Re:Court Ruling Could Affect the Future Direction of DAOs
by WorldMaker on Thursday April 06, 2023 @02:14PM
(#35472191)
If you assume a DAO is de facto a corporation/partnership (as this court decision suggests), most US States (including California, which is relevant to this specific case) and many countries start from an unlimited, collective liability default for corporations/partnerships and limited liability is the properly registered (and taxed!) opt-in. (The article also points to states that are not California that realize this and have started to offer easy LLC opt-in for DAOs. Presumably in part because it is a potential tax revenue source.) [IANAL, but this is fascinating.]
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Court Ruling Could Affect the Future Direction of DAOs
by olliej on Thursday April 06, 2023 @04:09PM
(#35473681)
It is an organization, there is no question there.
The question is whether it is a general partnership or not, and by the rules listed it would appear to be.
Collective ownership implying collective liability is not novel or new, and existed long before LLCs and LLPs did. Legislation allowing those is relatively recent because it has obvious benefits, but comes at the cost of some degree of regulation. In the true crypto spirit of "regulation == bad" this DAO took the path of not making itself an LLC or LLP (and in fact explicitly terminated the LLC), which means it seems fairly obvious that it's a general (e.g. unlimited liability) partnership as the court appears to be concluding.