DAOs: Not a Revolution, But a Lens
We've been talking about DAOs for a few weeks now, exploring how they work, voting with tokens, hybrid decision-making, and examples like Gitcoin and Optimism.
We’ve been talking about DAOs for a few weeks now, exploring how they work, voting with tokens, hybrid decision-making, and examples like Gitcoin and Optimism. The reason I’ve wanted to dive deep into these topics is partly because the traditional business world, what we call Web2, relies heavily on organizational structures and processes. To offer a simple perspective on the Web3 world, I thought it would be useful to compare the organizational and procedural aspects of both worlds.
This week, it might be time to wrap up this topic and move on: why have we talked so much about DAOs? Are these models truly meaningful for organizations or communities, or are they just a technological novelty that’s been overly romanticized?
Where Do Real Benefits Begin and End?
DAOs promise transparency, participation, and distributed responsibility. But when do these promises actually create value, and when do they just bring chaos and uncertainty?
In traditional organizations, decision-making processes usually rely on a certain hierarchy. Distribution of responsibility, accountability, time management, and strategic clarity are the cornerstones of these structures. DAOs, however, propose a structure that shakes these foundations.
Sometimes this leads to positive outcomes:
- Large communities can produce more inclusive solutions,
- Decisions can be based on more democratic foundations,
- Participants can feel more connected.
But sometimes it gets risky:
- Constant voting processes can slow down decision-making,
- Uncertainty and lack of coordination can lead to a loss of strategic direction,
- In an environment where “everyone is responsible,” no one’s responsibility is clear.
By the way, I’m not trying to glorify the way traditional organizations distribute roles and responsibilities and the clarity there. Most of my 20-plus years in business, especially in large organizations, were spent with questions like “Whose job is that?” “Which team is responsible for this? Is it your team or mine?”
So even though traditional organizations want clear lines on roles, responsibilities, and accountability, it’s almost never possible. Alongside the black and whites, there are plenty of gray areas. But the intention to clarify these issues is always on the table. :)
So while pondering “how romantic an ideal are DAOs?” maybe we should also put “100% clear responsibilities in traditional business” on the table as a romantic ideal.
Back to DAOs…
DAOs aren’t a cure-all. They’re not suitable for every organization. And they certainly can’t be applied everywhere. But they offer thought-provoking examples for structures looking to transform their organizational cultures.
Maybe a corporate company can’t become a DAO entirely, or just embrace a DAO-based organizational form. But they might adopt slightly more hybrid applications like:
- Community-based voting on certain projects,
- Transparent fund distribution and performance evaluations,
- Open idea-gathering processes for users.
What to Take from DAOs, What Not to
The biggest contribution of DAOs is that they force new ways of thinking. It’s not just about how an organization makes decisions; it’s about whose voices are heard in the decision-making process and how that process is managed.
But this questioning shouldn’t turn into blind DAO admiration. Just as no company can make all decisions 24/7 by voting, DAOs don’t claim that this system can work in every area.
So the message is clear: DAOs are not a revolution, but a lens. Through that lens, it’s easier to see which reflexes organizations need to change.
Final Word: Moving On
With this article, we’re closing the DAO topic for now. Starting next week, we’ll focus on the abundance of events in the Web3 world, community fatigue, and their counterparts in the corporate world. So once again, we’ll be talking about the culture itself, beyond the structures.