As it relates to the Packers, like any non-profit, I’m describing a legal structure with a lack of equity. Typically I wouldn’t use the words owners/ownership a

As it relates to the Packers, like any non-profit, I’m describing a legal structure with a lack of equity. Typically I wouldn’t use the words owners/ownership and just say non-profits don’t have shareholders, but the Packers happen to be the exception that proves the rule as they are a non-profit with stock. So it does have “shareholders” but unlike the commonly accepted use of “stock” and “shareholders” there are zero ownership rights, just governance/voting rights. If this DAO did give its members ownership rights, then obviously it would be a security and their raise would be a regulated public offering, unless it met an exemption. That is an idea baked into my original comment, where I simply say “maybe” as to 3 and it is dependent on the rights the DAO conveys. As to why not securitize a sports team, that would be great and a DAO would be a potential vehicle for that, but a DAO wouldn’t be needed either. From a practical point of view, the reason we don’t see billionaire owners IPOing their team and reaping the financial windfall of an IPO is because the NFL, NBA, MLB don’t allow it. The leagues maintain very tight controls on who may own teams. For example a few years back there was a owner of a major - billion dollar plus - team that made some racially charged statements to the media and the league forced the owner to sell the team. Again the NFL even controls when the Packers can raise funds by issuing stock. Nothing prevents the leagues from changing their policy, but historically the leagues don’t like giving up control.