Current Limitations

Common Pain Points in Existing DAO Tooling:

Rigidity in Governance Frameworks:

Traditional DAO infrastructures often enforce a single, rigid governance model, one that might not fit every organization’s unique needs. As DAOs mature, their governance structures should be able to evolve, adapting to new forms of decision making, treasury management, and stakeholder participation. When tools don’t allow this flexibility, DAOs are forced to work around the tooling’s limitations or make costly migrations to more adaptable solutions.

Outdated Plutus Versions and Technology Stacks:

Many existing DAO tools were built before the release of Plutus V3 and other recent Cardano enhancements. These outdated technologies can lead to higher transaction costs, inefficiencies in code execution, and performance bottlenecks. Relying on older codebases and programming languages also makes it harder to implement new features, integrate enhancements, and ensure optimal security practices, putting DAOs at a competitive disadvantage.

Monolithic Architectures:

One size fits all solutions often try to cover every aspect of governance in one bulky package. This approach can introduce unnecessary complexity, forcing DAOs to grapple with features they neither want nor need. The result is cumbersome systems that are both time consuming to manage and expensive to maintain, especially when scaling or integrating with other platforms.

Closed Source Code and Limited Transparency:

Closed source solutions not only restrict who can audit and improve the code, but also create vendor lock-in scenarios that hamper innovation. Without open access to the underlying logic and smart contracts, DAOs must rely solely on a provider’s promises rather than verified, community driven assurance. This lack of transparency goes against the core ethos of decentralization and stifles collaborative growth.