[will_brown]

I'm not sure if you are trying to compare my legal knowledge to that of a Taxi driver, or suggesting my position is not based on law but an irrational fear of competition, or maybe you are implying taxi drivers were wrong about Uber so I must be about DAO.

Maybe it helps my point, maybe not, but Uber is certainly illegal in many jurisdictions. Take Miami-Dade county, there are 10,000 Uber drivers and nearly 3,000 tickets have been issued ($1,010/ticket) something like $2.9M in fines. Moreover, Uber sends out training for Miami Drivers on how to avoid getting stopped/ticketed/impounded in Miami as an unlicensed ride for hire and when Uber drivers do get ticketed/impounded Uber provides the drivers a lawyer for their case (oddly its their FL corporate lobbyist not a traffic/criminal defense lawyer). Finally, the Miami-Dade ordinance carries a potential penalty of 45 days jail.

[drcode]

> I'm not sure if you are trying to compare my legal knowledge to that of a Taxi driver ...

Certainly not, I see no evidence that you don't have a strong understanding of the law, far beyond my own.

I guess what I'm saying is that Uber and the DAO both operate in a legal grey zone- And both of them likely have aspects that directly conflict with current law. However, I think it's clear that the legal system is a "living institution" and has been surprisingly welcoming of new innovative business models and technologies recently (as with Uber and things related to the DAO like Bitcoin) and is one of the reasons I still feel relatively optimistic about the future of the US economy.

What made Uber succeed, to a large degree, is that clearly a lot of societal pressure had built up over decades due to poor experiences with the taxi system- I think it's undeniable that this had an influence on the positive legal rulings around Uber, so far as those exist in many parts of the country.

Similarly, alternative governance systems like the DAO will keep appearing and I think eventually are likely to get some support from the existing legal system.

> Take Miami-Dade county...

Yikes! Glad I don't live there anymore, as my lifestyle depends significantly on access to ride sharing services.

[dragonwriter]

> I guess what I'm saying is that Uber and the DAO both operate in a legal grey zone-

What is required to be a corporation is not really a legal gray zone. The DAO doesn't operate in a legal gray zone as to that characterization, its just flat inaccurate.

Insofar as the DAO is a mechanism for constructing contracts between actual legal persons (either natural persons or corporations), it may operate in a poorly-tested area as to whether valid contracts are formed, how those contracts are interpreted and what law they are governed by, and whether and to what extent they are enforceable, true.

[drcode]

I hear you, but I don't think I've ever used the word "corporation" in this forum or claimed that the DAO is a corporation, or directly disputed any claim made by another comment as to whether the DAO is or isn't a corporation.

Whether or not the DAO meets the definition of a "corporation" doesn't seem like a very interesting question to me, and I think it's too early to know how/if it matters if the legal system uses the word "corporation" to refer to the DAO.

[will_brown]

I would define DAO as blockchain based investment club software[1]. The problem is, whether you called DAO a corporation or not, DAO raised $100+M on the basis of being an autonomous corporation, something that can not exist under the law any more than a corporation owned by cats. If the investors are not educated enough to know they invested in a legal fiction, its safe to say they bought it hook link and sink that DAO offers more transparency, shareholder control or flexibility than existing corporate structures...and even if they could exist, there is nothing to suggest any of that is true.

If people want to pool their money in a corporate structure (LLC or partnership) and vote on various investment opportunities, that's great, but its nothing new or paradigm shifting. Corporations without shareholders/owners? Nothing new, but that does not make them autonomous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_club_software