The DAO That Collapsed in 2016 Has Returned as a Giving Experiment

The most famous failure in crypto history has returned, and it came back as one of the most ambitious experiments in giving anyone is running right now. The DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization, which simply means a group that pools money and decides together how to spend it through code rather than through a board, collapsed a decade ago in a notorious hack. The reconstituted version is not raising money. It is deciding, in public and by vote, how to give away an endowment of more than one hundred fifty million dollars for the shared good of the Ethereum network.

The experiment matters because of how it intends to give. Most giving institutions keep the people who fund separate from the people who decide, and the wall between them is the grant proposal. This one is trying to remove that wall using two methods worth knowing. Quadratic funding weights a large number of small contributions more heavily than a small number of large ones, so a gift backed by many people counts for more than a gift backed by a few wallets. Retroactive funding pays for a public good after it has already proven useful, rather than betting on a plan before the work exists. Together they form a live test of whether decentralized giving genuinely spreads the decision or quietly hands it back to whoever holds the most tokens.

For nonprofit and foundation professionals, the retroactive idea, funding results after they appear rather than plans before they exist, is a quiet challenge to the grant proposal as the unit of trust the sector has always relied on, which means the question worth sitting with is whether your organization could prove its value after the work rather than only before it.

For digital and crypto-native giving leaders, this is the experiment to watch this year, because the governance design and not the technology will decide whether ownership actually spreads, which means the most important metric is not how many tokens were issued but whether the vote still means something after the most powerful participants arrive.

For donors and family-office advisors, the model previews a structure in which the donor is a participant in the decision rather than a name on a check, so that a client who holds digital assets and wants genuine influence over how a fund is deployed has, for the first time, a live and scalable mechanism to exercise it rather than an advisory relationship that ends at the gift.

For corporate giving and CSR leaders, the quadratic funding model holds a direct application, because a workplace giving program that weights participation over dollar size would surface the causes employees actually care about rather than the ones the largest contributors favor. The design question for any corporate program is whether it is built to reflect the values of the many or the preferences of the few, and a reconstituted DAO running a hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar endowment is now offering a working prototype of the former.

For NGOs and international organizations, the retroactive model changes the funding conversation in contexts where proof of impact is harder to generate in advance. An organization working across borders in conditions that make proposal timelines unreliable has more to gain from a funder that pays for demonstrated results than from one that requires a detailed forecast, which means the experiment unfolding in the Ethereum ecosystem is worth watching even by organizations that will never hold a governance token.

The question for any funder is whether your money rewards a convincing plan or a proven outcome, because those two habits build very different fields.

"Decentralized giving is not proven by who is allowed to vote. It is proven by whether the vote still means something after the powerful arrive."EILEEN HERNANDEZ, THE STRATEGIC STEWARD

Share this𝕏 / TwitterLinkedIn

This is the open question at the center of Participatory Ownership, the second pillar of the DIA Protocol, because a structure earns the word ownership only if participation survives contact with concentrated power.