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
Leo Henkels
In the rapidly evolving decentralized finance (DeFi) world, Uniswap stands as one of the most prominent and influential protocols. As a decentralized exchange (DEX) built on the Ethereum blockchain, Uniswap has revolutionized token trading and liquidity provision. However, recent events have thrust the project into the spotlight for reasons beyond its technological innovations. A controversy surrounding the Uniswap Foundation and its relationship with venture capital (VC) firms has ignited a fierce debate about the nature of decentralized governance and the influence of influential stakeholders in the crypto ecosystem.
The controversy began with an announcement from the Uniswap Foundation. As Adam Miller, host of the "Just DAO It" podcast, explains:
"Uniswap Foundation announced—this was about ten days ago now—that a proposal that they were planning on taking to the DAO. Actually, we're changing our minds; we're not ready to let the community make the decision. We're just going to go a certain direction, and this had the effect of rubbing some people the wrong way."
This decision by the Uniswap Foundation to bypass the community governance process and unilaterally make a decision sparked immediate backlash. It raised questions about the true nature of decentralization in Uniswap's governance model and the role of the Foundation in steering the project's direction.
The controversy took on an additional dimension when Dan Robinson, a lawyer, coder, and researcher at Paradigm, publicly criticized the situation:
"It's disappointing to see a large VC try to bully the token governance process and delay community proposals at the last minute to advance their pet projects."
This statement suggests that the Foundation's decision was influenced by pressure from venture capital firms with significant stakes in Uniswap. It brings to the forefront a critical issue in the world of decentralized finance: the potential for substantial, well-funded entities to exert outsized influence on supposedly decentralized protocols.
To understand the complexity of this situation, it's crucial to examine the various stakeholders involved in Uniswap's ecosystem. Graham Novak, CEO and founder of Mezzanine Labs, provides some context:
"Yeah, and the back context here is there's a handful of VCs, namely Andrew and Horowitz, that have huge token stakes in Uniswap. They have their own sets of interests, their own incentives, their own types of vested interest."
This insight highlights the reality that, despite the ideals of decentralization, large token holders—often venture capital firms—can wield significant influence in DAO governance. Their substantial stakes give them voting power that can potentially sway decisions in their favor.
The Uniswap controversy brings to the forefront a fundamental tension in the DAOs and DeFi: the balance between centralized efficiency and decentralized governance. On one hand, having a foundation or a group of experienced investors guiding a project can lead to more efficient decision-making and strategic direction. On the other hand, it can undermine the principles of decentralization that are core to the crypto ethos.
Adam Miller reflects on this tension:
People need to see that as at least a yellow flag, if not a red flag, and understand what it means to have a foundation or a board of any kind involved in your DAO. If there's a board, you should think seriously about what power that board has, and if they have the power to decide what proposals are allowed to be proposed, and even if a proposal passes, is it going to get implemented?"
This observation underscores the importance of clearly defined governance structures in DAOs. When a foundation or board holds significant power, it can create a centralized point of control that may conflict with the community's decentralized ideals.
While the influence of VCs and foundations in DAO governance may seem antithetical to the idea of decentralization, Novak offers a more nuanced perspective:
"At the end of the day, that's also representative of a DAO; in any organization broadly, though, you have lots of stakeholders and lots of different interests. I'll take a counterpoint here as well, which is this is one of the stakeholders that happens to have a large amount of voting power representing their interests.
This view suggests that influential stakeholders with divergent interests are common to DAOs but a feature of any complex organization. The challenge lies in creating governance structures that can balance these interests while maintaining the principles of decentralization.
One of the critical issues highlighted by the Uniswap controversy is the importance of transparent and well-defined governance processes. Novak points out:
"If you want the organization to function differently, you need to change the smart contract and the parameters for how the decisions are getting done, right? This is a natural, inevitable part of the process.
This perspective emphasizes that the rules of governance should be encoded in the protocol itself. By doing so, it becomes more difficult for any single entity—be it a foundation or a VC firm—to unilaterally change the project's direction without community consensus.
Despite the influence of large token holders, the power of the broader community in a DAO should not be underestimated. Novak notes:
"If someone else wants to submit that exact same proposal, they can do that without the foundation's approval. So, another set of individuals could propose that same thing tomorrow. They don't need the foundation's approval to do that."
This observation highlights a crucial aspect of DAO governance: the ability of any community member to propose and advocate for changes. While large token holders may have more voting power, the open nature of most DAOs allows for grassroots movements to gain traction and potentially counterbalance the influence of more powerful entities.
The Uniswap controversy also raises questions about the appropriate role of foundations in DAO ecosystems. Miller offers a cautionary perspective:
"If you're dealing with a foundation, you might call it a DAO, you might not call it a DAO, but that board of the foundation gets to decide what to do with that organization. So, it shouldn't be a surprise when you find out, for example, that a foundation is in bed with the VC that funded the project."
This point underscores the need for a clear separation between foundations and the DAOs they support. While foundations can play a valuable role in supporting and promoting a project, their power to influence governance decisions should be limited and clearly defined to maintain the integrity of the decentralized governance process.
The Uniswap situation serves as a catalyst for discussions about how DAO governance models can evolve to handle the complex realities of decentralized organizations better. Some potential areas for improvement include:
1. Quadratic Voting: Implementing voting systems that give more weight to a diversity of smaller holders rather than concentrating power in the hands of a few large holders.
2. Reputation-Based Systems: Developing governance models that take into account factors beyond token holdings, such as long-term participation and valuable contributions to the ecosystem.
3. Tiered Governance Structures: Creating multiple layers of decision-making that separate day-to-day operations from major strategic decisions, with different stakeholders having different levels of influence in each tier.
4. Time-Locked Tokens: Implementing systems where the voting power of tokens increases the longer they are held, encouraging long-term alignment with the project's goals.
5. Transparent Lobbying Processes: Developing formal, transparent processes for stakeholders to advocate for their interests, making backroom deals and undue influence more difficult.
The Uniswap Foundation controversy has implications that extend far beyond a single project. It touches on fundamental questions about the nature of decentralization in DeFi and the crypto space more broadly. As one of the flagship projects in the DeFi ecosystem, how Uniswap navigates this challenge will likely influence governance discussions across the industry.
Miller reflects on the broader context:
"I talk about this a lot because we see this a lot these days with DAOs, but anytime there's a foundation involved, I think people need to see that as at least a yellow flag, if not a red flag, and understand what it means to have a foundation or a board of any kind involved in your DAO."
This observation suggests that the crypto community may need to reevaluate its relationship with foundations and other centralized entities that often play crucial roles in launching and supporting decentralized projects.
One concept that has gained traction in the DAO space is the idea of "progressive decentralization"—starting with more centralized control and gradually distributing power over time. This approach recognizes the practical challenges of launching a fully decentralized organization from day one.
Novak touches on this idea:
"I also think that there's a misconception that things need to go from small, messy, and decentralized to, like, 'Wow, this is clean and decentralized, and we all like how this goes.' You can also start off centralized and structured and then let out powers as you go."
This perspective suggests that the presence of influential stakeholders like VCs or foundations isn't necessarily at odds with the long-term goal of decentralization. The key is to have a clear, transparent plan for how power will be distributed over time.
One of the lessons from the Uniswap controversy is the importance of clear communication and expectation setting in DAO governance. When community members feel that decisions are being made behind closed doors or that the rules are being changed mid-game, it can erode trust and undermine the legitimacy of the governance process.
Projects need to be upfront about the role of foundations, the influence of large token holders, and the roadmap for decentralization. By setting clear expectations from the outset, DAOs can avoid much of the controversy and disappointment that can arise when community members feel their voices are being ignored.
The Uniswap controversy also touches on important legal and regulatory considerations for DAOs. As Miller points out:
"That's why I do the work I do with the DAO LLCs, which I think are often a better fit."
This comment highlights the growing recognition that DAOs need to consider their legal structure carefully. The choice of legal entity can have significant implications for governance, liability, and regulatory compliance.
For example, a DAO structured as an LLC might have different obligations and constraints than a more informal, unincorporated association. These legal considerations can impact how decisions are made, how conflicts are resolved, and how the organization interacts with traditional financial and legal systems.
One of the unique aspects of DAO governance is the ability to encode rules and processes directly into smart contracts. This can provide a level of transparency and immutability that's not possible with traditional organizational structures.
Novak touches on this:
"If you want the organization to function differently, you need to change the smart contract and the parameters for how the decisions are getting done, right?"
This observation underscores the potential for DAOs to create governance systems that are more resistant to manipulation or unilateral changes. By encoding governance rules in smart contracts, DAOs can create a more level playing field where all participants—whether they're individual token holders or large VCs—have to play by the same transparent rules.
One of the challenges in DAO governance is ensuring sufficient participation from token holders. In many cases, only a small percentage of token holders actively participate in governance decisions. This can lead to situations where a relatively small number of active participants can sway decisions, potentially undermining the DAO's democratic ideals.
Encouraging broader participation in governance is crucial for ensuring that decisions genuinely reflect the community's will. This might involve creating better incentives for participation, improving the user experience of governance platforms, or exploring new models of delegation that allow token holders to participate more easily.
As Uniswap navigates this controversy, it has an opportunity to set new standards for DAO governance. Some potential steps forward could include:
1. Implementing a more transparent process for bringing proposals to a vote, with clear criteria for when and how the foundation can intervene.
2. Developing mechanisms to balance the influence of large token holders with the broader community's interests.
3. Creating more robust channels for community feedback and discussion before making significant decisions.
4. Establishing clear boundaries between the roles of the Uniswap Foundation and the DAO governance process.
5. Exploring innovative governance models that can better handle the complex stakeholder dynamics of a significant DeFi protocol.
The Uniswap Foundation controversy represents a critical moment in the evolution of DAO governance. It highlights the complex challenges that arise when trying to balance the influence of influential stakeholders with the ideals of decentralized community governance.
As Novak observes:
"So, I see both sides of this one, for sure."
This nuanced perspective is crucial as the crypto community grapples with these governance challenges. There are no easy answers, but DAOs can continue to evolve and improve by engaging in open, thoughtful dialogue and being willing to experiment with new governance models.
The situation with Uniswap serves as a valuable learning opportunity for the entire DeFi ecosystem. It underscores the need for clear governance structures, transparent decision-making processes, and mechanisms to balance diverse stakeholder interests.
As DAOs grow in importance and influence, resolving these governance challenges will be crucial. The projects that can successfully navigate these complex dynamics, balancing the need for efficient decision-making with the principles of decentralization and community empowerment, will be best positioned to lead the next wave of innovation in the crypto space.
Ultimately, the Uniswap controversy is not just about a single decision or the influence of VCs. It's about the fundamental question of creating truly decentralized organizations that can operate effectively in the complex world of global finance. As the DeFi ecosystem continues to evolve, the lessons learned from this controversy will undoubtedly shape the future of DAO governance for years to come.
