Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonyswish | Hacker News Reader

Viewing this as a corporate attorney is the wrong approach as it's not a "corporation" and there is not really any legal framework as the idea is too new (CFTC commissioner just mentioned to "do no harm" to blockchain tech).

1. no, but they have a vote and can transfer a token which also represents their vote

2. there is no board

3. there is no board

View on HN

I think the key thing to emphasize as well is that "The DAO" is just a program which now has clearly defined rules for managing its assets in the form of cryptocurrency. When it interacts with the real world, it will do so by transferring or receiving digital assets and entering into real-world contracts with outside parties (Contractors). Whether those contracts with outside parties are enforceable, and how they will be enforced is within the realm of "to be determined" at this point. That does not at all mean the prospects for this type of setup/idea (DAO) are negative going forward.

> When it interacts with the real world, it will do so by transferring or receiving digital assets and entering into real-world contracts with outside parties (Contractors).

Is the DAO a legal entity with recognized agents with authority to enter into contracts on its behalf? If not, how can this possibly work?

Like I said "to be determined" is what I understand, however they appear initially to be employing a real-world company avatar: DAO.Link, based in Switzerland. [0]

[0] http://www.coindesk.com/the-dao-just-raised-50-million-but-w...

Edit: Also, do keep in mind that the Contractor would be able to see the contract is in effect by viewing it in the "blockchain". The question is only a matter of real-world enforcement in the specific case of the smart contract criteria not being satisfied at contract completion, due to incorrect/false data inputs to it by people in The DAO.

> Like I said "to be determined" is what I understand, however they appear initially to be employing a real-world company avatar: DAO.Link, based in Switzerland.

Sounds to me like DAO.Link (which appears to be an offering of Slock.it) is the actual legal business entity involved, and that the legal basis and enforcement mechanisms for assuring that it acts as expected by the participants of the blockchain-based entities it interacts with is...somewhat murky.

"The DAO" in this instance sounds like it'd be a great target for a fuzzer. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com