This guide was built to help you understand the benefits of incorporating your DAO and how the process of DAO incorporation works. We help you answer questions like:
Why should I incorporate my DAO? In what geographic jurisdiction should I incorporate my DAO? What legal entity type should I choose?
Get all the information you need to make the best decisions for you DAO by reading this guide.
By
MIDAO
In the rapidly evolving world of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), legal challenges are emerging as a significant concern. The recent class action lawsuit against Lido DAO has brought to light the potential risks associated with governance tokens and the importance of establishing clear legal structures for DAOs. This case serves as a wake-up call for the entire DAO ecosystem, highlighting the need for proactive legal strategies and compliance measures.
Lido DAO, one of the largest Ethereum staking providers, finds itself at the center of a legal storm that could have far-reaching implications for the entire DAO space. As reported by CoinGape:
"Lido DAO has recently started voting to authorize Dolphin CL LLC to file a motion on its behalf, responding to the class action litigation that claims Lido violated securities laws."
This development raises crucial questions about the legal status of DAOs and the potential liabilities faced by their participants.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that Lido's governance token, LDO, may be an unregistered security. This allegation strikes at the core of how many DAOs operate, using governance tokens to enable decentralized decision-making within their communities.
Adam Miller, co-founder of MIDAO and host of the "Just DAO It" podcast, points out the significance of this case:
"It's interesting. I think this article is saying that their governance token is the unregistered security, as opposed to the liquid-staked ETH token. It'll be interesting to see what happens. That's something other DAOs will certainly be facing as well."
This distinction between governance tokens and other crypto assets is crucial for understanding the legal landscape DAOs are navigating.
One of the most striking aspects of the Lido DAO case is the organization's apparent lack of legal preparation. As Miller explains:
"It seems like there's a new legal story about a DAO or its legal entity at least once a week. In this case, what's so interesting to me is that Lido DAO didn't have an all-encompassing legal entity or any clear legal structure that would make it obvious that the people involved are protected from personal liability associated with Lido's activities."
This lack of a clear legal structure has left individual participants vulnerable to personal liability, a situation that many DAO members may not have anticipated when joining the organization.
While the absence of a formal legal entity may seem like a vulnerability, it also presents a unique challenge for potential litigants. Miller notes:
"But it also makes it harder for people to go after you because they don't know who to sue. This thing was sued, but no one really knows who's being sued or who can defend them."
This ambiguity in legal standing is both a strength and a weakness for DAOs, highlighting the complex interplay between decentralization and legal accountability.
To understand the legal implications of the Lido DAO case, it's essential to differentiate between governance tokens and other types of crypto assets, such as staked tokens.
Governance tokens, like Lido's LDO, are at the center of the legal debate. These tokens typically grant voting rights within a DAO and may be seen as representing a form of ownership or control over the organization. This characteristic is what potentially brings them under securities regulations.
In contrast, staked tokens, such as those representing staked ETH on the Ethereum network, may fall into a different legal category. Al Mithani (known as "Links" in the DAO space) clarifies:
"I don't think Lido is actually deciding which transactions go in. They have a lot of staked ETH, and when they get more, they put more onto the beacon chain to earn a return, which they share with people who stake through them. That sounds a bit like a security, right? That token you're getting."
While staked tokens may also face regulatory scrutiny, they serve a different function than governance tokens and may be evaluated differently under securities laws.
The Lido DAO case raises important questions about the role of large staking providers in the Ethereum ecosystem. Miller expresses concern:
"I think it's potentially really bad for Ethereum that Lido is getting sued. Let's just start there. Or, even worse, if they did something that makes the case valid and they end up being found guilty, that's obviously much worse than just getting sued, which is happening to a lot of crypto projects. Lido is a core element of Ethereum's infrastructure."
However, Mithani offers a different perspective:
"I don't think it's infrastructure, though. I think Lido is utilizing the infrastructure, making it available to more people—democratizing it. I don't think Lido is the infrastructure itself. If Lido stopped working tomorrow, Ethereum would go on."
This debate highlights the complex relationships between DAOs, staking providers, and the underlying blockchain infrastructure they interact with.
The Lido DAO case also brings to the forefront concerns about centralization in supposedly decentralized systems. Miller points out:
"The concern people have always had about Lido is that when you stake through Lido, you give them $1,000, and you get a token representing that staked ETH. Lido controls around a third of all staked ETH."
This concentration of staked assets raises questions about the true level of decentralization in the Ethereum ecosystem and the potential risks associated with large staking providers.
The Lido DAO lawsuit serves as a warning for other DAOs and decentralized projects. It highlights the need for clear legal structures and proactive compliance measures.
Miller emphasizes the importance of establishing legal entities early in a DAO's lifecycle:
"The way the system is organized—the social contract, of sorts—is that you have to form your legal entity ahead of time, operate through that structure, and in exchange, the people involved get protection. That entity can be sued and has to defend itself when taken to court."
This insight underscores the need for DAOs to consider their legal structure from the outset, rather than attempting to create one retroactively when faced with legal challenges.
Lido DAO's approach of creating a legal entity to defend against an ongoing lawsuit may face scrutiny. Miller expresses doubt about the effectiveness of this strategy:
"So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with this approach of saying, 'Well, we don't have a legal entity, but this one we just created will defend us.' We'll see how that goes."
This situation highlights the potential pitfalls of not having a clear legal structure in place from the beginning of a DAO's operations.
In light of the Lido DAO case and the broader legal landscape for decentralized organizations, DAOs should consider the following best practices:
The Lido DAO lawsuit serves as a critical moment for the DAO ecosystem, highlighting the urgent need for clear legal structures and compliance strategies. As DAOs continue to innovate and push the boundaries of decentralized governance, they must also grapple with the realities of existing legal frameworks.
The distinction between governance tokens and other crypto assets, such as staked tokens, emerges as a key consideration in this legal landscape. DAOs must carefully consider the legal implications of their token structures and governance models, ensuring they strike a balance between innovation and compliance.
As Miller aptly concludes:
"We'll see how that goes. Anything you want to react to here, Links?"
This open-ended question reflects the ongoing nature of these legal challenges. The DAO community must remain vigilant, adaptable, and proactive in addressing legal risks as the regulatory landscape continues to evolve.
By learning from cases like Lido DAO and implementing robust legal strategies, DAOs can continue to innovate while mitigating legal risks. This approach will be crucial for the long-term sustainability and legitimacy of decentralized organizations in the broader financial and technological ecosystem.
The future of DAOs lies not just in technological innovation, but in their ability to navigate complex legal and regulatory environments. As the space matures, those DAOs that prioritize legal compliance alongside their decentralized ethos will be best positioned to thrive and realize the full potential of decentralized governance.
