Concerning the first post on this thread –
I`m pretty confident both questions are two side views of one and the same egg and in overall constitute one problem:
DAO`s identity from the legal point of view. I mean first we design what a business new DAO will conduct and who in this DAO will decide what, and only then we got a mock-up DAO business model and start searching for an appropriate regulation.
Let me turn your attention to the following most profound resources from civil and common law:
Legal Framework for Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain in Switzerland (December 2018, par.126.96.36.199.) and
American Bar Association`s Digital and Digitized Assets: Federal and Statute Jurisdiction Issues (March 2019, Section 4. 1(a)(3)(i) page 149).
To be brief, the lawmakers (and courts will follow) are Ok with the fact that DAOs are unincorporated organizations. They judge by outcomes of DAOs and DAO members` precise activities – whether they constitute in every particular case and in every particular jurisdiction any of regulated activities.
LLC, series LLC, foundations etc don`t provide an absolute firewall from legal liability. Each of aforementioned vehicles gives to members various liability and bankruptcy “remotness”, not an escape. Let it not to be forgotten a concept of a controlling person, which almost eliminates all members liability safeguards.
So, business design - first, incorporation - follows.
Concerning BBLLC-DAO Research Pilot –
My deep respect to this Project and to your efforts @orishim - it is a great step forward! As we can see from the briefly set out previous part of my post there are some important issues that should not fall out of any legal research on this topic. As it is brilliantly voiced out in BBLLC-DAO paper, the next hot spot and a potential legal market is COALA Alegality issue – bridging DAOs with severe reality.
If I could be helpful on those matters, never hesitate to ask for independent critics or for joint research!