3 ms·

Seems to me to make sense. if you don't file any paper work with the state and agree to start a money making enterprise with more than one person your a general

Seems to me to make sense. if you don't file any paper work with the state and agree to start a money making enterprise with more than one person your a general partnership. Whether your an active or passive investor or not would probably depend on how much "work" you put into the partnership(not related to the article just my thought). Not a Lawyer so take anything I say as anything more than uneducated internet speculation. Other than the risk of all your assets getting hacked and stolen to doesn't seem like a bad way to "enforce" a contract. Maybe would be better if things were split up into different accounts with different people holding different keys so you don't have a single point of failure. Just like with SVB there should be some kind of insurance for large accounts. with various audit and other processes to keep things "safer"

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> your an active or passive investor or not would probably depend on how much "work" you put into the partnership Legally, it requires paperwork filed ex ante. As the article notes, several states have DAO LLC constructs. DAOs that don't incorporate do, and should, expose their holders to unlimited liability. That is the default. (If you and I start an unincorporated car-washing business, and it destroys someone's car, we will be jointly sued and liable, though I may separately have individual claims against you if you made all the wrong decisions.) The situation all this seeks to avoid is profit-seeking enterprise having everyone who stood to gain when things went well standing up saying "not it" when things don't. If a DAO–or any other business or person–causes you injury, it shouldn't be your job to figure out who contributed to what degree.