DAOs historically haven't been a good product DAOs-in-name are a good product: they allow the team to satisfy their lawyers & to get Coinbase listings while still maintaining control. "DAO theater" is a feature, not a bug, for many projects the ostensible reason for a DAO is 'credible neutrality' / decentralization but: - there aren't many buyers of credible neutrality. if the protocol you're interacting with is credibly neutral, you might be able to shave off a few hundred bps in counterparty risk. most on-chain users don't care about this - it's unclear that DAOs actually reduce counterparty risk. I might even be *less* willing to lend to a borrow/lend that's run by a DAO than by a team. Beanstalk lost ~$200m in depositor money specifically because they were a DAO this is why we've pivoted our focus so heavily to ICOs. if you deploy $$$ into a typical ICO, there's above a 50% chance your money disappears into insider pockets via slow rug or them just walking away with it. this is a massive pain point for users and one that can be mostly solved by just keeping the money in a Futarchy DAO