could be prejudicial re: DAO status #4
Description
good form but:
- if a DAO uses this it's basically stipulating that it is some type of unincorporated legal person that can enter into contracts etc. (which may be prejudicial re: certain regulatory issues etc.)
- if "the DAO" breaches the agreement, could be quite hard for the "contributor" to get a remedy (especially for a 'protocol DAO' with widely dispersed ownership etc.)
Suggest restructuring for entity that wraps a DAO (for those DAOs that have such wrappers) or entity acting as proxy for DAOs (e.g., Opolis-type entity). Or add notes about assumptions (e.g., that DAO wants to be treated as a legal person and perhaps does not have widely dispersed ownership such that enforcement by contributor would be plausible).
Another way to go would be to restructure as some kind of single-sided acknowledgement by the Contributor saying Contributor is entering into contribution with a certain understanding (not necessarily making that understanding a contract with "the DAO" but still building evidence for downside protection against certain types of legal claims (e.g. employment)).