0x71558ae2…779csent to0xcf2f348c…b49a·#23,203,615·view on Etherscan
@0x9e0e...57B1
Just so we are on the same page - this is not a corporation. The DUNA is a decentralized *unincorporated* nonprofit association under Wyoming law. By definition it isn’t incorporated, and it wasn’t set up to centralize power or act like a company.
Yes, there are tax liabilities now, but that’s the tradeoff the DAO made in order to protect its assets and members from even greater risks down the line. The purpose was never solely to generate tangible returns, it was to give the DAO a legally recognized wrapper so it can operate without exposing contributors to personal liability and interact with traditional corporations/entities.
Where exactly is power being centralized? The admins don’t get to make decisions on their own. We can only do what the DAO directs us to do, either through onchain proposals or through the administrator agreements that were approved by the DAO. The added “bureaucracy” comes from having a transparent and accountable process, not from admins taking control.
So no, the benefit here isn’t flashy or tangible - it’s protection. Without the DUNA, the DAO would be far more exposed, both financially and legally. With it, at least there’s a structure to handle compliance and risk in a way that’s visible and directed by the community.
> I was against the idea of turning a decentralized DAO into a US corp from the beginning, and what makes it worse is that it doesn’t even look like it ever became a real US corporation. It feels more like a shell, just a convenient setup so Uncle Sam could collect taxes, while the DAO itself has seen no real benefits. That’s the part that stings: hundreds of thousands have been spent, and I still don’t see a single tangible outcome for the DAO. Instead, it looks like personal gains for a few people came at the expense of the treasury.
>
> I called this manipulation back then, and I’ll call it manipulation now. When I look at the history, this isn’t the first time. We already got dragged into the Nouns Foundation, which by now is safe to say was a complete waste of DAO funds with zero return. Then, after that, the same voices showed up again, pushing another shiny structure with the promise of a stronger future, DUNA. And once again, I struggle to see what benefit the DAO has actually received in return.
>
> So here’s my question to those representing the DAO: what exactly was the benefit of turning a decentralized DAO into what we see today? Where are the tangible results? How is it even remotely likely that the DAO will ever recover more value than it spent on this whole “adventure”? Because right now, it doesn’t feel like an evolution of decentralization, it feels like we paid to centralize power, add bureaucracy, and give away leverage while calling it progress. If anything, it looks like another expensive detour dressed up as strategy, but in reality just another manipulation that left the DAO footing the bill.
>
> This isn’t just about pointing fingers, it’s about accountability. If this was truly in the interest of the DAO, then let’s see the measurable benefits. Otherwise, all I see is history repeating itself: lofty promises, big spending, and no clear value for the DAO. At some point, we need to admit when we’ve been rugged, instead of letting the same pattern repeat again and again.
>
> So tell me, what are we actually gaining here? Where is the proof that this structure benefits the DAO in any meaningful way? How long do we keep pouring resources into these setups before someone shows us a real return? And most importantly, who is truly accountable when the DAO keeps losing and only a few seem to win?