Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): Structure, Governance, and Challenges

CImagesb3bfab82-5cf2-4c01-bf24-bf2601337998

Abstract

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) stand at the forefront of organizational innovation, fundamentally transforming traditional governance paradigms through the application of blockchain technology. This comprehensive report meticulously examines DAOs, delving into their intricate structural components, diverse governance mechanisms, inherent advantages, and the formidable challenges they confront. By scrutinizing a broad spectrum of DAO models, encompassing both theoretical frameworks and real-world implementations, this study aims to furnish a profound and exhaustive understanding of DAOs’ revolutionary potential and the inherent complexities associated with their design, deployment, and sustained operation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The profound impact of blockchain technology extends far beyond digital currencies, ushering in an era of unprecedented organizational structures. Among these emergent paradigms, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have rapidly gained prominence as a pivotal development in collective coordination and governance. Conceptually, DAOs represent a radical departure from hierarchical, centralized entities, instead operating without the need for traditional management or a singular authoritative figure. Their operational backbone relies heavily on smart contracts, which serve to automate rules, enforce agreements, and facilitate transparent, community-driven decision-making processes. This paper undertakes an exhaustive exploration of DAOs, dissecting their architectural underpinnings, scrutinizing the diverse frameworks employed for their governance, elucidating their manifold advantages, and meticulously analyzing the significant obstacles that impede their widespread adoption and long-term sustainability.

Historically, the genesis of DAOs can be traced back to the burgeoning interest in applying blockchain’s immutable ledger and trustless execution capabilities to collective action. Early theoretical discussions, rooted in the principles of libertarianism and cypherpunk ideology, envisioned self-governing entities impervious to censorship or manipulation. The practical realization began with the advent of smart contract platforms, most notably Ethereum, which provided the computational layer necessary for programmable agreements. A significant, albeit cautionary, milestone was ‘The DAO’ project launched in 2016. Despite its ambitious vision for a venture capital fund governed entirely by code, a critical vulnerability in its smart contract led to a substantial loss of funds, necessitating a controversial hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain. This seminal event, while painful, served as a crucial learning experience, highlighting the imperative for robust security audits, formal verification, and resilient governance designs, thereby shaping the subsequent evolution of DAO development [Blockchain Explained, ‘The DAO Story’].

Today, DAOs are no longer confined to theoretical constructs but are actively redefining how value is created, managed, and distributed across a multitude of sectors, from decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and NFT platforms to social communities and research collectives. Their promise lies in fostering greater inclusivity, transparency, and efficiency, democratizing access to decision-making, and aligning incentives among a global network of participants. This comprehensive analysis will illuminate the intricacies of this transformative organizational model, providing a robust foundation for understanding their present state and future trajectory.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Structure of DAOs

DAOs are intricately engineered systems, relying on a synergistic blend of blockchain technology, cryptography, and economic incentives to facilitate decentralized operations. Their architecture is designed to minimize reliance on human intermediaries and maximize automated, trustless execution.

2.1 Core Components

At their essence, DAOs are constructed upon several interdependent foundational elements that collectively enable their autonomous and decentralized functioning:

Smart Contracts: These are the immutable, self-executing agreements whose terms are directly written into lines of code, residing on a blockchain. Smart contracts are the operational heart of any DAO, automating virtually every aspect of its governance and treasury management. They dictate how proposals are submitted, how votes are counted, how funds are allocated, and how rules are enforced. The immutability of smart contracts, once deployed, means their logic cannot be altered without a pre-defined and usually heavily governed upgrade mechanism, ensuring transparency and predictability. This characteristic, while a strength, also poses a significant risk: any flaw or vulnerability in the code becomes a permanent exploit vector, as tragically demonstrated by ‘The DAO’ hack. Therefore, rigorous auditing, formal verification, and bug bounty programs are paramount before deployment. Smart contracts operate on various blockchain platforms, with Ethereum being the most prominent, alongside others like Solana, Polkadot, Avalanche, and Binance Smart Chain, each offering different trade-offs in terms of speed, cost, and developer ecosystem.
Governance Tokens: These are cryptographic tokens that embody the fundamental mechanism of participation and influence within a DAO. More than just a representation of value, governance tokens confer specific rights upon their holders, primarily the ability to vote on proposals, elect delegates, or directly influence the DAO’s direction. The distribution of these tokens is critical to the DAO’s decentralization. Mechanisms for token distribution include initial coin offerings (ICOs), airdrops to early users or community members, liquidity mining incentives, and grants. The number of tokens held typically correlates with voting power, aiming to align the interests of token holders with the long-term success of the DAO. Beyond voting, governance tokens can offer additional utility, such as staking rewards, reduced platform fees, or preferential access to certain features or services within the DAO’s ecosystem. The design of tokenomics – the economic model underpinning the token – is crucial for fostering active participation and preventing excessive centralization of power.
Treasury: The treasury represents the collective financial assets managed by the DAO, serving as the organization’s economic engine. Unlike traditional corporate treasuries controlled by a board of directors, a DAO’s treasury is governed directly by its members through the smart contract-enabled proposal and voting system. Funds within the treasury can be denominated in various cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, or even other digital assets. This pooled capital is used to finance new projects, provide grants to ecosystem contributors, pay for operational expenses, conduct token buybacks, or engage in strategic investments that align with the DAO’s mission. Treasury management involves defining clear spending guidelines, diversification strategies to mitigate market volatility, and robust multi-signature wallets (e.g., Gnosis Safe) for secure execution of approved transactions. The transparency of the blockchain allows any member to audit the treasury’s holdings and transaction history, fostering unparalleled accountability [Blockchain Explained, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO) Governance and Challenges’].
Proposal Mechanism: This is the systematic process through which members can initiate, discuss, and formally vote on changes or actions pertaining to the DAO. It is the lifeblood of decentralized decision-making. The mechanism typically involves distinct stages: from initial ideation and informal discussion on community forums (e.g., Discourse, Discord, Telegram) to the formal drafting of a proposal using specific platforms (e.g., Snapshot, Tally). Formal proposals often include detailed descriptions, justifications, budget requests, and specific smart contract addresses or parameters to be modified. The threshold for submitting a proposal (e.g., minimum token holdings, delegation from other members) varies between DAOs, designed to prevent spam while enabling broad participation. This mechanism ensures that the DAO’s direction is a result of collective deliberation and consent, rather than unilateral dictate.

2.2 Operational Workflow

The typical operational workflow of a DAO, from inception of an idea to its execution, is a meticulously defined, multi-stage process, largely automated by smart contracts:

Idea Generation and Informal Discussion: The process often begins with community members identifying a need, opportunity, or problem. Initial discussions frequently occur on off-chain forums, such as Discord, Telegram, or dedicated Discourse forums. This informal phase allows for brainstorming, gathering feedback, and gauging community sentiment before investing resources into a formal proposal. This stage is crucial for refining ideas and building consensus.
Proposal Submission: Once an idea garners sufficient support and is refined, a member (or a group of members) drafts a formal proposal. This often requires meeting a minimum token holding threshold or receiving delegated votes from other members to prevent spam. The proposal is then formally submitted to the DAO’s governance portal. These proposals are typically detailed documents outlining the problem, proposed solution, impact analysis, required resources (e.g., from the treasury), and the specific on-chain actions (e.g., smart contract calls) to be executed upon approval. Some DAOs may require a small deposit, refundable upon success, to deter frivolous proposals.
Discussion and Deliberation: Following submission, the proposal enters a formal discussion phase, usually on dedicated governance forums. Community members engage in rigorous debate, analyzing the proposal’s merits, implications, potential risks, and alternative solutions. This period is vital for fostering informed decision-making. Members may ask clarifying questions, propose amendments, and lobby for or against the proposal. Delegates, if the DAO employs such a system, play a crucial role here, synthesizing information and guiding discussions. This stage can be highly dynamic, with proposals often undergoing revisions based on community feedback.
Voting: After the discussion period concludes, the proposal moves to an on-chain or off-chain voting period. Holders of governance tokens cast their votes, typically with their voting power proportional to their token holdings. Voting can occur directly on-chain, requiring gas fees for each vote, or off-chain using snapshot mechanisms (e.g., Snapshot.org) which record token balances at a specific block height without incurring gas fees, before a final on-chain execution if the proposal passes. The voting period is defined by the DAO’s smart contracts, usually lasting several days. For a proposal to pass, it must typically meet two conditions: a minimum ‘quorum’ (a percentage of total eligible voting power that must participate) and a minimum ‘threshold’ (a percentage of ‘yes’ votes required to pass, relative to total votes cast or total voting power). Different voting mechanisms (e.g., quadratic voting, conviction voting) may be employed to address issues of voter apathy or whale dominance.
Execution: If the proposal successfully meets the quorum and threshold requirements, it is automatically executed through pre-programmed smart contracts. This automation is a cornerstone of DAO efficiency and trustlessness; there is no need for human intermediaries to approve or sign off on the decision. For proposals that involve actions not fully automatable (e.g., off-chain legal actions, marketing campaigns), the smart contract may release funds to a multi-signature wallet controlled by trusted community members or specific committees, who are then responsible for implementing the approved actions. This ensures that the DAO’s actions are transparent, auditable, and directly reflect the collective will of its token holders [BTC Lokamining, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): Redefining Governance in the Blockchain Era’].

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Governance Mechanisms

Effective governance is paramount for a DAO’s success, determining its responsiveness, resilience, and fairness. Various models have emerged, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages, reflecting a constant innovation in decentralized decision-making.

3.1 Token-Based Voting

Token-based voting, often referred to as ‘plutocratic’ governance by its critics, is the most pervasive model in DAOs. In this system, an individual’s voting power is directly proportional to the quantity of governance tokens they possess. The rationale behind this model is rooted in the belief that those with the largest financial stake in the protocol have the strongest incentive to make decisions that contribute to its long-term success and value appreciation. This aligns economic incentives with governance outcomes.

Advantages:
* Simplicity: It is straightforward to implement and understand.
* Incentive Alignment: It theoretically aligns decision-making with the financial health of the protocol.
* Efficiency: Can lead to quicker decisions as large holders can rapidly coalesce votes.

Disadvantages:
* Centralization Risk (Whale Problem): The most significant criticism is the potential for power concentration. If a small group or single entity accumulates a substantial portion of governance tokens, they can effectively control the DAO, undermining the very principles of decentralization and potentially leading to ‘tyranny of the whales.’ This issue is exacerbated when large venture capital firms or early investors hold disproportionate amounts of tokens. While technically decentralized, the decision-making power can become highly centralized in practice [Evolved Designs, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)’].
* Voter Apathy: Many token holders, especially smaller ones, may feel their individual vote has negligible impact, leading to low voter participation rates. This further amplifies the influence of larger holders or a dedicated minority.
* Lack of Expertise: Token ownership does not guarantee expertise in complex technical, legal, or economic matters. Decisions might be made by those with financial power but lacking domain-specific knowledge.
* Sybil Attacks (less common for voting but relevant for participation): While not directly impacting voting weight in a token-based system, low-cost token farming or distribution can lead to ‘fake’ participation if not properly managed.

To mitigate the ‘whale problem’, some token-based DAOs implement delegated voting, also known as ‘liquid democracy’. Token holders can delegate their voting power to another address, often a trusted community member, a subject matter expert, or a ‘meta-governor’. This allows smaller holders to still have influence without directly participating in every vote, by entrusting their vote to someone who is more engaged or knowledgeable. Delegates can also be ‘undone’ at any time, allowing token holders to reclaim their voting power. This system aims to foster a more informed voting body and address voter apathy by distributing the burden of active participation [The Crypto Cortex, ‘Governance Frameworks for DAOs’].

3.2 Reputation-Based Systems

Reputation-based governance models endeavor to allocate voting power based on an individual’s proven contributions, expertise, and historical positive impact within the community, rather than solely on their financial stake. The underlying philosophy is to reward meritocracy and active engagement, fostering a more equitable distribution of influence and ensuring that decisions are made by those with a vested interest in the DAO’s long-term health and a track record of productive participation.

Mechanisms for Reputation Building:
* Contribution Tracking: Systems like SourceCred automatically track contributions (e.g., forum posts, code commits, successful proposals, moderation activity) and assign ‘cred’ points.
* Peer Review: Members can endorse or vouch for others’ contributions, building a web of trust.
* Successful Initiatives: Leading successful proposals or projects can enhance reputation.
* Time-Locked Stakes: Some systems might require locking tokens for a period, which then accrues reputation points.

Advantages:
* Meritocracy: Rewards active participation and expertise, promoting a more qualified decision-making body.
* Reduced Plutocracy: Aims to counteract the concentration of power seen in pure token-based systems.
* Increased Engagement: Incentivizes continuous involvement and quality contributions.

Challenges:
* Complexity of Implementation: Accurately assessing and quantifying contributions in a fair and objective manner is exceptionally challenging. Defining what constitutes ‘reputation’ and how it translates to voting power is complex.
* Subjectivity: Reputational scores can be subjective and vulnerable to manipulation or gaming (e.g., sybil attacks where an individual creates multiple identities to boost their ‘reputation’).
* Cold Start Problem: New members, despite potentially possessing valuable skills, may find it difficult to accumulate reputation and gain influence quickly.
* Lack of Transparency in Calculation: If the reputation algorithm is complex, it might not be easily auditable or understood by all members, potentially leading to distrust [Rapid Innovation, ‘DAOs Explained: Ultimate Guide to Decentralized Autonomous Organizations’].

3.3 Hybrid Models

Hydrid governance models seek to harness the strengths of both token-based and reputation-based systems while mitigating their respective weaknesses. By combining elements, these models strive to achieve a balance between financial alignment and active, meritocratic participation.

Examples of Hybrid Approaches:
* Weighted Voting: A common hybrid approach allocates a base voting power based on token holdings, but then adds a multiplier or additional voting power based on a member’s reputation score, length of active participation, or tokens locked for a certain duration (vote-locking).
* Quadratic Voting (QV): While primarily a voting mechanism, QV can be seen as a hybrid element. It allows individuals to vote for their preferred options but makes subsequent votes exponentially more expensive. This mechanism discourages ‘whale’ dominance by increasing the cost for large token holders to cast many votes, while making it relatively cheaper for smaller holders to express their preferences. For instance, 1 vote might cost 1 token, 2 votes cost 4 tokens, 3 votes cost 9 tokens, etc. This encourages broader participation and prioritizes preference intensity over sheer capital [Evolved Designs, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)’].
* Conviction Voting: This mechanism grants more voting power to proposals that have sustained support over a longer period. Instead of a discrete vote, members continuously signal their ‘conviction’ for a proposal by staking tokens, and this conviction accumulates over time. This approach mitigates instant ‘whale’ influence and prioritizes persistent community sentiment, making it suitable for allocating ongoing grants or funding long-term initiatives.
* Committees/Sub-DAOs with Reputation: A DAO might use token-based voting for major protocol upgrades and treasury allocations, but delegate specific operational tasks or policy areas to smaller, specialized committees or sub-DAOs where membership and voting power are determined by reputation or specific expertise. For instance, a ‘Grants Committee’ might have members selected based on their track record in evaluating proposals.

Hybrid models are continuously evolving, reflecting the DAOs’ attempts to create governance systems that are fair, robust, and adaptable to their specific needs. The goal is often to prevent single points of failure, whether financial or social, and to foster resilient and truly decentralized decision-making.

3.4 Emerging Governance Models

The landscape of DAO governance is highly dynamic, with continuous experimentation leading to innovative, albeit often theoretical, models aiming to solve existing challenges.

Futarchy: Proposed by economist Robin Hanson, futarchy is a governance model where decisions are made by prediction markets. Instead of directly voting on a proposal, members vote on whether they believe a proposal will achieve a desired outcome (e.g., ‘Will X increase Y by Z?’). If the market predicts ‘yes,’ the proposal is enacted. This aims to leverage collective intelligence and incentivize accurate predictions rather than ideological votes. While intriguing, implementing futarchy in a real-world DAO context faces significant challenges, including defining measurable outcomes, liquid prediction markets, and resistance to complex systems.
Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) and Decentralized Identity: Inspired by World of Warcraft’s ‘soulbound’ items, SBTs are non-transferable, non-fungible tokens representing an individual’s unique characteristics, achievements, or affiliations. They could serve as a foundation for a robust, sybil-resistant reputation system, where SBTs represent academic degrees, work experience, contributions to DAOs, or participation in specific events. This could enable more nuanced and secure reputation-based governance, potentially reducing the ‘cold start’ problem and making it harder to fake identity or contributions.
Proof-of-Personhood Systems: These systems aim to verify the uniqueness of human users to prevent sybil attacks, ensuring ‘one person, one vote’ where appropriate. Projects like BrightID use social graphing to establish unique identities, which could be integrated into DAO governance to ensure that a single entity cannot control multiple voting identities, particularly relevant for non-financialized voting. However, privacy concerns and the practicalities of onboarding remain significant hurdles.
Nested DAOs and Federation: Large DAOs can become unwieldy. Nested DAOs involve a hierarchy or network of sub-DAOs, each responsible for specific functions or domains (e.g., a marketing DAO, a product development DAO, a grants DAO). This modularity can improve efficiency, allow for specialized expertise, and scale governance for larger ecosystems. A federated model might see independent DAOs forming alliances or ‘unions’ for common goals, allowing for inter-DAO coordination without centralizing control.

These emerging models demonstrate the ongoing efforts to create more resilient, inclusive, and effective decentralized governance structures, pushing the boundaries of collective action in the digital age.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Benefits of DAOs

DAOs offer a compelling alternative to traditional organizational structures, leveraging blockchain’s inherent properties to deliver significant advantages in transparency, decentralization, efficiency, and collective action. These benefits are not merely theoretical but are increasingly being demonstrated through real-world applications across various industries.

4.1 Transparency

One of the most profound benefits of DAOs is their unparalleled transparency. All transactions, governance proposals, and voting records within a DAO are permanently recorded on a public blockchain. This creates an immutable, cryptographically secure, and publicly accessible ledger that can be independently verified by any participant or interested party [Blockchain Explained, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO) Governance and Challenges’].

Implications of Transparency:
* Enhanced Trust and Accountability: Unlike traditional organizations where financial records or internal decisions might be opaque or selectively disclosed, every action in a DAO, particularly those involving the treasury, is visible. This fosters a high degree of trust among members, as they can independently audit how funds are being utilized and verify that decisions are executed as approved. It significantly reduces the potential for fraud, corruption, or self-serving actions by a select few.
* Reduced Information Asymmetry: All participants have access to the same fundamental data, leveling the playing field and ensuring that no single entity holds privileged information that could be leveraged for unfair advantage. This democratic access to information is a cornerstone of fair governance.
* Public Scrutiny and Feedback: The transparent nature allows for continuous public scrutiny. If a decision or transaction appears questionable, the community can immediately identify and challenge it, fostering a culture of collective responsibility and vigilance. This open environment often leads to more robust and well-reasoned proposals, as they are subject to widespread review.
* Auditability: The entire operational history of a DAO, from its inception, is auditable. This provides a clear, verifiable chain of events for regulatory bodies, external auditors, or new members seeking to understand the DAO’s past performance and adherence to its stated mission. This is a radical departure from the often complex and expensive auditing processes of traditional corporations.

4.2 Decentralization

Decentralization is the core tenet upon which DAOs are built, representing a fundamental shift away from centralized authority. By eliminating the need for a hierarchical management structure or a single point of control, DAOs distribute decision-making power across their entire network of members [AirDAO, ‘DAOs and Governance’].

Consequences of Decentralization:
* Resilience to Single Points of Failure: In a centralized organization, the failure or corruption of a single leader, management team, or server can cripple the entire entity. DAOs, by design, are highly resilient to such failures because decision-making power is distributed. There is no single individual or server whose compromise can halt or derail the organization.
* Censorship Resistance: Because DAOs operate on public blockchains and are governed by a distributed network of participants, they are inherently resistant to censorship or undue influence from external entities, including governments or corporations. As long as the underlying blockchain remains operational, the DAO can continue to function, process transactions, and execute decisions.
* Reduced Risk of Corruption and Collusion: Distributing power among many participants makes it significantly harder for a small group to collude or act in a corrupt manner without being detected or overridden by the majority. The open governance process and transparent ledger act as powerful deterrents.
* Global Participation: Decentralization allows DAOs to operate truly globally, transcending geographical boundaries and time zones. Anyone with an internet connection and the necessary tokens can participate, fostering a diverse and inclusive community that can draw on a global talent pool. This removes barriers to entry inherent in traditional, geographically bound organizations.
* Alignment with Blockchain Ethos: The decentralized nature of DAOs perfectly aligns with the foundational principles of blockchain technology, which seeks to disintermediate trust and empower individuals through distributed networks. This philosophical coherence reinforces their appeal within the broader Web3 ecosystem.

4.3 Efficiency

The automation of processes through smart contracts significantly enhances the operational efficiency of DAOs, leading to streamlined operations, reduced costs, and accelerated decision-making and implementation cycles [BTC Lokamining, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): Redefining Governance in the Blockchain Era’].

Manifestations of Efficiency:
* Reduced Administrative Overhead: Smart contracts automate many functions that would traditionally require extensive human oversight, paperwork, and bureaucratic layers. This includes managing funds, executing votes, distributing rewards, and enforcing rules. The elimination of intermediaries (e.g., banks, lawyers for some contracts) reduces fees and processing times.
* Faster Decision-Making and Execution: Once a proposal is approved by the community through a vote, its execution is often immediate and automatic via smart contracts. This drastically cuts down the time from decision to implementation, allowing DAOs to be highly responsive and agile in dynamic environments. In contrast, traditional organizations often face lengthy approval processes and implementation delays.
* Lower Operational Costs: By minimizing the need for extensive human resources for administrative tasks, legal counsel for every transaction, or physical infrastructure, DAOs can operate with significantly lower overhead costs compared to traditional companies. This lean structure allows more resources to be directed towards the DAO’s core mission or value creation activities.
* Scalability: The automated nature means that DAOs can theoretically scale to manage vast amounts of participants and transactions without a proportional increase in administrative burden. While technical scalability of the underlying blockchain remains a factor, the organizational overhead scales much more efficiently.
* Consistency and Reliability: Smart contracts execute precisely as coded, removing the potential for human error, bias, or misinterpretation of rules. This ensures consistent application of the DAO’s governance policies and operational procedures.

4.4 Inclusivity and Global Reach

Beyond technical efficiency and security, DAOs fundamentally change the landscape of participation and ownership. They offer an unprecedented level of inclusivity and global reach, allowing individuals from diverse backgrounds and geographies to contribute and benefit.

Driving Inclusivity:
* Low Barrier to Entry: Unlike traditional corporations that require formal employment, substantial capital investment, or specific educational backgrounds, joining a DAO often only requires holding its governance tokens or demonstrating a willingness to contribute. This lowers the barrier to entry for talented individuals worldwide.
* Merit-Based Opportunities: Many DAOs are increasingly exploring models where contributions, rather than credentials, dictate opportunities and rewards. This meritocratic approach can unlock talent from unexpected places.
* Diverse Perspectives: A globally distributed and inclusive member base naturally brings a wider range of perspectives, cultural insights, and problem-solving approaches to the table. This diversity can lead to more innovative solutions and a more robust decision-making process than typically found in homogeneous corporate environments.
* Financial Empowerment: By enabling individuals to own a direct stake in the protocols they use and contribute to, DAOs democratize ownership and wealth creation. This is particularly impactful for individuals in regions with limited access to traditional financial systems or employment opportunities.

4.5 Alignment of Incentives

DAOs are uniquely positioned to align the incentives of all participants, from developers and contributors to users and investors, with the long-term success of the organization. This alignment is achieved primarily through the governance token and the transparent, collective ownership model.

Mechanisms for Incentive Alignment:
* Shared Ownership: Governance token holders are not just users or employees; they are part-owners of the protocol. Their financial stake directly ties their individual prosperity to the collective success of the DAO. This shared ownership fosters a strong sense of responsibility and stewardship.
* Skin in the Game: For contributors, receiving governance tokens as compensation means they have a vested interest in improving the DAO, as their compensation value is intrinsically linked to the DAO’s performance.
* Direct Impact on Value: Decisions made by the DAO (e.g., protocol upgrades, treasury management) directly impact the utility and value of the governance token. This creates a powerful feedback loop where good governance decisions are rewarded by increased token value, benefiting all aligned stakeholders.
* Open and Transparent Compensation: Compensation models within DAOs, particularly for grants or bounties, are often transparent and performance-based, decided by community consensus. This fosters fairness and clearly links effort to reward, further aligning individual contributions with collective goals.

These multifaceted benefits collectively underscore the transformative potential of DAOs to reshape organizational structures, fostering more resilient, equitable, and efficient forms of human coordination in the digital age.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Challenges in DAO Implementation

While the potential of DAOs is immense, their implementation is fraught with significant challenges that require careful consideration and innovative solutions. These challenges span technical, legal, social, and governance domains, highlighting the nascent nature of this organizational model.

5.1 Security Vulnerabilities

The reliance on smart contracts, while enabling automation and transparency, introduces a critical dependency on the correctness and robustness of code. Flaws or exploits in the underlying smart contract code represent existential security risks for DAOs, potentially leading to catastrophic financial losses and eroding trust within the community. The ‘code is law’ principle means that an exploited vulnerability, if not mitigated, can lead to irreversible consequences [Medium, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in Governance: Challenges and Solutions’].

Types of Smart Contract Vulnerabilities:
* Re-entrancy Attacks: Where an attacker repeatedly withdraws funds from a contract before its balance is updated (e.g., The DAO hack).
* Integer Overflow/Underflow: When mathematical operations exceed or fall below the maximum/minimum value of a data type, leading to incorrect calculations.
* Access Control Issues: Flaws that allow unauthorized users to execute privileged functions.
* Logic Errors: Bugs in the contract’s business logic that lead to unintended behavior or loopholes.
* Front-running: Where malicious actors observe pending transactions and place their own transactions strategically to profit from the information.

Mitigation Strategies:
* Rigorous Auditing: Independent third-party security audits by reputable firms are essential. These audits scrutinize the smart contract code for vulnerabilities before deployment. However, audits are not foolproof and cannot guarantee absolute security.
* Formal Verification: A more rigorous approach that uses mathematical methods to prove the correctness of smart contract code against a specification. While complex, it offers a higher degree of assurance for critical components.
* Bug Bounty Programs: Incentivizing white-hat hackers to discover and report vulnerabilities through financial rewards before malicious actors exploit them.
* Decentralized Oracles: For DAOs relying on external data (e.g., price feeds), decentralized oracle networks (like Chainlink) are crucial to prevent manipulation of off-chain data that could trigger exploitable on-chain actions.
* Upgradeability Mechanisms: While immutability is a core blockchain tenet, some DAOs design their smart contracts with upgradeability features (e.g., proxy patterns). This allows for patching vulnerabilities or upgrading features, but introduces a potential centralization risk if the upgrade key is controlled by a small group.
* Emergency Pause Functions: Implementing mechanisms to temporarily halt critical contract functions in case of an attack, allowing time for diagnosis and mitigation, though this can be controversial for decentralization.

5.2 Legal and Regulatory Uncertainty

The nascent and evolving nature of DAOs has resulted in significant legal and regulatory ambiguity across jurisdictions globally. This uncertainty poses substantial challenges related to legal status, liability, and compliance, potentially hindering mainstream adoption and institutional participation [Reuters, ‘Digital Assets, DAOs and New Theories of Liability’].

Key Legal Challenges:
* Legal Personality: Many jurisdictions do not recognize DAOs as distinct legal entities. This leaves them in a gray area, often defaulting to a general partnership where all token holders might be personally liable for the DAO’s debts or actions. This uncertainty discourages participation, especially from individuals or institutions with significant assets to protect.
* Regulatory Classification: Are DAO tokens securities? Are DAOs investment funds, non-profits, or something entirely new? The answers vary, leading to potential regulatory scrutiny from securities commissions, tax authorities, or financial regulators. Misclassification can lead to severe penalties.
* Liability: In the absence of clear legal personality, determining who is liable for the actions, contracts, or failures of a DAO is complex. Founders, core contributors, or even passive token holders could face legal action.
* Taxation: The tax treatment of DAOs and their participants (e.g., income from governance tokens, treasury gains, contributor payments) is largely undefined and varies widely, creating compliance burdens.
* Jurisdictional Arbitrage: DAOs often operate globally, making it difficult to ascertain which jurisdiction’s laws apply. This can lead to conflicts of law and regulatory enforcement challenges.

Emerging Solutions and Regulatory Approaches:
* DAO Legal Wrappers: Some DAOs are adopting ‘legal wrappers,’ forming traditional legal entities (e.g., foundations, LLCs, non-profits) in specific jurisdictions (e.g., Wyoming, Marshall Islands, Cayman Islands) to act as a legal interface with the traditional world. This can provide limited liability for members and clarify tax obligations.
* Specific Legislation: A few progressive jurisdictions, such as Wyoming, have begun to enact legislation explicitly recognizing DAOs as legal entities (e.g., DAO LLCs), aiming to provide a clearer legal framework and attract blockchain innovation.
* Self-Regulation and Best Practices: The DAO community is actively developing best practices for governance, transparency, and risk management to demonstrate responsible operation and potentially influence future regulatory approaches.

5.3 Governance Issues

Despite their promise of decentralized governance, DAOs frequently encounter internal challenges that can undermine their effectiveness, efficiency, and truly democratic aspirations.

Voter Apathy and Low Participation: A significant challenge is the lack of engagement from a large portion of token holders. Many members, especially smaller ones, may not vote due to the perceived insignificance of their vote, the complexity of proposals, time constraints, or the cost of on-chain transactions (gas fees). This apathy can lead to decisions being made by a small, active minority, or even by a dominant ‘whale’ [Evolved Designs, ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)’].
- Mitigation: Delegation systems, off-chain voting tools (like Snapshot), clear and concise proposal summaries, gamification of participation, and regular communication are common strategies.
Concentration of Power (Plutocracy): As discussed in token-based voting, a large concentration of governance tokens in the hands of a few (e.g., founders, early investors, venture capitalists) can lead to de-facto centralization. These ‘whales’ can exert disproportionate influence over crucial votes, potentially overriding the will of the broader community and leading to decisions that primarily benefit large holders rather than the overall ecosystem.
- Mitigation: Mechanisms like quadratic voting, conviction voting, delegated voting with active accountability, token vesting schedules, and diverse initial token distribution methods are explored to dilute the power of large holders.
Coordination and Communication Challenges: As DAOs grow, coordinating a geographically dispersed and often pseudonymous community becomes increasingly difficult. Reaching consensus on complex issues, managing debates, and ensuring all voices are heard can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Misinformation or ‘FUD’ (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) can spread rapidly in decentralized communication channels.
- Mitigation: Utilizing structured forums (e.g., Discourse), dedicated communication platforms (e.g., Discord, Telegram), and establishing clear communication guidelines and community managers can help. Specialized working groups or sub-DAOs can also improve focus.
On-chain vs. Off-chain Governance Trade-offs: While on-chain voting is immutable and trustless, it can be expensive (due to gas fees) and slow, especially for frequent or minor decisions. Off-chain voting (e.g., Snapshot) is free and fast, but it requires a subsequent on-chain transaction for execution, introducing a trust component (e.g., multi-sig signers) and a potential disconnect between the ‘signal’ vote and the actual execution.
- Mitigation: Hybrid models are common, where significant treasury or protocol upgrades require on-chain votes, while less critical or exploratory proposals are handled off-chain.
Malicious Proposals and Rug Pulls: The open nature of DAOs means anyone meeting the proposal threshold can submit. While most proposals are well-intentioned, there’s a risk of malicious proposals designed to drain the treasury or exploit the protocol. Similarly, if core team members hold significant power, they could orchestrate a ‘rug pull’ by draining funds or abandoning the project. Although less common in mature DAOs, it’s a risk, especially in new or less decentralized ones.
- Mitigation: Strong community vigilance, multi-sig treasury control for execution, reputation-based proposal weighting, and robust security audits are crucial.

5.4 Technical Scalability and Gas Fees

Many DAOs, particularly those built on Ethereum Layer 1, face significant challenges related to technical scalability and high transaction (gas) fees. Every on-chain vote, token transfer, or smart contract interaction incurs a cost, which can become prohibitive for frequent governance activities or for members with smaller token holdings. This can exacerbate voter apathy and concentrate power in the hands of those who can afford the fees.

Impact:
* Exclusion of Small Holders: High gas fees effectively disenfranchise smaller token holders from active participation in on-chain governance, as the cost of voting can outweigh the value of their stake.
* Slow Decision-Making: Network congestion can lead to delayed transaction processing, slowing down the entire governance cycle.
* Limited Composability: The high cost discourages frequent, granular interactions with the DAO’s smart contracts, potentially limiting complex governance designs.

Solutions:
* Layer 2 Scaling Solutions: Many DAOs are migrating or deploying on Layer 2 solutions (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon) which offer significantly lower transaction costs and higher throughput. This enables more frequent and accessible on-chain governance.
* Off-chain Voting with On-chain Execution: As mentioned, using tools like Snapshot for voting (off-chain) and then executing approved proposals on-chain reduces gas costs for individual voters.
* Optimized Smart Contract Design: Writing gas-efficient smart contracts can minimize transaction costs.

5.5 Human Element and Social Layers

Beyond the technical and financial aspects, DAOs are ultimately social organizations. Managing human dynamics, fostering a healthy culture, and resolving disputes in a decentralized and often pseudonymous environment presents unique challenges.

Social Challenges:
* Identity and Pseudonymity: While pseudonymity offers privacy, it can also lead to a lack of personal accountability, difficulty in building genuine trust, and issues with Sybil attacks or ‘sock puppet’ accounts.
* Dispute Resolution: In the absence of a central authority, resolving disagreements, conflicts, or even malicious actions within a DAO can be complex. While on-chain governance can resolve technical disputes, social conflicts often require more nuanced approaches.
* Community Building and Culture: Building a cohesive, engaged, and productive community without traditional corporate structures, HR departments, or physical offices is a significant undertaking. Fostering a shared sense of mission and preventing fragmentation is crucial.
* Decision Paralysis: While decentralization prevents tyranny, too much distribution of power or a lack of clear leadership can lead to ‘governance minimalisation’ or ‘decision paralysis’, where the DAO struggles to make timely or impactful decisions.
* Expertise vs. Decentralization: Balancing the need for expert input on complex technical or strategic issues with the desire for broad, democratic participation is an ongoing tension.

Addressing Social Challenges:
* Clear Governance Frameworks: Well-defined rules, roles (e.g., delegates, sub-committee leads), and escalation paths for disputes.
* Incentivizing Active Participation: Financial and non-financial rewards for contributions, voting, and community engagement.
* Community Management: Dedicated roles or sub-DAOs focused on moderation, communication, onboarding, and fostering a positive culture.
* Off-chain Social Coordination Tools: Leveraging platforms like Discord, Telegram, and Discourse for robust discussions and community building.
* Reputation Systems (non-financial): Developing systems to recognize and reward positive social contributions, beyond just token holdings.

These challenges underscore that while DAOs represent a powerful innovation, their successful implementation requires a holistic approach that addresses not only technological robustness but also legal clarity, economic sustainability, and human behavioral complexities.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Case Studies

Examining prominent DAOs in practice provides invaluable insights into their diverse applications, operational mechanics, and the practical implications of their governance models. These examples demonstrate both the transformative potential and the inherent complexities of decentralized autonomous organizations.

6.1 MakerDAO

MakerDAO stands as one of the most established and successful decentralized autonomous organizations, renowned for governing the Dai stablecoin. It operates as a cornerstone of the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem, demonstrating the viability of a truly community-governed financial protocol [BlockApps, ‘Governance Models and Community Engagement in DAOs’].

Core Functionality: MakerDAO enables users to generate Dai (a soft-pegged decentralized stablecoin) by collateralizing various cryptocurrencies (e.g., ETH, Wrapped BTC) in what are called ‘Vaults’ (formerly ‘Collateralized Debt Positions’ or CDPs). The stability of Dai is maintained through a complex system of stability fees, liquidation mechanisms, and other parameters, all governed by the DAO.

Governance Model: MakerDAO employs a dual-token model:
* DAI: The stablecoin itself, used for transactions and borrowing.
* MKR: The governance token. MKR holders are responsible for managing the Dai system. Their voting power is proportional to the amount of MKR they hold and lock into the governance contract.

Governance Processes: MKR holders vote on a range of critical parameters and proposals, including:
* Stability Fees: The interest rate charged to users who generate Dai.
* Debt Ceilings: The maximum amount of Dai that can be generated from a specific collateral type.
* Collateral Types: Which new assets can be used to mint Dai, and their corresponding risk parameters.
* Risk Parameters: Such as liquidation ratios and penalty fees.
* Emergency Shutdown Module (ESM): A last-resort mechanism allowing MKR holders to collectively trigger a shutdown of the protocol in extreme circumstances (e.g., critical security vulnerability or market collapse), ensuring collateral can be retrieved.

Decision-Making Dynamics: MakerDAO’s governance is characterized by both ‘Signal Requests’ (informal polls on forums to gauge sentiment) and ‘Executive Votes’ (on-chain votes that directly enact changes to the protocol’s smart contracts). The process requires active engagement from MKR holders to ensure the stability and health of the Dai ecosystem. The community has demonstrated its ability to navigate significant market volatility, adjust parameters in real-time, and manage the introduction of new collateral types, showcasing the robustness of decentralized decision-making in a high-stakes environment.

6.2 Uniswap DAO

Uniswap is the largest decentralized exchange (DEX) by trading volume, enabling trustless token swaps through an automated market maker (AMM) model. Its transition to DAO governance represents a crucial step in the decentralization of critical DeFi infrastructure [Axios, ‘Uniswap, Celo, and How DAO Governance Works’].

Governance Model: Uniswap’s governance is primarily driven by its UNI token. UNI holders have the power to vote on key protocol decisions, including:
* Protocol Fee Switches: Whether to activate a protocol fee on trades and how to distribute it.
* Listing new tokens on the exchange (less common now, more for core protocol changes).
* Grants for ecosystem development.
* Deployment of Uniswap to new blockchain networks.

Decision-Making Dynamics: The case of Uniswap’s expansion to the non-Ethereum Celo blockchain exemplifies the dynamics of its DAO governance. The vote, involving UNI tokens where holding more tokens grants more voting power, highlighted the significant influence of major token holders. Notably, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a prominent investor in Uniswap, holds a substantial UNI stake, allowing them to exert considerable influence over governance proposals. While this demonstrates the power of large stakeholders, it also sparks debates about the degree of true decentralization when a few entities can sway critical votes. The Uniswap DAO also utilizes a delegation system, where UNI holders can delegate their voting power to delegates, who are often active community members or figures. This system attempts to mitigate voter apathy and ensure informed voting by allowing smaller holders to still have their voice heard through trusted representatives.

6.3 Aave DAO

Aave is a leading decentralized lending and borrowing protocol, allowing users to earn interest on deposits and borrow assets against collateral. Its governance is managed by the Aave DAO, demonstrating how complex financial applications can be securely and effectively governed by a decentralized community.

Governance Model: Aave is governed by AAVE token holders. Staking AAVE tokens in the ‘Safety Module’ not only provides security for the protocol (by potentially being slashed in case of a shortfall event) but also grants voting power. The more AAVE tokens staked, the greater the voting power.

Governance Processes: Aave DAO votes on a wide range of critical parameters and protocol upgrades, including:
* Interest Rate Models: Adjusting the borrowing and lending rates for various assets.
* Collateral Ratios: Defining how much users can borrow against specific collateral.
* Listing new assets: Adding new cryptocurrencies as collateral or borrowable assets.
* Risk Parameters: Managing liquidation thresholds, loan-to-value ratios, etc.
* Treasury Management: How Aave’s treasury funds (accumulated from protocol fees) are utilized for grants, security audits, or ecosystem development.
* Aave V3 Upgrades: The DAO was instrumental in approving and guiding the development and deployment of major protocol upgrades, showcasing its capacity for complex decision-making and technical evolution.

Impact: Aave DAO’s robust governance has allowed the protocol to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions, introduce new features, and maintain its position as a dominant force in DeFi. The active participation of AAVE stakers in risk parameter adjustments is crucial for the protocol’s stability and resilience.

6.4 Nouns DAO

Nouns DAO offers a unique and innovative approach to DAO governance and treasury management, distinct from typical DeFi protocols. It is centered around the daily auction of unique NFTs called ‘Nouns’.

Core Concept: Every day, a single Noun NFT is generated and auctioned for 24 hours. The proceeds from all Noun auctions go directly into the Nouns DAO treasury. Owning a Noun NFT grants 1 vote in the Nouns DAO governance.

Governance Model: Pure NFT-based governance, one Noun = one vote.

Treasury Management and Innovation: The Nouns DAO treasury accumulates substantial funds from the daily auctions. The DAO decides how these funds are deployed. Proposals range from funding art projects and developing Nouns-related intellectual property to sponsoring real-world events, creating merchandise, and even engaging in philanthropic activities. This highly fluid and creative treasury management distinguishes Nouns DAO from many other DAOs focused primarily on protocol parameter adjustments.

Impact: Nouns DAO demonstrates a powerful model for community-funded initiatives and brand building in the Web3 space. Its innovative use of NFTs for governance and its robust treasury have enabled a wide array of experimental and impactful projects, showcasing a different facet of DAO potential beyond financial protocols.

6.5 Arbitrum DAO

Arbitrum is a leading Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, designed to improve transaction speed and reduce costs. Its transition to DAO governance and its initial token distribution faced significant community debate, offering a valuable lesson in the complexities of decentralized governance transitions.

Governance Model: Arbitrum transitioned to a fully decentralized governance model in 2023 with the launch of its ARB token. ARB token holders govern the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova networks. The governance process covers technical upgrades, treasury management, and ecosystem funding.

Challenges and Controversies: The initial ARB token distribution and the proposed management of a significant portion of the treasury by the Arbitrum Foundation sparked widespread controversy. A large allocation of ARB tokens was distributed to the Arbitrum Foundation, intended for operational costs and ecosystem grants, which was initially perceived by many as a top-down decision rather than a community-driven one. Subsequent proposals by the Foundation to transfer funds and amend the governance documents faced strong pushback and even failed, demonstrating the community’s power to reject proposals even from ‘official’ entities if they perceive a lack of genuine decentralization or transparency. This case highlighted:
* The importance of transparent token distribution.
* The delicate balance between operational efficiency (via a foundation) and decentralized control.
* The power of community sentiment and the ability of a DAO to push back against perceived centralization.

Learning: Arbitrum DAO’s experience underscores that achieving true decentralization is an ongoing process, often marked by social and governance challenges, even for technically decentralized protocols. It emphasized the need for clear communication, genuine community input from the outset, and robust mechanisms for community oversight over foundational entities.

These case studies collectively illustrate the versatility and evolution of DAOs, from governing complex financial systems to funding creative projects and managing critical blockchain infrastructure. They also highlight the ongoing challenges of power dynamics, participation, and the journey toward true decentralization.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Future Outlook

The trajectory of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations is characterized by continuous innovation and adaptive evolution. As this organizational paradigm matures, ongoing efforts are focused on addressing extant challenges and significantly enhancing their functionality, robustness, and widespread applicability. The future promises a sophisticated blend of refined governance models, heightened security protocols, and increasingly clear legal frameworks, collectively poised to redefine organizational structures and governance paradigms globally.

7.1 Refinement of Governance Models

The search for optimal governance mechanisms remains a central theme in DAO development. Future iterations are likely to incorporate advanced concepts aimed at fostering more equitable participation and effective decision-making:

Enhanced Reputation and Identity Systems: The development of robust, sybil-resistant decentralized identity solutions and reputation systems (e.g., leveraging Soulbound Tokens or verifiable credentials) will enable more nuanced governance models that move beyond mere token-weight. This could facilitate ‘skill-based’ or ‘contribution-based’ voting, ensuring that domain experts have appropriate influence without requiring disproportionate token holdings. The integration of zero-knowledge proofs could allow for reputation to be leveraged while preserving privacy.
Dynamic Governance: Future DAOs may adopt more adaptive governance structures, allowing different voting mechanisms or quorum requirements for various types of proposals (e.g., highly sensitive treasury decisions versus minor operational adjustments). This includes greater adoption of conviction voting for ongoing resource allocation and futarchy for outcome-oriented decision-making.
Multi-DAO Interoperability: As the DAO ecosystem expands, there will be increasing focus on frameworks that enable seamless communication and collaboration between different DAOs, potentially leading to ‘DAOs of DAOs’ or federated DAO structures for larger, coordinated initiatives.

7.2 Improved Security Protocols

Learning from past exploits, the emphasis on robust security for smart contracts and the overall DAO ecosystem will intensify:

Formal Verification as Standard Practice: The use of formal methods to mathematically prove the correctness of smart contract code will become more commonplace for critical DAO infrastructure, significantly reducing the surface area for vulnerabilities.
Decentralized Security Audits and Bug Bounties: The auditing process itself may become more decentralized, leveraging community expertise and incentivizing continuous security vigilance through robust and well-funded bug bounty programs.
AI-Assisted Security Analysis: The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning for automated vulnerability detection and threat analysis will become more sophisticated, augmenting human auditing efforts.
Resilient Upgrade Mechanisms: Development of secure and community-governed smart contract upgrade pathways that allow for necessary patches and improvements without introducing centralization risks or new vulnerabilities.

7.3 Clearer Legal Frameworks

The current legal uncertainty is a major impediment to DAO growth and institutional adoption. The future will likely see a progression towards greater regulatory clarity:

Jurisdictional Innovation: More countries and regions are expected to follow the lead of pioneers like Wyoming and the Marshall Islands in enacting specific legislation recognizing DAOs as distinct legal entities, providing legal certainty, limited liability, and clearer tax frameworks.
Global Harmonization Efforts: As DAOs are inherently global, there will be an increasing need for international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches to prevent regulatory arbitrage and foster a globally consistent environment.
Hybrid Legal Structures: The development of more sophisticated ‘legal wrappers’ that effectively bridge the gap between on-chain governance and off-chain legal obligations will become more prevalent and refined, offering a clear path for DAOs to interact with traditional legal and financial systems.

7.4 Broader Adoption and Real-World Applications

While DeFi has been the primary crucible for DAO experimentation, their application is poised to expand into a myriad of sectors beyond finance:

Social and Community DAOs: Growing use of DAOs for managing online communities, content creation, and even local governance, enabling direct democratic participation in social and civic initiatives.
Research and Development DAOs (DeSci): Decentralized science initiatives leveraging DAOs to fund and govern scientific research, democratizing access to funding, peer review, and intellectual property.
Gaming DAOs: Players gaining ownership and governance rights over in-game assets, economies, and development decisions.
Arts and Media DAOs: Funding and curating digital art, music, and other creative endeavors, empowering artists and collectors with collective ownership and decision-making.
Philanthropic DAOs: Organizing and distributing charitable donations with unprecedented transparency and accountability.
Traditional Business Integration: As the technology matures and legal clarity emerges, elements of DAO governance may be integrated into traditional corporations for specific functions, such as managing intellectual property, supply chains, or employee benefit schemes, leading to ‘hybrid’ organizational models.

7.5 Maturation of DAO Tooling and Infrastructure

The user experience and underlying infrastructure for DAOs will significantly improve, making them more accessible and efficient:

User-Friendly Interfaces: Intuitive dashboards and tools for proposal submission, voting, treasury management, and community communication, lowering the technical barrier to participation.
Analytics and Reporting: More sophisticated tools for analyzing governance participation, treasury performance, and proposal outcomes, providing data-driven insights for improvement.
Interoperability Solutions: Tools that enable DAOs to operate seamlessly across multiple blockchain networks, reducing fragmentation and expanding their reach.

As DAOs continue to evolve and address their inherent complexities, they possess the profound potential to redefine fundamental concepts of organizational structures, ownership, and governance. By offering more inclusive, transparent, and resilient alternatives to traditional hierarchical models, DAOs are poised to play an increasingly central role in shaping the future of digital and real-world collaboration, fostering a more equitable and decentralized global landscape.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.