I’m voting against OpCo on Tally, my position hasn’t changed much since temp-check:
On Centralization vs. Decentralization:
One of the core strengths of DAOs is their ability to minimize gatekeepers and trusted intermediaries. As envisioned, OpCo could become a gatekeeper, interposing itself between the DAO’s broader community and potential contributors. While the DAO retains nominal authority, OpCo might end up influencing who gets contracts and which initiatives progress. This creates a power structure that’s less open, less trust-minimized, and potentially more susceptible to the sway of a few individuals.Censorship Resistance and Legal Attack Vectors:
Introducing a legal wrapper around DAO operations inherently broadens the attack surface. Under traditional legal pressures, OpCo could be compelled to censor initiatives, freeze funds, or discriminate against certain contributors. One of the great benefits of a permissionless DAO is its built-in resilience against such censorship. By contrast, a legal entity is susceptible to the full force of conventional legal and political pressure, undermining the censorship resistance and sovereignty that define the DAO ethos.Innovation vs. Operational Efficiency:
While supporters might argue that OpCo would bring streamlined operations, attract top talent, and ensure continuity, these benefits come at the cost of layering on a traditional corporate model. Although efficiency may improve in the short term, we risk sacrificing the long-term innovation and permissionless participation that are fundamental to the DAO’s identity. Encouraging everyone to pass through a single operational hub could stifle the very qualities that make DAOs so powerful.Conclusion:
As a lunarpunk and a staunch advocate for trust minimization and decentralization, I see this proposal as introducing considerable centralization risks and censorship vulnerabilities. Although there may be operational advantages, I believe the DAO should pursue solutions rooted in cryptographic guarantees and decentralized frameworks rather than reverting to the familiar (but ultimately restrictive) structures of traditional entities. For these reasons, I will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.