Blockchain Governance

Subscribe to Blockchain Governance via RSS

As discussed in Part I of this series, state DAO LLC laws have been enacted in the last several years and have become one option for decentralized autonomous organizations (or DAOs) to create a so-called “legal wrapper” or real-world corporate entity to shield individual members from liability.

In Part II we will look at some of the standout features of the United States’ DAO laws.[1]

DAOs as LLCs, or LLDs. As discussed below, the Wyoming (SF0038, codified at W.S. §17‑31‑101 through §17‑31‑116; Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed an amendment to the DAO Supplement into law (SF0068) (the DAO Supplement and its 2022 amendments) (collectively, the “WY Law”)  and Tennessee (HB2645/SB2854, to be codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §48-250-101 through 48-250-115) (the “TN Law”), DAO LLC laws opt for the “wrapper” approach by “wrapping” DAOs within an LLC. Utah, however, goes further. Under the “Utah Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Act” (HB 357) (codified at Utah Code Ann. §48-5-101 – 406) (the “Utah Law”), rather than being wrapped by an LLC, limited liability decentralized autonomous organizations (or “LLDs”) are the legal entity formed under the Utah Law. (Utah Code Ann. §48-5-104). Under the Utah Law, LLD members enjoy limited liability and are only liable for the on-chain contributions that the member has committed to the DAO. (Utah Code Ann. §48-5-202). Further, members cannot be held personally liable for any excess liability after the DAO assets have been exhausted. (Utah Code Ann. §48-5-202(1)(b)). Utah further covers situations when a DAO refuses to comply with an enforceable judgment or order against the DAO by stating that members who voted against using the DAO’s treasury to satisfy a judgment may be liable for any monetary payments in the judgment or order “in proportion to the member’s share of governance rights in the [DAO].” (Utah Code Ann. §48-5-202(d)(2)).  The Utah Law, in another effort to foreclose certain theories of liability, also explicitly states that a developer, member, participant or legal representative of a DAO may not be imputed to have fiduciary duties toward each other or third parties solely on account on their role, absent certain express actions or statements. (Utah Code Ann. §48-5-307).  These questions have been more salient for DAO members, given the ongoing CFTC enforcement against the Ooki DAO and the recent California district court ruling that various governance token holders in a DAO could be deemed to be members of a “general partnership” under California law and thus potentially joint and severally liable in the suit.

Little-known legal trivia: In 1977 Wyoming was the first state to pioneer the LLC, which is now a commonly applied legal innovation.  Fast forward more than forty years…in July 2021, Wyoming again tried to be at the vanguard of new corporate formations and passed legislation that recognized decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, as legally distinct business entities, with protections for token holders similar to those offered to corporation stockholders or limited liability company members. Wyoming may have jumped off the blocks first, but Tennessee and Utah are not far behind. Recently, on March 1, 2023, the Utah Legislature passed HB 357 (codified at Utah Code Ann. §48-5-101-406), the “Utah Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Act” (the “Utah Law”).

This article is Part I of a two-part article on developments in state DAO LLC laws. In this part, we will briefly outline the basics of a DAO and the latest state enactments in the area, as well as explain why real-world corporate formations may be attractive for some DAO members. In Part II, we will do a deep dive into the more notable aspects of the new crop of state DAO LLC laws and offer some final thoughts.

In what appears to be an issue of first impression, a California district court ruled that various defendants allegedly holding governance tokens to the bZx DAO (or “Decentralized Autonomous Organization”), a protocol for tokenized margin trading and lending, could be deemed to be members of a “general partnership” under California law under the facts outlined in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and thus potentially joint and severally liable for negligence related to a phishing attack that resulted in the loss of users’ cryptocurrency. (Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, No. 22-618 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2023)). The ruling is significant given that this is purportedly the first court to substantively consider the legal status of a DAO under state law (albeit in a ruling on a motion to dismiss); interestingly, in a prior settlement the defendant bZeroX, LLC and its founders reached with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 2022 over claims that bZeroX and its founders unlawfully offered leveraged and margined retail commodity transactions in digital assets, the order expressly considered the bZx DAO (and its successor Ooki DAO, which is co-defendant in the instant action) as an “unincorporated association” under federal law. (In re bZeroX, LLC, CFTC No. 22-31 (Sept. 22, 2022)).

A DAO is a decentralized autonomous organization where token holders can vote on governance decisions of the DAO. DAOs don’t typically operate within a formal corporate structure, opting instead to distribute governance rights among persons who hold a specific governance token. The entire raison d’être of a DAO is to take advantage of web3 technologies and operate without a traditional corporate formation to make decisions without a central authority or usual top-down management structure. While DAOs are emerging as a viable structure in DeFi space, this ruling shows that their non-traditional makeup may not necessarily be a shield from real world liability.  Plaintiffs’ theory that the DAO members are part of a general partnership means that anyone holding governance tokens at the relevant time would be jointly and severally liable for the torts of the DAO.  To be sure, even though existing structures do not fit the novel web3 organizational primitive that is a DAO, nothing prevented the bZx DAO (or its successor Ooki DAO), from creating a so-called “legal wrapper” or real-world corporate entity to shield individual members from liability and limit potential creditors to monetary recovery from the DAO’s treasury only.

At 2:43am EST on September 15, 2022, the first Ethereum block was validated using Proof of Stake, signaling the success of the Ethereum Merge, one of the most anticipated events in blockchain and computer science history. The Merge shifted the Ethereum blockchain (native token ETH, or ether) from a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, which has reduced the network’s energy usage by about 99.5%. Ethereum now facilitates a 7-day average of over one-million transactions per day, at a volume of over $600 million per day, making the Merge an engineering feat akin to swapping a car’s engine while it’s driving on the Autobahn.

As of this writing, the Ethereum “Merge,” one of the most anticipated events in blockchain history, is finally expected to occur in September 2022. The “Merge” will shift the Ethereum blockchain (native token ETH, or ether) from a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism that uses over 99.9% less energy. Technically, the Merge involves transitioning the current Ethereum proof-of-work Mainnet protocol (the blockchain used for ETH-based transactions) to the Beacon Chain proof-of-stake network.  As a result, transactions will be conducted on the new proof-of-stake network and new ETH tokens will be minted by nodes on the network staking a fair amount of ether tokens into a pool to secure the network and validate transactions. Post-Merge, the practice of ether cryptomining on the Ethereum 2.0 network will end, either forcing miners to pivot to mining on Ethereum Classic or find a new endeavor.

While the move to Ethereum 2.0 is being closely-watched, akin to the countdown to the New Year’s Eve Times Square ball drop, it’s a little more complicated and more of a series of actions (and accompanying benefits) that will happen over time. The Merge is but the first step in a series of five (notably followed by upgrades titled ‘the Surge,’ ‘the Verge,’ ‘the Purge,’ and ‘the Splurge’) that intend to make Ethereum faster, more scalable, more powerful, more energy efficient and more robust.

Beyond the wider adoption of cryptocurrencies by consumers in recent years, companies and organizations have also shown increased interest in crypto-assets in the past year. A myriad of industries, from sports to fashion to art to videogames to music, are entering NFTs, which, depending on the marketplace, may be minted on a PoW or PoS blockchain. Financial institutions are exploring how to compete with decentralized finance products by offering services on blockchains to provide more security and less friction in an effort toward safer and faster transactions. Depending on how such platforms are structured, such services will also be on a PoW or PoS network. This increase in investments in blockchain-based products and services by numerous and varying shareholders has resulted in increased due diligence on how much investments are complying with ESG mandates.  Corporate balance sheets are increasingly filled with cryptocurrencies, presumably as an inflation hedge or broad investment strategy, potentially impacting their ESG practices. At least one financial firm has announced that employers may soon have the option to offer workers the option to place a portion of 401(k) retirement savings in Bitcoin. Also, potential ESG issues can arise not only when investing in a cryptominer or in cryptocurrencies verified with a PoW consensus mechanism, but also with an investment in an exchange that transacts in certain energy-intensive cryptocurrencies.

Simply put, with the increased use of these types of emerging technologies, ESG concerns are likely to arise. It remains to be seen how such emerging technologies will balance innovation, while complying with ESG issues.  

So you bought an NFT. You now own what is effectively an immutable electronic deed meant to record ownership of an asset, often a digital artwork. You probably paid for the NFT upfront—and if the artist is popular, you may have paid a substantial sum. This is one factor that has made the NFT market so attractive for artists working in digital mediums, many of whom struggle to effectively monetize their work. Like traditional art gallery sales, NFT sales allow creators to reap substantial profits from one-time instantaneous transactions, offering a lucrative alternative to gradually generating revenue through licensing, merchandizing, or streaming (though many NFTs also allow an artist to reap a percentage of future downstream sales, too).

But while NFTs have created a new outlet for many artists, the technology has also been a boon to digital content thieves. Pirates can mint knockoff NFTs with nothing more than a digital file and some cryptocurrency, then sell those knockoffs to unsuspecting collectors. Forged art is as old as art itself, but because they feature exact copies of their stolen works, knockoff NFTs are often indistinguishable from their genuine counterparts. Moreover, unlike other online infringers (think purveyors of illegal streams or unauthorized t-shirts), an NFT pirate only needs one unwitting buyer to take the “one-of-a-kind” virtual bait before disappearing with the oft-substantial payment into anonymity, meaning the entire scam can happen in hours or even minutes. Amidst the resulting piracy boom, it falls to creators to protect both their fans and their IP by scanning platforms for infringing NFT sale listings and issue takedown requests. But even when they succeed in getting a sale listing removed, the knockoff NFT itself remains immutably on its blockchain and the infringing content usually remains elsewhere on the web.

Undoubtedly, digital creators will fight to protect their work. The question is, are current copyright protection procedures—specifically, those under the DMCA—up to the task?

On January 20, 2022, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the “Committee”) held a hearing on the energy consumption associated with cryptocurrency activity. In announcing the hearing on January 12, 2022, Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-CO) stated: “In just a few short years, cryptocurrency has seen a meteoric rise in popularity. It’s time to understand and address the steep energy and environmental impacts it is having on our communities and our planet.”

By the close of the hearings, committee members received a two-hour lesson about a wide range of topics: blockchain (and its varying types of consensus mechanisms) and its energy impact to the climate; how crypto mining can affect utilities’ management of energy resources and ultimately the price consumers pay for their electricity; how utilities work with energy-intensive miners; and where to strike the balance between green energy goals and the economic development of cryptocurrency. A number of members of the Committee appeared open to preserving the potential innovations and economic growth from blockchain while still improving efficiencies in power usage and achieving growth in renewables.

This is Part I of a two-part post on the issues raised by the Congressional hearing on the energy usage of blockchains. In this part, we will discuss how different blockchain consensus mechanisms impact energy usage and some potential solutions discussed at the hearing. In Part II, we will delve into some ESG considerations now affecting businesses as related to cryptocurrency investments and blockchain usage.