DAO Governance Could Change Following This Court Ruling

Members of bZx DAO considered a “general partnership” with liability ramifications

article-image

Source: Shutterstock / Maurice Norbert, modified by Blockworks

share

Judges of the United States District Court of Southern California have denied the motion to excuse governance token holders from bZx decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), claiming they are plausibly liable for the loss of $55 million in an exploit occurred in 2021.

Users demanded that bZx be held accountable for the lost funds after it was revealed that a bZx developer had fallen for a “phishing” scam that gave a hacker access to the protocol’s private keys.

After failing to return stolen funds, the court emphasized that DAO governance members fell under the arrangement of a “general partnership” and dismissed a motion against them. 

This means that despite not being the individual responsible for the attacks, the governing members of the DAO are all plausibly liable to each of the victims, making it possible that each and every token holder is responsible for the return of the lost funds. 

​​In a Twitter post, Adam Cochran, a managing partner at Cinneamhain Ventures said that “dismissing the motion does not mean the court decided that owning the token makes you 100% liable — yet. It just means they refused to take it off the table.”

“It means that they feel there is some grounds for the case that a DeFi app with a DAO structure could extend legal liability to anyone who simply holds the token in certain circumstances — and that argument merits more discussion in court,” Cochran said.

It is important to note that in the United States, by default, general partnerships imply that there is an equal amount of voting power, which is often not the case for DAOs, where different token holders have a very different amount of control over the protocol. 

Although partnership structures could benefit certain DAOs, Mel.eth, a pseudonymous DAO governance consultant, told Blockworks, not all DAOs are organized as such. And DAOs that are not structured like this should not be categorized inappropriately.

“The current framework of law isn’t coordinated enough to provide viable solutions and this fact will become increasingly obvious as we see increasingly misfit applications of outdated terminology and organizational strictures,” Mel said. “DAOs are not partnerships in my considered opinion, but a partnership structure might befit some DAOs.”

Updated March 30, 2023 at 9:59 am ET: A previous version of this story stated that Mel.eth was a contributor at Index Coop.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Upcoming Events

Old Billingsgate

Mon - Wed, October 13 - 15, 2025

Blockworks’ Digital Asset Summit (DAS) will feature conversations between the builders, allocators, and legislators who will shape the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the US and abroad.

recent research

Research

article-image

Prediction markets have found a mainstream fit

article-image

Money for enemies isn’t fun, but crypto can be

article-image

Onchain SOL perps wiped $31 million, outpacing CEX volumes two days in a row

article-image

Fed Chair Jerome Powell told Senators Wednesday that the timeline on lowering interest rates is up in the air

article-image

Credit infrastructure DeFi protocol Grove makes allocation into a CLO segment “ripe for movement into DeFi”

article-image

Moca brings digital identities onchain as a privacy-forward alternative to existing single sign-on tools