It is an organization, there is no question there. The question is whether it is a general partnership or not, and by the rules listed it would appear to be.

It is an organization, there is no question there. The question is whether it is a general partnership or not, and by the rules listed it would appear to be. Collective ownership implying collective liability is not novel or new, and existed long before LLCs and LLPs did. Legislation allowing those is relatively recent because it has obvious benefits, but comes at the cost of some degree of regulation. In the true crypto spirit of "regulation == bad" this DAO took the path of not making itself an LLC or LLP (and in fact explicitly terminated the LLC), which means it seems fairly obvious that it's a general (e.g. unlimited liability) partnership as the court appears to be concluding.