In 2025 Vitalik Buterin proposed an idea that low-risk defi can be for Ethereum what search was for Google. In this essay he argues that easily accessible low-risk DeFi will be Ethereum's killer app. The goal is straightforward - provide global, permissionless access to basic yield primitives while sustaining the broader ecosystem without compromising its core values.

In the wake of that vision, the yield landscape fragmented around human-managed vaults—Beefy, Mellow, Makina, and others—overseen by specialized risk curators like Gauntlet, Dialectic, or Chaos Labs. But this model introduces systemic friction. Every strategy demands user to perform a separate deposit and form a new trust assumption in both the protocol and the third-party curator behind it with each new position. Scale this across a portfolio, and managing these positions becomes a full-time job.

Everstrat takes a pivot.

Everstrat is a protocol for automated strategies orchestration and execution. Imagine the protocol as Nakagin Capsule tower from the picture above. This building was designed around a central core with pluggable, replaceable residential units.

Everstrat applies this exact Metabolist design pattern to yield orchestration. The protocol operates as the permanent central core, while individual yield strategies serve as the pluggable capsules. When market conditions shift or risk parameters evolve, strategies are plugged in or retired without requiring capital migration from the user. A single liquid wrapper- EVE - represents the complete, dynamic basket of underlying strategies and assets.

The user experience:

• Mint: Deposit ETH into the protocol to mint EVE.

• Hold: EVE systematically captures net yield and total value locked (TVL) through direct price appreciation. As vault value compounds, EVE grows more valuable relative to ETH.

• Redeem: Burn EVE to withdraw initial capital alongside accrued yield.

All strategy selections and parameter updates are governed transparently by the community, with automated strategies increasingly transitioning toward autonomous AI agent integration over time.

The first strategy:

Everstrat's initial MVP strategy automates liquidity provision and active range management on Uniswap. In our backtests, a 3 combined ETH<>USDC/T strategies outperformed standard market baselines across all tested timeframes and volatility scenarios:

While future strategies will expand across additional protocols, Everstrat’s guiding philosophy remains absolute: deploy capital exclusively into blue-chip primitives to deliver maximum risk-adjusted performance.

Enter the protocol:

Limited access for the initial cohort is now open.

Apply for early access at app.everstrat.xyz.

But after a number of whistleblowers questioned the integrity of the system, an alternative architecture was proposed — web3. A counter-current attempt to bring the world wide web back to its roots, to make it a global, permissionless network again. Detachment from nation states, neutrality, and decentralization were meant to transform the web with

• Cryptocurrency economies

• User-owned data and protocols

• DAOs as the coordination layer

Much of the vision was realized, but web3 architectures didn't reach the mass consumer yet. Web3 is going through a structural crisis and the DAOs were hit the hardest. The reasons are worth restating:

• Voter apathy. Governance as tragedy of the commons.

• Idealism as a blueprint. Systems designed for how people should behave, not how they do.

• No institutional memory. Every DAO fork reinvents the same failures.

• Treasuries as targets. Capital draws extractors who leave when the extraction is complete.

• Price as the only signal. When the chart trends down, the organization dissolves.

  
  

The prospects of DAOs seemed dark with the accelerated adoption of the Transformer architecture and LLMs — commonly generalized to AI. But AI could just as easily shift the balance of power back toward decentralization. We could be standing on the eve of the web3 renaissance.

LLMs dethroned FAANG as the center of cyberspace and changed the status quo. MANGOS (Meta, Anthropic, Nvidia, Google, OpenAI, SpaceX) brought major disruptions. The signs are everywhere — from changes in the Bay Area real estate market to ex-NSA officers joining OpenAI. While a joint-forces pact between frontier labs and US government is still under negotiation, American closed-source AI models are clearly the New Big Thing.

But for the first time in decades, American tech dominance has genuine competition: DeepSeek and the Six AI Tigers (大模型六小虎). The tension is real, and the latest international policy disputes clearly show the priorities of the two biggest national economies.

At the moment when the general consensus was the MANGOS are de facto the new center of global cyberspace, DeepSeek made a 5-D AlphaGo move by open-sourcing their frontier model under the MIT license, effectively setting a new standard for Chinese frontier AI models. And they did it while being sanctioned.

This created the legal clearance for an entire ecosystem of intermediaries to build on top of it. Venice, for instance, could take the weights, run them on infrastructure rented from DePIN networks, and sell private inference for crypto.

The irony is sharp. AI from a more centralized state may be what sustains the decentralized web.

This paradox has a blueprint. In 1994, architect Kisho Kurokawa called it the "third space." True symbiosis, he argued, isn't just two rivals tolerating each other in tension. It is the creation of an intermediary zone where both forces collide and transform into something completely new. Chinese open weights and web3 compute markets create this third space between the two worlds most powerful digital empires. The architecture is locking into place:

• Open weights

• Private inference

• Permissionless market

• Crypto payments

A stack that belongs to neither licensor nor licensee, neither state nor platform, but to the network.

This space is a substrate, a layer where new kinds of entities can emerge — forms that could not exist in either originating system alone. The obvious inhabitant is the DAO, reconsidered.

AI agents will soon transform every human organization in the world, including DAOs. Agents can work around the clock, handling treasury management, knowledge extraction, human interaction, and more. But should a DAO trust a centralized entity with its private keys? Should they also trust it for inference? A malicious inference provider could add back doors to smart contracts, seize a DAO's treasury, doxx participants, etc.

This is where the third space enters. A DAO could be supercharged with private inference bought with crypto on an open market, store its knowledge on IPFS, and rotate agents on web3 clouds.

"And where does the newborn go from here? The net is vast and infinite" (c.) Motoko Kusanagi

The symbiosis between a DAO and private inference could bring to life a new type of entity — one that doesn't fatigue, doesn't lose interest, doesn't extract and leave.

What happens when the most efficient organization on the internet is neither a corporation nor a DAO, but something growing in the space between them?

Daoism Systems is planting a seed in that space — Everstrat.

This document provides a technical overview of the dSafe SDK. Here we’ve collected an outline of the SDK's goals, functionalities, architecture, and other aspects.

Goal of the SDK

The dSafe SDK aims to offer a decentralized alternative to the Safe Transaction Service. By leveraging ComposeDB for data storage, the primary objective is to enhance security, reliability, and transparency in managing Safe transactions.

Scope of the Project

Functional Requirements

• Deploy new Safe and store its details in ComposeDB.

• Create a new transaction message, sign it, and store it in both ComposeDB and Safe Transaction Service.

• Retrieve all stored transaction messages from ComposeDB.

• Add confirmation to existing transaction messages.

• Execute transaction messages that meet the threshold.

• Decode transaction message data.

• Manage delegates: fetch, add, and delete.

• Fetch Safe details and transactions.

• Support forwarding of requests to Safe Transaction API for API endpoints that are not yet implemented. (Similar to Reverse Proxy but on SDK side)

Non-functional Requirements

• Efficient performance with quick execution.

• Secure data handling and input validation.

• Maintainable code with comprehensive documentation.

• Cross-framework compatibility (independent of framework like React, Vite etc).

• Optimized package size for quick installations.

• Clear error handling and messaging.

API Endpoints to SDK Functions

The SDK will convert the following Safe Transaction Service API endpoints into SDK methods:

Architecture

The SDK will adopt a modular design, ensuring scalability and maintainability. The directory structure will be organized into core functionalities and utilities, with comprehensive testing and documentation.

File Structure

/dSafeSDK

|-- /src

|   |-- /core

|   |   |-- index.ts

|   |   |-- dataDecoder.ts

|   |   |-- delegates.ts

|   |   |-- multisigTransactions.ts

|   |   |-- safes.ts

|   |-- /utils

|   |   |-- helpers…

|-- /tests

|   |-- /unit

|   |-- /integration

|-- package.json

|-- tsconfig.json

|-- README.md

Descriptions

• /core: This directory contains the main logic for the SDK. Each file corresponds to a set of related functionalities, e.g., dataDecoder.ts contains functions related to data decoding.

• /utils: This directory contains utility functions that are used across the SDK. For instance, apiHelper.ts might contain functions to make HTTP requests, crypto.ts for cryptographic operations, and validators.ts for input validation.

• /tests: Contains unit and integration tests. The /unit directory will have tests for individual functions, while /integration will test the interaction between different parts of the SDK.

Schema (Composite)

Risks

Potential risks include:

• Integration challenges with ComposeDB and Safe Transaction Service.

• Unidentified bugs emerging in production.

• Performance bottlenecks.

• Security vulnerabilities.

Risks Prevention:

• Maintain open communication channels with all stakeholders.

• Implement a robust testing strategy, including unit, integration, and stress tests.

• Use version control best practices.

• Provide comprehensive documentation.

• Engage with the developer community for feedback.

• Monitor the SDK's performance and usage post-deployment.

Conclusion

The dSafe SDK represents a significant step towards decentralizing Safe transactions. Through its integration with ComposeDB and the Safe Transaction Service, it promises to offer developers and stakeholders a robust, secure, and transparent toolset.

TL;DR SupremeDAO is building a digital currency that maintains high liquidity, a degree of stability, and has some exposure to other assets. The currency, KAI, is designed for businesses to hold a semi-stable asset, investors who want a low-risk, interest accruing crypto, and startups in their early stages seeking capital and users.

OVERVIEW All assets, including currencies, are volatile in relation to other assets.

Recently, the euro and dollar almost reached parity; in Argentina and Turkey, inflation is over 100% annually. The global economy is experiencing first hand that currencies fluctuate in value like any other asset.

Traditionally, currencies were not intended to be volatile. They were a medium of exchange, which meant the same product could be exchanged for the same amount of currency every day. Because of this, currencies are not thought of as stocks even though they have become similar to holding shares to an economy. The value of a currency is thus contingent to the performance of its market economy.

The emerging field of cryptoeconomics has enabled online communities to form internet-native economies where the token market capitalization acts as a representation of the success of a certain crypto community. However, while some say Bitcoin or Ether are forms of currency, they aren’t–they’re speculative assets. This became apparent during the 2017 ICO bubble, where projects that held their treasuries in Ether lost most of their value after the crash. This means that businesses deciding to use crypto assets in day-to-day operations or treasury optimization should be cautious, as relying on such volatile crypto markets comes with risk.

Stable coins are a partial solution. Holding USDC or USDT might stabilize one’s financial situation during volatile market conditions which is helpful on downturns. But it can be frustrating to miss out on gains during bull runs.

SUPREME SOLUTION SupremeDAO is building a new type of currency that maintains high liquidity, a degree of stability with upside potential, and some exposure to other assets. The current economic landscape requires it for the following reasons:

1. Most businesses should be subject to low volatility for their cash on hand.

2. With the changing currency landscape, assets backing a token will need to change over time in order for it to remain stable. The question becomes ‘stable in relation to what?’

3. Banks execute simple functions like providing loans to businesses. Oftentimes, small or new businesses cannot get the capital they need from banks. Even if they can get a loan, their contribution is generally not affecting the market cap of the US economy. Their stake and influence is minimal in such a large system.

The dollar is still the dominant world reserve currency, and it will probably remain that way for years to come. That’s why SupremeDAO is initially utilizing stablecoins as the primary reserve asset. This ensures dollar-backed liquidity, and the majority of value in a form that is globally considered safe.

The DAO will decide which assets should be a part of its Basket of Assets(treasury) over time. The main goal of the Basket is to act as collateral to the DAO’s currency - KAI(Japanese for ‘shell’- ancient form of money). The total supply of KAI is correlated to the value of Basket.

Soon more technical details will be released. In the meantime, the main thing to know is that new users mint KAI by depositing their stablecoins into the Bonding Curve. The stablecoins get exchanged for the assets in the Basket.

Over time the Basket of Assets will become dynamic, and be controlled through DAO governace. The intended effect is to create a currency that:

1. Is liquid enough to trade for other assets when needed.

2. Gives holders risk-minimized exposure to market movements.

3. Rewards it’s users for being a part of the economy, like a cooperative.

The DAO will assess market conditions, Basket composition, and determine appropriate methods of inflation - which can be useful to keep people in the economy and bring in new participants through loans.

The target holders for this currency are:

1. DeFi protocols that want to diversify their treasuries into a semi-stable currency

2. Investors who want a hands-off, low-risk approach to participating in the crypto markets

3. Web3 startups that need early stage funding and users

4. Local businesses who currently struggle to get loans and want to plug into a network of other businesses and customers in our economy

CONCLUSION SupremeDAO will balance stability and risk for its holders in changing market conditions. As the supreme economy grows, the incentives to use it get better over time. With more businesses accepting KAI, there will be less reason to exit the economy. The system can adapt to support any assets the world decides to use as a reserve currency.

In today’s rapidly changing economy, we need dynamic currencies that can adapt at the same pace and provide peace of mind, as well as value for their users.

Stepping out of the industry context for a second, there is something universal about these processes. Governance and its operations is essentially collective decision making for resource management. So if we flip the script and ask for whom rather than what DAO tooling is made for, the answer might be a group, project, or collective looking to practice self-custody over shared assets.

But there are scarcely any tools that are just as intuitive for seasoned DAO members and newcomers alike, let alone for those completely alien to space who might benefit from the technical features of a DAO.

For the veteran, signing off on proposals and executing transactions is still a cumbersome process, which would similarly describe user experience for a newcomer learning how to navigate multiple interfaces for governance. And explaining what a DAO is to the average bystander can feel weirdly unnatural and overcomplicated, not necessarily because web3 language is infamously esoteric, (though that definitely doesn’t help) but because organizing is experiential–learned by doing.

Even if the third use-case is not the target audience, wouldn’t designing governance tools for them be just as usable for a bullish veteran?

Enter NinDAO

Going back to what was said about DAO tooling as conversation and coordination tools, Telegram as a chat messenger goes a step further as a conversation-as-coordination tool with the use of bots.

That’s why we’re building @nindao_bot, the Telegram bot that turns group chats into DAOs using Safe multisig. By leveraging a familiar chat interface, both web3 natives and newcomers alike can easily start and manage their own DAO without leaving the conversation.

Shared ownership should be an accessible experience, and this vision is inclusive of those both familiar to DAOs and those who aren’t. There should be easier ways to not only practice self-custody but learn about why it can be a more beneficial and secure way of managing assets.

How it works

By bridging together Telegram, Wallet Connect, and Safe Multisig, NinDAO becomes an intuitive solution that converts the chat into an interface for DAO management.

To create a DAO added to the desired group chat, participating members register or sign-in through the bot which connects their Metamask to their Telegram handle using Walletconnect. The bot does not require access to the user’s private keys as everything is stored in Metamask. Once all agreeing members connect with Metamask, the group chat owner then initializes the DAO by creating a Safe Multisig with the public keys.

The bot features on-chain governance operations: DAO members can manage their treasury, execute multisig transactions and proposals, and add or remove members. These features are all done without leaving Telegram.

Conclusion

If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience

Tools are the means to realize ideas, but they do not realize the ideas themselves. That’s on us.

Imagine explaining what Instagram is to someone who has never seen it before versus showing them the app itself. The knowledge transfer is faster and more accurate, while allowing that person to decide if it would be a nice addition to their life. It is unlikely that one would explain with any seriousness the pros and cons of its centralized architecture in great detail.

While it is without a doubt important to understand the technical aspects of DAOs for builders, we are still building from the internet already in use. That means we need to design for the collective habitus of existing internet culture, which is shared among the DAO expert, the amateur, and the complete beginner – usability.

…and because @ninDAO_bot can be used by anyone with Telegram, it can increase and diversify use-cases for DAOs by making it easy to create and manage them through the familiar interface of a chat.

@ninDAO_bot is in its alpha stages, but for a demonstration preview, check out our presentation featured on Safe community call #4.

Stay updated by joining the community via Twitter our channel.

https://nindao.xyz/

Utility Work Ahead

Safe is among the core infrastructural elements in the DAO and DeFi community, and from our working experience, we believe it will become a key primitive in the future. However, from an architectural standpoint, it currently relies on a centralized backend to collect and bundle signatures, rendering them open to attack vectors.

Given that it stores all proposal information, signatures, and safe configurations, there is a risk of this data being compromised. Moreover an attack can disable server performance and paralyze the entire Safe ecosystem.

Another avenue of concern is information asymmetry for future transactions. By remaining closed-source, prior knowledge on transactions yet to be executed allows those who are in control of the server to front-run on certain trades to extract value from them beforehand, (e.g. if a big swap on a DEX from a certain Safe is coming it would be possible to make a big trade to affect the token price and sell it later to earn extra.)

To address these issues, we have started an open research and development initiative towards a decentralized alternative for the existing Safe API.

Decentralized Safe Registry

Our proposed solution is to build a Decentralized Safe Registry utilizing Ceramic Protocol and ComposeDB. This set-up will enable an alternative way to interact with Safe smart contracts without being reliant on centralized backend architecture that pose the aforementioned risks. ComposeDB can be used to establish a decentralized, permissionless and open infrastructure that allows anyone to access and use Safe’s shared data.

ComposeDB is a decentralized, composable graph database built on Ceramic protocol, a permissionless data-streaming network. Node operators choose which data models to host, then automatically sync data between each other to decentralized extendable storage for web3 applications. Applications connect to Ceramic’s decentralized data network via an open API to store, modify, and retrieve data.

The data models used in ComposeDB are analogous to those in NoSQL or MySQL databases. Leveraging the Ceramic protocol allows for any party interested in certain Safe information to maintain a full informal replica of the data, creating a more decentralized open architecture.

We have identified specific models of Safe to be used inside of ComposeDB:

• Safe - this model is required to store Safe information and data, created simultaneously with the Safe itself, and contains owner information, Safe address, active transactions, etc.

• Transaction - a full description of the transaction, essentially a representation of the Safe’s proposal.

• Confirmation - an approval (EIP-712 signature) of a specific transaction awaiting execution in the Safe.

By using GraphQL, it becomes possible to list all signatures for a specific transaction, or a transaction for a specific signature which allows for ComposeDB to build a “decentralized API” for Safe.

Architectural approach

“Abandon All Centralisation Ye Who Enter Here.”

Codex of Web3

The idea behind the Decentralized Safe Registry is to give the opportunity to use the Safe Protocol bypassing the centralized server. ComposeDB can be used to enable a decentralized and permissionless alternative to create an open infrastructure that allows anyone to access and use Safe’s shared data.

Here’s a simplified diagram of the current Safe architecture:

Our solution avoids the central point vulnerability by moving all interactions with the Safe backend to the user’s frontend instead. Because the data is stored on a set of permissionless open nodes, and it is visible to everyone, it eliminates all blackboxes in the system.

Proposal data, user information, or similar forms of data will be collected on the frontend and directly connected to the distributed database. It becomes impossible to edit the data of another user in the ComposeDB, which means that after the Safe is created, no one can change information about it except for the Safe owners themselves. The same could be said about the proposals and approvals.

This change simplifies the overall architecture and reduces the cost of maintenance and development. The only requirement is to run a ComposeDB node (ideally multiple nodes, to decentralize it further) that will store and take care of all the data. SafeDAO could potentially come up with an incentives structure to maintain proposed Decentralized Safe Registry.

Daoism Systems is an on-chain development firm specialized in custom solutions for DAOs and DeFi protocols. Founded in 2022, our client portfolio includes DoinGud, Balancer, and PrimeDAO alongside our incubated project, NinDAO.

https://twitter.com/daoism_systems

Navigating uncharted pathways in Decentralized Impact came with the challenge of designing ecosystem governance. Daoism Systems was responsible for developing the protocol’s multilevel DAO, working in close collaboration with the DoinGud team. This article gives an overview of the project’s technical specifications for a Decentralized Impact ecosystem.

DoinGud — the protocol for doing good

DoinGud started as an NFT marketplace focusing on charity, but the initial concept has always been to build an ecosystem for Decentralized Impact as a solution to the lack of transparency, trust, and effectiveness of existing funding and delivery models.

The protocol allows communities to form DAOs around a specific social cause, such as feeding the homeless or natural disaster relief, and to:

• Bring greater transparency to Impact operations

• Raise and allocate capital

• Make donating easy

Multilevel Architecture

Today, there is no platform to connect over social impact that allows users to donate, support, and participate in the causes they care about. There are two levels at play: social impact at large, and the granularity of each specific cause. Which is why the DoinGud protocol features multilevel architecture consisting of  the DoinGud DAO, to address the greater issue of Decentralized Impact, and the Guilds, to coordinate over specific causes.

I. DoinGud DAO

The DoinGud DAO moderates the growth and development of Guilds and is governed by the DoinGud community. It also allows the Guilds to interact within a self-managing system.

“The major point is having a DAO with an integrated ecosystem and the ability to deploy SubDAOs(Guilds) that automatically function within that ecosystem autonomously.” –Lourens, product lead

DoinGud DAO Roles:

• Gud People — staked AMOR holders who elect Gud Guardians and vote on Guild proposals.

• Gud Guardians — caretakers of the DoinGud ecosystem and owners of the governance process.

• Guilds — Impact makers, Impact Reporters, Signalers, Communities of Creators and Collectors. Guilds are SubDAOs where funding is raised and transparently streamed to the impact makers.

DoinGud’s governance is designed with unbiased distribution of power in mind. Guardians election happens in voting cycles, so that delegation mechanisms allow the best representation from DAO members.

II. Guilds

The Guilds are SubDAOs that form around specific impact topics. Each Guild represents a specific organization and is owned by their representatives.  They are individuated from all other organizations including the DoinGud DAO and do not require external interactions to operate. They manage their own funds and donations, distributing tokens between Impact Makers and managing other needs within the Guild.

“The main idea is about giving organizations the tools to be able to deploy the DAO within the broader token ecosystem that will help to sustain DAOs and organizations that are trying to do good in the world. So it is a complicated system, and we had to organize everything in the most logical way to make it easy to use by every community.” –Lourens

There are eight roles within Guilds and smart contract enforced rules for how roles interact with each other. For example:

• Impact Makers join specific Guild’s projects

• Impact Reporters follow and observe the work of Impact Makers and create reports about their impact.

“The most challenging part [for the Guilds] was integrating all these different building blocks and having them work together well, because many of these things on their own aren't too complex. But when you have multiple contracts that need to work together as securely as possible, it becomes much more difficult..” –Lourens

Technical Specifications: DAO pattern, Governance Flow, and Levels Intrinsics

Three Guilds for the Servicemen under the sky,

Seven for the Volunteers in their halls of stone,

Nine for Charity orgs doomed to help,

One for the DoinGud on its decentralized throne

In the Land of Web3 where the Crypto lie.

One DAO to manage them all, One DAO to find them,

One DAO to bring them all and in the decentralization bind them

In the Land of Web3 where the Crypto lie.

The Book of DAOs. 32:1

DAO pattern

Both the DoinGud DAO and Guild levels follow the general architectural pattern consisting of tokenomics and governance, with a few fluctuations.

Tokenomics assures the proper functioning of the DAO through the circulation of its economy and governance delegation. There are two tokens:

• Utility token - It is used for the production of the Governance token. It is tradable, transferrable, and can be exchanged on platforms like Balancer or Uniswap.

• Governance token - works as voting power for the DAO. It is generated by staking the utility token. Guild Voting happens through Snapshot.

The three main governance components of the DAO are the:

• Controller - The DAO’s operational hub in which fees, operations reports and donation management circulate through.

• Avatar - a treasury and an execution engine of the calls on behalf of the organization.

• Governor - This part functions as a Guilds moderator. The Guardian Round Table review proposals that have passed the Snapshot vote, then approve and execute the results. Proposals pass only after being approved by over 20% of the round table. Guardians vote on chain, after a proposal is passed on Snapshot.

Governance flow

The governance flow is the same for both the DoinGud DAO and for each Guild. There are two votes for each proposal, and their flow is as follows:

Levels Intrinsics

Now let’s take a deeper look at the differences between MetaDAO and SubDAO governance.

DoinGud DAO - MetaDAO

The smart contract architecture includes a module called Vesting. This is used for the initial token allocation, when the MetaDAO liquidity token is minted. Contributors and Creators of the DoinGud DAO will have their tokens locked for a predetermined period of time.

The MetaDAO can receive ERC20 token donations and distribute the funds not to the MetaDAO itself, but to the Guilds based on their weights. These weights are called indexes, and can be manually created by DoinGud users.

Furthermore, the MetaDAO collects fees taken for $AMOR transfers and creation of the Guild’s liquidity tokens. Those taxes are distributed between Guilds and the MetaDAO.

Guilds - SubDAOs

A notable difference with the SubDAO is the FXAmor token, which is the curation token. Each Impact Maker needs Impact Reporters to review or audit the Decentralized Impact it has made. After the audit, an NFT Impact report is created which shows how effective a charity is. Impact Reporters can also share less formal reports of impact being generated like simple videos, articles, etc. rather than full audits.

Later, the FXAmor curation token enables users to leave positive or negative feedback about the report. If the report is accepted by the community, its creator and the voters receive a proportional amount of the proceeds raised by the guild in that reporting period. On the other hand, a report determined by FXAmor holders to be false or misleading, can be rejected. In this case the Impact Reporter does not receive a reward, and the Impact Signalers who voted to protect the Guild from the false report are rewarded with Guild tokens.

Conclusion

Contributing towards the greater good is anything but monolithic. In light of this reality, our custom-built multilevel governance solution embeds unity in diversity into its infrastructure for charity organizations, communities, and individuals to join the DoinGud ecosystem and coordinate over collective purpose. Despite the challenges that came with breaking new ground in the space, our collaboration earned invaluable technical learnings that contribute to the greater story of Decentralized Impact.

Our understanding of decentralized autonomous organizations is constructed from the current landscape of us

e-cases: DeFi protocols, NFT collector clubs, public goods, and a great assortment of other interest groups coordinating over common purpose. However, from a technical standpoint, we have yet to see the internet-native cyborgic system described in Vitalik’s 2014 essay:

“The idea of a decentralized autonomous organization is easy to describe: it is an entity that lives on the internet and exists autonomously, but also heavily relies on hiring individuals to perform certain tasks that the automaton itself cannot do.”

Composed of human and machine elements, these entities should operate autonomously. Their governance, much like our own, is encoded in its system. But unlike ours, decisions are collectively decided upon by the community and enacted seamlessly on-chain as impetus towards trustless coordination. As hybrid systems, they are mobilized by the synergy of contract and community, hence, the removal of a small group of early stakeholders should not interfere with business as usual.

That being said, DAOs as internet entities formed around collective action or communities should reflect a kaleidoscopic range of uses. They could be formed from Solidity developers who would decide on the next language upgrade, or from football fan clubs who collectively own a team and decide which players to hire. They could be as ephemeral as a flash mob or as regenerative as an anime fandom. In other words, they could be formed from anything, really. In theory.

But the current state of DAOs reflects a different reality. Despite growth in the space, they still remain speculative novelties that reflect the interests of a niche, esoteric web3 community constructed from a different culture within tech, a culture that prides itself on inclusion, diversity, openness, and empowerment. But regardless of what we promote and believe, if what we produce is narrow and catered to ourselves, we become a reclusive monoculture.

Perhaps the more onerous problem is the recursive death. As a lucrative industry, the value of our values has attracted disinterested parties to capitalize on our innovation, hollowing a culture from the inside out. It’s happened before, why wouldn’t it again?

II. Infrastructural Evolution

From a technical standpoint, one of the main reasons we have not yet seen more flexible, diverse decentralized systems is due to the architectural limitations for DAO governance and decision making. Should this be the case, looking back at the technical trends in infrastructure might better prepare us for where we’re headed.

It started out with monolithic frameworks which featured a simple drag-and-drop type of governance builder through a web application to generate a boilerplate DAO and deploy it on the Ethereum chain. This was considered to be a revolutionary change, but the massive codebase of these frameworks demanded high transaction fees and were limited in terms of interoperability with other smart contracts or on-chain protocols. This model became obsolete quite simply because they were expensive and unusable.

Since then, things stripped down to the bare minimum with a multisig wallet and off-chain voting. Snapshot made it lightweight and easy, but more importantly, free of gas costs as they were done off-chain. This dramatically improved levels of participation, another major problem in the DAO space. Though efficient in terms of execution speed, simplicity, and transactional costs, this model opens itself to a number of attack vectors.

For one, a multisig owner could disappear for a number of reasons, be it legal prosecution, burnout, having an accident, or becoming a contemporary Luddite. They can also turn malicious and refuse to execute governance decisions or rug pull the DAO. In other words, this model constellates the multisig as a single point of failure for the entire organization.

III. Modular Futures

In an attempt to solve this problem, the next evolutionary step for DAO infrastructure has appeared in modular governance. There have been some projects that have made strides in this direction, in which multisig wallets are first-class citizens and other functionalities are modularly added to them. The problem of proposal-automation as mentioned above was partially resolved by SafeSnap that bridged Snapshot and Safe via oracle. Users would be able to vote on proposals through Snapshot and execute them automatically. Eventually this evolved into a set of DAO building tools called Zodiac, and though this didn’t eliminate the single point of failure problem it did solve the issue of automation.

The modular approach to DAO architecture makes it easier to create adaptive and interoperable systems and governance mechanisms. However, most tooling available today is still modeled on the out-of-box approach. These solutions do not provide enough flexibility needed to represent the range of organizations and communities out there, and their continuous use will eventually define DAOs at large.

As mentioned above, if any online community has the potential to become a DAO, then its infrastructure should be designed specific to each case. This is why at Daoism Systems we embed the modular approach in our business model and build made-to-measure for customized systems that fit the specific structural needs per organization or community.

At its dawn, many had hoped that unparalleled access to information and communication would unify humanity towards a paradigm shift for global liberation: collective betterment seemed to be on the rise.

Instead, the digital frontier has been colonized by large corporations, governments, and commercial ventures, exploited for its key resources at unimaginable scale and depth. Centralized platforms have gentrified social and information networks, harvesting data en masse to catalog and commodify human activity. Our attention is under surveillance, confined to narrow echo-chambers and sold as lucrative bounties. Knowledge is kept restricted behind paywalls or submerged under advertisements into oblivion. Rather than liberating humanity through borderless interconnectivity, we became subjected to even deeper polarization and radical divergence.

Despite early hopes, the internet sold out by selling us out. It did so at no fault of its own, but in mimicry of a broken system. Perhaps most damning is the disillusionment: as we feel powerless against the all-knowing algorithm, we sedate ourselves with indifference and grow dependent on its prediction. The monopolized internet became another notch in the epoch of purgatorial decadence from which we’ve become relentlessly cynical.

In the abundance of apathy, we are starved of meaning. In our constant oppression, we yield distrust. Over time, we have a surplus. From the absence of trust in our governments, banks, employers, and now our internet, we seek agency through our own means. The growing momentum towards decentralization has awakened potential for trustless coordination to shift the paradigm on our terms. With these new affordances, we reclaim the digital commons made rich from our contributions: Web3.

Web3 in its nascency has shown alternative monetary and contractual systems can sustain self-organization without centralized power or violent means of coercion. Ethereum blockchain and the emergence of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are developing new modes of internet-native governance that create and empower communities to securely fund and coordinate over common purpose. Despite their early promise, DAO infrastructures are yet to be defined.

Daoism Systems is joining the movement towards a borderless, permissionless, global society by supporting these emergent organizations with the best decentralized infrastructures. Our contribution to peaceful change is rooted in a commitment to excellence for those uniting in web3. We intend to work with our partners through interdependence, taking their specific needs as our own in pursuit of the decentralized renaissance.

As the 道(‘dao’) from Chinese philosophy, we don’t take sides in blockchain or framework wars to bring balance in the web3 space. We work towards wholeness through tolerance in an effort to cultivate meaning and empowerment over common goals in web3. We come from the DAO space and will dissolve in it by changing its form.

We are everywhere and nowhere. We are Daoism Systems.