[giansegato]

I'm by no means an expert, but my intuition is that the relationship between on chain and real world should be regulated by real world courts. So, for instance, an on chain DAO hires a contractor, that then does insider trading on behalf of the DAO in the US: both the contractor and any real world activity in the US get targeted by US courts. It's like fining Google in the EU: you can't touch it in the US (it's as if it's on chain), but you can prevent it from doing business on EU soil. Or what happened with Facebook in the UK: the parliament summoned Zuck, and he just didn't show up. It's convoluted, but not far fetched imho.

[UncleMeat]

You can’t say that it’ll rely on real word courts and then two minutes later say that the benefit is that you don’t need to hire lawyers.

[giansegato]

You don't need to hire lawyers to create the entity and coordinate internally. I've managed a multinational company: it's absolutely crazy the amount of complexity needed to coordinate between legislations, just because states can't efficiently talk with each other. It doesn't make any sense. It's a broken protocol. It's a fine line: within the org, on chain and no lawyers, only code and everyone must take care of code due diligence. Outside the org (ie. real world), you deal with lawyers as much as needed.

[jimkleiber]

I've thought that many crypto solutions are just workarounds for not having global standardization around laws. Do you think a global governance level (with more buy-in than the UN) would help mitigate some of the challenges that a global company encounters?

In other words, do you think there would be as much of a need for DAOs if a company could register with a global authority, had globally aligned taxes, etc?