitating user notifications triggered by on-chain and off-chain activities.

- Decentralization: 4/10, $PUSH token governance aims for community involvement, but centralization concerns arise from PUSH Delegatees' proposal power and potential for token concentration through open market purchases.

- - Attack Resistant: 1/10, resilience undermined by reliance on fungible, publicly tradable $PUSH governance tokens, exposing the protocol to risks like 51% attacks.

- Governance: 3/10, governance token acquisition risks centralizing decision-making power, lack of dual voting system leaves protocol vulnerable to imbalances favoring larger token holders.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5/10, hints at formal legal entity in adherence to Singapore's regulations, but lacks transparent information on legal wrapper or alignment with specific DAO legal stipulations.

- Work to Earn: 5/10, offers earning potential through grant system and community-led initiatives, but evaluative process for awarding work and clarity on grant distribution in nascent stage.

- Organizational Communication: 6/10, engages community across multiple digital platforms, showcases strategic approach to evolution, but lacks system to formally recognize and reward individual efforts within forums.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Bankless DAO

A global collective creating and disseminating media and educational content to empower individuals in a world without traditional banking.

- Decentralization: 4/10, token-weighted voting and contributor levels based on BANK token ownership partially offset decentralization, introducing barriers to entry and potential for power concentration.

- Attack Resistant: 5/10, token-weighted voting and contributor levels suggest potential for power concentration, making DAO vulnerable to attacks like 51% if a single entity acquires majority of voting tokens, but transparency and community-driven processes provide some resilience.

- Governance: 5/10, incorporates community input and iterates on proposals, but tiered membership model ties rights and influence to token holdings, creating imbalance and centralization element.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no evidence of legal wrapper adoption, lack of legal structure to formalize operations and define interactions within regulatory compliance.

- Work to Earn: 6/10, meritocratic model where members earn BANK tokens for project participation, ecosystem supports this with funding structure and membership hierarchy linked to ownership and participation.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, multilayered approach using Discord and forums, access and discussion depth stratified by token ownership, systematic and hierarchical structure conducive to dialogue and decision-making.

# Global Coin Research

- A research and investment-focused DAO providing community members with resources, insights, events, learning opportunities, and direct involvement in deal-flow. - Decentralization: 4/10, substantial token allocation for community-driven endeavors and multisig treasury management, but open market token purchases and tiered access model could lead to power imbalances.

- Attack Resistant: 3/10, governance protocols and community-managed treasury provide some defense, but purchasable governance tokens may skew power dynamics and increase vulnerability to attacks like 51%.

- Governance: 4/10, majority of tokens directed towards community initiatives, but ability to acquire voting power through purchase rather than contribution risks governance centralization.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, operates without transparently disclosing use of legal frameworks or protective measures like a legal wrapper.

- Work to Earn: 6/10, rewards active involvement with incentives like research access and investment opportunities, but could benefit from more nuanced approach recognizing individual reputation and expertise.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Organizational Communication: 6/10, multi-platform strategy enables dialogue and cooperative action, but tiered membership based on token holdings may restrict participation in pivotal debates.

# Mail3

A foundational framework for web3 communications, serving as a hub for social metrics like relationships, reputation, and trust.

- Decentralization: 3/10, supports decentralized communication system across blockchains, but lacks detailed explanation of user involvement in wider governance, leading to centralization questions.

- Attack Resistant: 3/10, encrypted data and decentralized network suggest inherent resistance to some attacks, but scarcity of explicit defense mechanisms against sophisticated attacks lowers confidence.

- Governance: 3/10, Postoffice DAO initiative indicates drive towards decentralized governance, but lack of details on token allotment, equal participation mechanisms, and centralization countermeasures casts uncertainty.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no available information regarding a legal framework, lack of discernible legal wrapper makes assessing alignment with regulatory standards challenging.

- Work to Earn: 2/10, "Communicate to Earn" model points to unique incentive framework, but lack of clarity on quantification, distribution, and impact of contributions raises questions.

- Organizational Communication: 3/10, specific tools and processes for internal DAO communication, collaborative decision-making, and feedback loops not delineated, lack of transparency about strategies and community engagement mechanisms.

# Set 8

# Arbitrum

Enhances speed and cost-effectiveness of Ethereum transactions, a tool for developers to create accessible dApps using Rollup and AnyTrust protocols.

- Decentralization: 7, allows anyone to submit and vote on proposals, but presence of committees suggests potential for further decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 8, tiered voting system with temperature checks and token holder percentages robustly defends against common DAO attacks.

- Governance: 9, sustainability facilitated by decentralized proposals and a Security Committee.

- Regulatory Compliance: 8, well-managed within a Cayman Islands Foundation framework, ensuring adherence to legal standards.

- Work to Earn: 4, limited incentives beyond coin contributions.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Organizational Communication: 5, relies on own platform supplemented by third-party services, could be improved to better facilitate meaningful discussions.

# Polygon

Layer2 blockchain built on Ethereum, utilizing Proof of Stake and ZK rollup technology for scaled, cost-effective, rapid transactions, developing web3 infrastructure on PoS network.

- Decentralization: 5, permits any member to propose and comment on issues, but final decisions made by select committee.

- Attack Resistance: 7, lacks tiered voting system but extensive discussion process potentially limits common exploits.

- Governance: 5, less sustainable with limited member contribution and absence of multi-level voting.

- Regulatory Compliance: 8, structured as Cayman Islands Foundation with comprehensive privacy policy.

- Work to Earn: 4, few avenues beyond specific job roles and contributing to Polygon Improvement Proposals (PIPs).

- Organizational Communication: 10, excels with very active community forum, dynamic and engaging discussions.

# Polkadot

Fully sharded, layer 0 blockchain providing foundation and security for building specialized-application layer 1 parachains.

- Decentralization: 5, elected officials propose referenda and exercise veto power, DOT token holders vote, limits wider decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 8, active DOT token holders secure network and collect rewards by staking, supplemented by tiered voting mechanisms.

- Governance: 6, somewhat compromised, lacks measures to counteract common failures, potential for tyranny due to power of elected officials.

- Regulatory Compliance: 4, based in Switzerland, minimal information on adherence to broader regulatory standards.

- Work to Earn: 3, limited opportunities beyond full-time work or hosting meetups, lack of direct incentives for broader participation.

- Organizational Communication: 5, relies on third-party platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and Discord, lacks independent forums for structured discussions.

# DIMO

Open-source, community-governed protocol and platform for vehicles and IoT devices, merges web2 technologies with decentralized data validity and security on Polygon.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Decentralization: 2, operates with very centralized approach, standard organizational chart without real decentralization mechanisms.

- Attack Resistance: 0, challenging to evaluate due to centralized nature, typical DAO attack defenses not applicable, security measures unclear.

- Governance: 3, weak sustainability, operates as centralized entity, may be more susceptible to common organizational failures.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, extensive privacy policy covering various jurisdictions, but exact incorporation location unclear.

- Work to Earn: 2, severely limited, main avenue is building software compatible with DIMO, restricts broader community engagement.

- Organizational Communication: 6, DIMO network and active Discord channel facilitate discussions, somewhat effective but within centralized context.

# BrainDAO

Governs IQ ecosystem supporting crypto education, research, and analysis tools, offerings include IQ.Wiki, IQ token, and IQ GPT.

- Decentralization: 8, leverages content-liking mechanism for decisions, automatic publication at like threshold, distributes power widely without controlling committees.

- Attack Resistance: 9, decision-making vested in token holders, prevents single entity or small group from exerting undue control.

- Governance: 7, reasonably sustainable, lacks layered voting but supports decentralized structure without power concentration.

- Regulatory Compliance: 0, detailed information about legal structure and compliance measures hard to find, indications of South Korea as primary jurisdiction, lack of transparency.

- Work to Earn: 8, favorable conditions, contributors earn IQ tokens for quality and popularity of contributions, but cannot propose software upgrades, somewhat limiting broader contributions.

- Organizational Communication: 0, significant weak point, absence of dedicated discussion platform and lack of engagement on third-party accounts hinders meaningful discussions and collaboration.

# Set 9

# Silo Finance

Focused on providing De-Fi services leveraging blockchain technology for permissionless and risk-isolated lending markets.

- Decentralization: 5, multiple barriers to entry for individuals, presence of a "council" with authority, and centralized structure owned by SiloDAO.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Attack Resistant: 1, uses purchasable governance tokens allowing a few individuals to amass control.

- Governance: 1, SILO token used strictly for governance, off-chain voting via Snapshot and Tally.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, registered in Texas as an LLC, but Texas does not recognize DAOs as legal entities.

- Work to Earn: 5, offers incentives for identifying bugs with varying rewards based on risk level, but not accounted for merit.

- Organizational Communication: 5, relies on third-party software (Discord) for member discussions with different channels based on user engagement.

# UXDProtocol

Dedicated to advancing user experience design through community collaboration and innovation on the blockchain, a non-custodial stable coin protocol on Solana.

- Decentralization: 5, small group (UXD Protocol team) retains significant control, not fully anonymous with barriers for entry.

- Attack Resistant: 1, no sufficient measures to mitigate risks due to being newly created, no record of voting mechanism to prevent attacks.

- Governance: 5, governance token is UXD DAO, but structure and functionality uncertain due to infancy, operates using Solana system.

- Regulatory Compliance: 8, domiciled in UAE which recently passed laws offering protection and benefits to DAOs and digital assets.

- Work to Earn: 1, no information found on opportunities for users to perform services or earn reputation.

- Organizational Communication: 1, limited information on facilitating discussion and participation, heavy reliance on third-party software.

# Klima DAO

Aims to combat climate change by incentivizing carbon offsetting initiatives through blockchain-based solutions.

- Decentralization: 1, three layers with Core Team holding substantial power, entry barriers for contributors and Core Team, largely controlled by Core Team despite using blockchain.

- Attack Resistant: 5, uses Snapshot, but received strong marks in a recent study for token weighted voting, incentives, and no evidence of collusion.

- Governance: 5, core team members retain access to protect treasury, token holders' rights proportional to number of tokens held, moving slowly in the right direction.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, registered in California which has no existing DAO laws but pending legislation, some litigation suggests DAOs formed in CA are governed under partnership law.

- Work to Earn: 5, extends opportunities to external members for identifying issues or working on voted tasks, but lacks accountability measures for merit.

- Organizational Communication: 5, proposals conducted through Discord server, active user engagement despite reliance on third-party sources.

# Paladin

Enhances security in the De-Fi space by providing decentralized insurance and risk management solutions for crypto assets.

- Decentralization: 5, elects small pockets of centralized key players, but no one person holds onto power or creates barriers to power distribution.

- Attack Resistant: 5, allows users to stake votes and know potential rewards before joining, but uses Snapshot voting.

- Governance: 5, successfully fosters active voting participation through delegation mechanisms, has safeguards as a voting lending protocol.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5, organized under French law with recent legal wrapper, France has no DAO-specific laws but some protection under 1901 statute.

- Work to Earn: [no score given], unable to find information about bug reporting and compensation, but Quest method seems to incentivize community.

- Organizational Communication: 5, uses Discord and Twitter for members to communicate, strong emphasis on active participation.

# Pool Together

Focuses on prize savings, pooling users' funds with interest accrued going to one lucky winner to promote savings and financial inclusion.

- Decentralization: 1, Core Team acts as interim governance body, no anonymity between users, hierarchy and barriers to entry.

- Attack Resistant: 5, sparse information but reasonably indicates strong protocol against viable attacks, run by smart contracts on blockchain.

- Governance: 1, POOL is purchasable governance token, voting power determined by number of tokens held, uses Snapshot for off-chain voting.

- - Regulatory Compliance: 1, organized in New York which has no laws recognizing DAOs, would be taxed according to traditional status, currently inactive with no legal wrapper.

- Work to Earn: 1, no information found, lacks details in whitepaper or webpage.

- Organizational Communication: 5, utilizes Discord, Twitter, Reddit, Telegram, and others, has a functioning forum for ideas, updates, and ecosystem engagement.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# Set 10

# Mantle

Dedicated to enhancing Ethereum's scalability by offering an EVM-compatible technology stack, providing resources and a comprehensive governance system.

- Decentralization: 3/10, lacks true decentralization due to heavy moderation and prioritization based on affiliations, creating a hierarchical structure.

- Attack Resistance: 1/10, vulnerable due to purchasable and fungible governance tokens, lacks essential features like reputational governance and sustainable voting mechanisms.

- Governance: 1/10, lacks sustainability, susceptible to common failures, token holders can propose and vote but absence of essential features leaves governance protocol flawed.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no information found on legal wrapper, lack of transparency about jurisdiction.

- Work to Earn: 4/10, limited opportunities, lacks comprehensive economic incentivization model, relies on basic grant system.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, relies on third-party software, lacks mechanisms to incentivize meaningful discussion or track engagement levels.

# Decubate

Tokenization DAO supporting web3 entrepreneurs and investors with a suite of services and opportunities, operating with a club tier system based on token holdings.

- Decentralization: 1/10, fails to uphold principles of distributing power, centralized control pervades the organization.

- Attack Resistance: 1/10, highly vulnerable due to reliance on purchasable and fungible governance tokens, lacks essential features for attack prevention.

- Governance: 1/10, sustainability severely compromised, reliance on purchasing power fails to address common pitfalls, perpetuates centralization of power.

- Regulatory Compliance: 5/10, operates within the Netherlands' legal framework, adhering to relevant regulations, but may face challenges in navigating regulatory complexities.

- Work to Earn: 5/10, offers opportunities to contribute and earn rewards, but falls short in recognizing merit and reputation proportional to work performed.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, utilizes Discord for member discussions but lacks incentives to foster meaningful engagement.

# ApeCoin

Decentralized protocol layer and token promoting web3 culture within the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) community, supporting various initiatives and ecosystem growth.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Decentralization: 5/10, exhibits some decentralized characteristics but presence of a centralized committee compromises overall decentralization.

- Attack Resistance: 4/10, some vulnerabilities in governance mechanisms, reliance on centralized group for proposal selection introduces risk of manipulation.

- Governance: 4/10, shortcomings in sustaining robust governance protocol, measures may not fully address common failures, potential vulnerabilities from voting mechanism.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no information found on legal wrapper, lack of transparency about jurisdiction.

- Work to Earn: 1/10, severely limited, completely prohibits outside individuals from participating in any form of work within the organization.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, relies on third-party platforms for member engagement, lacks integrated mechanisms to measure engagement or reward meaningful contributions.

# MetaCartel Ventures

For-profit DAO supporting early stage dApps and web3 projects through investments and mentorship, led by experienced individuals known as "Mages".

- Decentralization: 2/10, centralized decision-making structure despite efforts to engage community through "Townhalls", use of Zoom implies centralized platform.

- Attack Resistance: 1/10, no information found on website, lack of transparency on attack resistance.

- Governance: 1/10, no information found on website, lack of transparency on governance.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no information found on website, lack of transparency on legal wrapper and jurisdiction.

- Work to Earn: 1/10, no information found on website, lack of transparency on work to earn process.

- Organizational Communication: 1/10, glaring deficiencies in transparency and accessibility, absence of information on resilience against common DAO attacks.

# FingerPrints DAO

Diverse web3-centered collective strategically curating, collecting, and promoting on-chain artwork, with governance forums currently Discord-only.

- Decentralization: 5/10, maintains a centralized committee overseeing operations, suggesting some level of centralization within the organization.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

- Attack Resistance: 1/10, vulnerable to common attacks due to reliance on purchasable and fungible governance tokens, lacks safeguards against token concentration.

- Governance: 1/10, significant shortcomings due to reliance on purchasable tokens granting governing power, introduces hierarchical structure and vulnerability to manipulation.

- Regulatory Compliance: 1/10, no information found on legal wrapper, lack of transparency about jurisdiction.

- Work to Earn: 2/10, approach to incentivizing contributions lacks necessary mechanisms, approval process introduces centralization and potential bias.

- Organizational Communication: 5/10, demonstrates some effort with proprietary software but fails to establish clear mechanisms to track communication, limiting potential for meaningful discussions.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

# APPENDIX C: Bibliography

Allen, D. W. (2017). “The Sharing Economy.” MIT Press.

Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., and King, J. L. (2018). “Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and Research Agenda”. _Journal of the Association for Information Systems_ , 19(10), 1020-1034.

Buterin, V. (2014). “A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform”. Ethereum White Paper.

Catalini, C., and Gans, J. S. (2016). “Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain.” _SSRN Electronic Journal_ .

Cong, L. W., and He, Z. (2019). “Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts.” _The Review of Financial Studies_ , 32(5), 1754-1797.

Cong, L. W., Li, X., and Wang, N. (2020). “Tokenomics: Dynamic Adoption and Valuation.” _The Review of Financial Studies_ , 33(9), 3791–3823.

Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2016). “Economics of Blockchain.” _SSRN Electronic Journal_ .

De Filippi, P. (2017). “Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code.” Harvard University Press.

De Filippi, P., and Hassan, S. (2016). “Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: From code is law to law is code.” First Monday, 21(12).

Ethereum Foundation. (2015). Ethereum White Paper.

Hassan, S., and De Filippi, P. (2021). “Decentralized Autonomous Organizations.” Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, A. (2019). “The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Finance: A Catalyst for Change.” _Journal of Financial Perspectives_ , 7(1).

Jain, R., Arora, N., and Aggarwal, S. (2020). “Decentralized Media: Transforming Content Creation and Distribution.” _Journal of Media Innovations_ , 7(1), 23–42.

Version 10.0 - May 2024

Lamberti, F., Gatteschi, V., Demartini, C., Pranteda, C., and Santamaría, V. (2020). “Blockchain or Not Blockchain, That Is the Question of the Insurance and Other Sectors.” _IT Professional_ , 20(2), 56–65.

Napoli, P. M. (2020). “Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age.” Columbia University Press.

Posner, E. A., and Weyl, E. G. (2018). “Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.” Princeton University Press.

PWC. (2017). “Blockchain: The $5 Billion Opportunity for Insurers.” PricewaterhouseCoopers Report.

Schwartz, D. (2020). “Blockchain and the Future of Governance.” _Governance and Regulation_ , 12(3), 45-62.

Swan, M. (2015). “Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy.” O'Reilly Media.

Swartz, L. (2018). Blockchain Dreams: Imagining Techno-Economic Alternatives After Bitcoin. Futures, 95, 49–58.

Szabo, N. (1997). “The Idea of Smart Contracts.”

Taleb, N. N. (2007). “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.” Random House.

Tapscott, D., and Tapscott, A. (2016). “Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World.” Penguin Random House.

Wright, A., and De Filippi, P. (2015). “Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia.” _SSRN Electronic Journal_ .

Zingales, L. (2000). “In Search of New Foundations.” _Journal of Finance_ , 55(4), 1623-1653.

Zwitter, A., and Hazenberg, J. (2020). “Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Governance and Regulation Challenges.” _Blockchain and Governance_ , 45-62.