CAYMAN ISLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jason Ta, Travers Thorp Alberga
automating treasury management, and enforc - ing smart contract protocols. The integration of AI into DAO models presents new opportunities for efficiency but also introduces legal and regu - latory challenges, particularly around account - ability and compliance. Understanding Conventional DAOs All DAOs are unique, but the common theme involves a community operating on a blockchain, with governance and decision-making process - es managed through smart contracts. These organisations empower token holders to vote on proposals, theoretically ensuring a decentralised and democratic process. However, in practice, many DAOs have encountered significant hur - dles, including centralisation tendencies, opera - tional inefficiencies and most concerning of all, illegality and regulatory non-compliance. Nota - bly, the Securities Exchange Commission, Com - modity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and participants through the US courts have taken action against some DAOs (like the Ooki DAO – which operated a decentralised trading platform for margin and leverage trading and came under regulatory scrutiny when the CFTC charged it with operating an unregistered trading platform and violating Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) require - ments – or the Lido DAO) highlighting the legal vulnerabilities DAOs may face. A key legal issue in those cases was whether a DAO could be held responsible as a legal entity and whether DAO participants (often its token holders) could be liable for its actions. A critical concern is whether DAO participants function as partners in an unincorporated entity, exposing them to joint and several liability under partner - ship law. Privileges given to DAO participants, such as voting rights or governance actions, could be seen as managerial control, increasing regulatory risks. Both cases highlight the need,
detailed in the UK Commission scoping paper on DAOs, for DAOs to utilise legal structures to mitigate liability risks. Regulators increas - ingly view governance participation as potential managerial control, raising concerns about unin - corporated partnership liability. Evolution of DAOs and Introduction to DAO Adjacent Entities (BORGs and Special Counsels) To address the regulatory and operational chal - lenges DAOs face, different kinds of legal vehi - cles have been implemented over the past few years. Initially, to address these issues, wrapped DAOs emerged, incorporating legal entities (often Cayman foundation companies) to provide liabil - ity protection and regulatory compliance. While this approach offers legitimacy, it compromises decentralisation. Partially wrapped DAOs take a middle ground, using legal structures for spe - cific functions, such as treasury management, while maintaining decentralised governance. Meanwhile, DAO-adjacent entities interact with DAOs without being fully governed by them, providing legal, financial or operational sup - port. Some employ “code deference” , linking legal decisions to DAO governance via smart contracts. In particular, DAO-adjacent entities known as “BORGs” and “Special Counsels” are becoming popular. Both enhance governance, accountability and regulatory compliance while preserving decentralisation. BORGs BORGs integrate autonomous technologies like smart contracts and AI, acting as intermediaries between DAOs and the traditional legal system. Notable features of a BORG include the follow - ing. • Providing legal personhood – unlike vaguely organised DAOs, BORGs are legally regis -
168 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook