Skip to content

Legal Approach to DAO‑Adjacent BORGs

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) often face challenges when interacting with the “real world” of law and commerce – they lack legal personality, cannot easily sign contracts or own offchain assets, and offer no liability shield to participants. BORGs (“Cybernetic Organizations”) are MetaLeX’s answer to this: a hybrid of code and legal entity that wraps a DAO workstream (like a multisig committee or council) in a formal legal structure. By doing so, a BORG provides the best of both worlds: the accountability and clarity of traditional entities plus the transparency and autonomy of blockchain-based governance. MetaLeX’s legal approach to BORGs centers on using memberless, beneficiary-less Cayman Islands foundation companies as the wrapper for these DAO-adjacent groups, coupled with carefully crafted bylaws that hard-code the DAO’s oversight and the entity’s onchain operations.

Why Wrap a DAO Workstream in a Legal Entity?

Without any legal entity, a DAO’s multisig or working group exists in a gray area. It may inadvertently be treated as an unincorporated association or partnership, with uncertain jurisdiction and potentially severe liability for participants. Members of a multisig could be exposed to joint-and-several personal liability for actions taken on behalf of the group, and it’s ambiguous which country’s laws apply if the signers are globally distributed. This uncertainty extends to ownership of assets (Who “owns” a DAO’s treasury held in a multisig?) and the ability to engage offchain – e.g. signing contracts, holding domain names, or hiring contractors. In short, relying purely on code and informal social arrangements can leave real people with real legal risk and no formal recourse.

Wrapping the DAO-affiliated group into a legal entity solves these problems. The entity provides legal personhood (so it can contract and hold assets) and limited liability (so contributors aren’t personally on the hook for the entity’s debts or legal issues). It also anchors the organization to a specific jurisdiction and legal framework, avoiding a situation where every signer’s local laws might simultaneously apply. A legal wrapper helps delineate that the group’s activities are on behalf of the entity (and ultimately the DAO’s mission), not a personal venture of the signers. This clarity can be crucial for regulatory reasons as well – for example, to ensure a DAO isn’t viewed as an unregistered investment fund simply because it holds diverse assets. Certain assets or operations can be spun out to a BORG entity so that the DAO itself remains a pure protocol governance unit. In the Lido case, the community explicitly wanted to isolate an “alliance” initiative in a separate foundation to avoid Lido DAO appearing like it was managing a venture fund.

Beyond liability and regulatory clarity, having an entity allows the group to handle offchain assets and services that a smart contract cannot. For instance, a foundation can own web domains, custody legal rights/IP, employ contributors, and generally interface with traditional institutions on behalf of the DAO’s community. It provides continuity (the entity persists even as individual contributors come and go) and formalizes the fiduciary-like responsibilities of the group in a way that is enforceable.

Why a Cayman Islands Foundation Company?

MetaLeX has experimented with various jurisdictional approaches, but the Cayman Islands “foundation company” has emerged as the preferred legal vehicle for DAO-adjacent BORGs. Cayman foundation companies are a relatively new type of legal entity (introduced in 2017) that combine features of trusts, nonprofits, and companies in a highly flexible way. Importantly, they can be structured to have no shareholders (members) and even no beneficiaries, operating solely for defined purposes. This makes them ideal for community-driven and non-profit-oriented endeavors like DAO support entities.

Key features of a Cayman foundation company that suit BORGs include:

  • No Ownership Shares: The foundation has no members or equity shareholders by design. This means it isn’t “owned” by any individual – much like a DAO has no owners – and can be governed according to its charter rather than shareholder interests. The foundation’s board and officers manage it, but their powers are constrained by the foundational purpose and bylaws, rather than driven by shareholder profit motives.

  • Purpose-Driven, No Private Beneficiaries: The entity can be “beneficiary-less,” meaning it isn’t obliged to distribute profits to any owners or beneficiaries. Instead, it exists to pursue a specific purpose (which in our case is aligned with supporting a particular protocol/DAO). For example, the Everclear Foundation was set up explicitly “to support the Everclear ecosystem” as its purpose, with no person entitled to the assets – all assets are to be used for that ecosystem’s benefit. Likewise, the proposed Yearn BORG’s foundation is legally barred from operating for the private benefit of the multisig signers; its charter limits it to supporting Yearn and its community goals.

  • Limited Liability & Tax Neutrality: As an exempted company in Cayman, the foundation provides limited liability to its participants (directors, officers, etc.) – they generally won’t be personally liable for the entity’s obligations except in cases of egregious wrongdoing (fraud, gross misconduct). Cayman does not impose corporate income tax, and the entity is regarded as tax-neutral, which is beneficial when handling global crypto assets. (Any tax obligations typically fall on the recipients of funds, not the foundation itself.)

  • Governance Flexibility: Cayman foundation companies allow highly customized governance structures. There is no legal requirement for a traditional shareholder meeting or equity voting, so the foundation’s constitution (Memorandum & Articles) and Bylaws can define bespoke governance processes. This flexibility lets us incorporate novel rules tying the foundation to onchain governance. For instance, the foundation’s bylaws can recognize a particular multisig or DAO vote as part of its decision-making apparatus. Cayman’s legal system is accustomed to creative structures for crypto projects, and local service providers (law firms, corporate services) are experienced in servicing such entities. In practice, we’ve found the Cayman framework amenable to embedding smart contract dependencies and DAO approval mechanisms directly into the legal documents.

  • Crypto-Friendly Jurisdiction: The Cayman Islands has cultivated a reputation as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, with many DAO-related entities (foundations, treasuries, protocol dev orgs) established there. The regulatory environment is currently favorable (no direct DAO-specific legislation that would constrain innovation), and the jurisdiction offers specialized courts and common-law precedent for handling complex business disputes if they arise. Additionally, Cayman permits foundation companies to be structured with guarantor members or none at all, and to appoint a Supervisor to oversee rule compliance if there are no members – a feature we heavily leverage (more on this below).

In summary, a Cayman foundation company can act almost like a “corporate smart contract” – a legal entity with no owners, a defined mission, and internal rules that make it behave in an automated, trust-minimized way. MetaLeX uses this vehicle for most BORGs because it aligns philosophically with DAO principles (no owner, mission-focused), while offering the practical benefits of an entity.

Embedding DAO Oversight in Bylaws (“Hardwired Accountability”)

Forming the foundation company is just the start. The real magic is in the Bylaws and charter documents that MetaLeX drafts to bind the entity to the DAO’s will. These Bylaws serve as the “source code” of the legal entity, encoding constraints and governance processes that mirror the DAO’s preferences. We design them to be as change-resistant and enforceable as possible, so that all participants (and the DAO community) can trust the arrangement over time.

Some of the common provisions we include in BORG entity Bylaws:

  • Mission Lock-in: The foundation’s purpose is explicitly defined to align with the DAO’s project. For example, the Lido Alliance BORG Foundation’s constitution restricts it to “furthering the Lido Alliance Program” and related community benefits. It cannot pursue unrelated business or stray from this mandate. Similarly, Yearn’s proposed Ychad Foundation must only support the Yearn protocol and community, and “is not permitted to operate for the personal benefit” of the multisig signers. This ensures the entity remains a servant to the DAO’s ecosystem, not a for-profit offshoot.

  • Onchain Asset Controls: The Bylaws typically require that all onchain assets of the entity are held in specific smart contracts (usually a Gnosis SAFE multisig) and managed only through those contracts. In other words, the human directors cannot unilaterally move funds by, say, signing a bank wire or using a different wallet – they are legally obligated to use the designated onchain multisig for all crypto assets. The Bylaws often name the exact multisig address or set a process to update it with DAO approval, and declare that any asset outside of it is not considered legally held by the entity. This tie-in means if a rogue actor tried to divert assets offchain, they’d be violating the Bylaws (and likely face legal action for breach of duty), giving an extra layer of assurance beyond the code itself.

  • DAO Approval for Key Decisions: A hallmark of the BORG design is formal DAO oversight rights embedded in the legal docs. Certain critical actions by the foundation cannot happen without the DAO’s consent (usually expressed via an onchain vote or a Snapshot vote, depending on the DAO’s tooling). For instance, BORG Bylaws often require that any change to the foundation’s directors or multisig signers be approved by both the foundation’s board and the DAO’s governance. In Yearn’s case, this means Ychad multisig signers can only be added or removed if Yearn DAO voters also approve – a co-approval mechanism that is enforced both by software (SAFE modules) and by the legal agreement. Likewise, dissolving the entity or amending its fundamental purpose usually requires a DAO vote. The Lido Alliance BORG’s rules stipulate that Lido DAO must sign off on any liquidation of the foundation or any charter changes that would adversely affect the Lido community. These clauses give the DAO a direct veto and control, ensuring the BORG can’t, say, sell off assets or change allegiance without community agreement.

  • “Nuclear Option” Supervisory Powers: Because the foundation has no shareholders, Cayman law allows the appointment of a Supervisor – a party with the power to oversee that the foundation follows its constitution. MetaLeX uses this feature to give the DAO an emergency brake. Typically, MetaLeX (or an affiliated neutral entity) is named as the initial Supervisor of the BORG foundation, with the understanding that this role can be transferred to a DAO-trusted entity later. The Supervisor role, as defined in the Bylaws, is usually passive by default – it monitors compliance but does not interfere in day-to-day operations. However, if something goes seriously wrong (e.g. the BORG’s management violates the rules or some catastrophic governance failure occurs), the DAO can trigger Emergency Supervisor Powers by onchain vote. When activated, these powers allow the Supervisor to take control of the situation: for example, to remove or replace directors, freeze certain actions, or initiate legal proceedings in the name of the foundation to protect the community’s interests. This is essentially an on-call backstop to enforce the community’s rights if the normal checks and balances fail. It greatly mitigates trust: the DAO doesn’t have to trust that the BORG directors will behave – if they seriously misbehave, the DAO can legally empower the Supervisor (bound by fiduciary duty) to step in and course-correct.

  • Hard-to-Amend Charter: We draft the BORG’s governing documents to be amendment-resistant. In practice, the Bylaws include “meta-rules” stating that any material changes to these core provisions (purpose, DAO approval rights, asset rules, etc.) require the same dual approval – the board and the DAO. In other words, the directors cannot water down their own constraints without going back to the DAO for a vote. This entrenchment of the rules is crucial to maintain long-term trust: even years down the line, new management can’t quietly remove the DAO’s veto or the Supervisor clause unless token holders explicitly agree. The result is a durable alignment between the legal entity and the DAO’s governance.

All these provisions are not just on paper – they’re complemented by smart contract systems (the “BORG OS” toolset) that MetaLeX deploys. For example, when the bylaws say “membership changes need DAO approval,” we also install a SAFE module (implant) on the multisig that programmatically enforces that by requiring a signed DAO oracle approval before a new signer can be added. The legal and technical safeguards reinforce each other. The BORG Participation Agreements that each human signer enters (often by signing onchain) further ensure they acknowledge these rules and will abide by them. This multi-layer approach (law + code) is what makes a BORG truly cybernetic: the entity is legally governed by autonomous tech processes, and any attempt to step outside those processes is both automatically blocked onchain and illegal under the entity’s charter.

Implementation: MetaLeX’s Role and Process

Setting up a DAO-adjacent BORG is a multidisciplinary effort – part legal structuring, part smart contract deployment. MetaLeX (comprised of a tech lab and a law firm working in tandem) handles the end-to-end deployment of these entities. On the legal side, this means working with Cayman counsel to register the foundation company, acting as or appointing initial directors, and drafting the Memorandum & Articles of Association and Bylaws in line with the DAO’s requirements. We ensure that a professional Cayman director is in place if required for local compliance (often a trusted service provider or individual who has no day-to-day role, but whose presence satisfies Cayman regulatory needs). That director’s powers are strictly limited by the Bylaws (e.g. they might be required to co-sign a dissolution or government filing, but they cannot initiate major actions unilaterally).

We also typically serve as the initial Supervisor (for practicality and because we authored the rules, we can monitor them). Over time, we can help transition the Supervisor role to a community-designated entity – for instance, Lido DAO has discussed moving the Supervisor duties to a new “Lido OpsBORG” entity controlled by Lido community members. All BORG signers (the individuals on the multisig or board) sign the onchain BORG Participation Agreement to formally bind themselves to act in the entity’s interest and follow the Bylaws. This creates privity of contract, so if a signer deviated (e.g. tried to execute an unauthorized transaction), both the foundation (through its Supervisor) and the DAO (as a third-party beneficiary) would have legal grounds to hold them accountable.

On the technical side, MetaLeX deploys the SAFE multisig and the suite of BORG OS smart contracts (guards, modules, oracles as needed) to implement the onchain side of governance. For example, we might deploy a Snapshot listening oracle and a custom Guard contract on the SAFE: together, these ensure that any transaction above a certain threshold or of a certain type is paused until a corresponding Snapshot vote by the DAO is verified. We rigorously test these implants and often get them audited; notably, we use the well-audited Gnosis SAFE as the core, without modifying its code. The BORG’s contributors then use a MetaLeX-provided web dashboard (or the SAFE interface) to operate, with the implants invisibly enforcing the rules.

From start to finish, MetaLeX’s interdisciplinary team (lawyers and engineers) work closely to balance decentralization with practicality. The goal is always to impose the minimum necessary trust assumptions – if something can be enforced by code, we do it; if not, we enforce it by legal means, and often we do both. This ensures the BORG can act efficiently (it has a small group of empowered agents who can sign transactions day-to-day) without ever escaping the orbit of the DAO’s governance. It’s a delicate design: too much autonomy and the DAO loses control; too much restriction and the entity can’t operate effectively. Our experience in multiple deployments has honed a model that achieves this balance.

Real-World Examples of BORG Structuring

MetaLeX has helped design and launch numerous BORGs for major Web3 communities, each tailored to their specific needs but following the above principles. Some notable examples:

  • Lido Alliance BORG (2024): A foundation company was created to wrap Lido DAO’s ecosystem alliance program, which brings outside projects (“Lido Allies”) together. The Lido Alliance Foundation is a memberless, non-profit Cayman foundation with bylaws that gave Lido DAO significant oversight. Its Board of Directors (initially two persons, with a handful of additional Guardians) can execute the program’s operations, but Lido DAO must approve any new Alliance members and co-approve changes in directors. All assets provided by alliance members are held in onchain multisigs controlled by the foundation, and any use of those allied tokens requires Lido DAO’s co-signature (a rule enforced via bylaws and EasyTrack onchain veto modules). The Lido BORG’s bylaws even allow Lido DAO to appoint an emergency supervisor and directly remove directors in case of severe misbehavior. This structure was presented to the Lido community, which signaled strong support, and the legal documents (Memorandum, Articles, Bylaws) were made public for transparency.

  • Yearn’s Ychad BORG (Proposed 2025): Ychad.eth is a 6-of-9 multisig that has acted as Yearn Finance’s “Guardian” and treasury operator. MetaLeX proposed converting Ychad into a BORG by registering an ownerless Cayman foundation to “wrap” the multisig and formalize its relationship with Yearn DAO. Under this plan, the foundation would take ownership of Ychad’s assets and contracts, giving Ychad legal status and its signers legal protection. The foundation’s bylaws (nicknamed the “Ychad Constitution”) institute Yearn DAO approval rights: Yearn token holders must approve any changes to Ychad signers, and Ychad retains a defined veto power over certain DAO proposals (as already exists socially). The bylaws also mandate that Ychad’s powers only be exercised via the onchain SAFE and MetaLeX’s BORG modules (called “Mandatory Autonomous Systems” in the legal text). In effect, Ychad becomes a legally accountable extension of Yearn DAO – able to act swiftly on behalf of the DAO, but bound by both law and code to the DAO’s will. This proposal (YIP-XX) was put forth for community discussion in July 2025, highlighting how the BORG would secure Yearn’s multi-sig operations and pave the way for more onchain governance.

  • zkSync Security Council & Guardians (2023-24): zkSync (a Layer-2 protocol) instituted a decentralized governance system which included a Security Council (a 12-member multisig with emergency upgrade powers) and a set of Guardians (a group with veto powers). MetaLeX helped structure these as BORG entities. Separate Cayman foundation companies were established to house each of these bodies (often referred to as the ZKSync Security Council Foundation and Guardians Foundation). The legal arrangements mirrored the governance design: Security Council members signed agreements with the foundation and agreed to be bound by the foundation’s bylaws. Those bylaws, in turn, enshrined that the Security Council multisig must act within parameters set by the onchain governance (e.g. only deploying emergency fixes and subject to later ratification). The Guardians BORG similarly had a foundation wrapping the veto multisig; its keyholders served as directors constrained by the DAO’s constitution. In zkSync’s docs, one can find references to the Security Council entity’s bylaws and the role of its Board in recommending changes, emphasizing that even these tech-savvy roles have a legal backbone. By using BORGs, zkSync ensured that the humans holding critical upgrade keys are part of a legal structure answerable to the community’s rules, not just a loose coalition of individuals. This significantly reduces risk in a high-stakes protocol upgrade context.

  • Everclear Grants BORG (2024): Everclear, a DeFi project, launched a community grants program and chose to implement it via a BORG. The Everclear Foundation (Cayman foundation co.) was set up to receive ~10% of the token supply dedicated to ecosystem grants. This foundation is “a shareholderless legal entity” mission-bound to benefit the Everclear ecosystem. Its board (which included community members and an advisor from Connext, since Everclear originated from the Connext ecosystem) evaluates grant proposals. MetaLeX’s bylaws for Everclear Foundation require that any allocation of tokens follows the processes approved by Everclear DAO (via an onchain governance proposal EGP-26) and that unused grant tokens could be clawed back to the DAO treasury if the DAO votes to do so. The Grants BORG structure gave Everclear’s community confidence that the grant funds would be managed transparently and not misused: the foundation cannot, for example, spend those tokens on anything outside the grant mandate. If it attempted to, token holders have legal recourse and, through the bylaws, a say in correcting course. The establishment of the Everclear Grants BORG was documented in Everclear’s governance forum and passed via community vote in 2024, demonstrating the growing adoption of BORG frameworks beyond Ethereum into the broader crypto ecosystem (Everclear is aligned with the Connext network, bridging to Layer-2s).

  • Other Projects: MetaLeX’s BORG approach has also been applied to various other communities and use-cases. For Curve Finance (Curve DAO), a “Curve Emergency BORG” was conceptualized to formalize the emergency multisig that can pause the AMM contracts – again using a foundation so that keyholders are accountable and the DAO can enforce rules on their emergency powers. In the Cosmos realm, Neutron (a Cosmos Hub-connected chain) launched the first Cosmos-native Grants BORG, similarly using an entity to manage a community pool with onchain and offchain governance integration. MetaCartel and others have explored BORG structures for their own operational subgroups as well. The consistency across these examples is striking: whether the goal is managing grants, safeguarding upgrade keys, or running an alliance or research program, the BORG model brings a trust-minimized legal wrapper that reassures stakeholders and allows the DAO to scale its activities into the offchain world.

Conclusion

MetaLeX’s legal approach to BORGs demonstrates that we can achieve decentralization with accountability – rather than choosing between a nebulous “code is law” collective or a fully traditional corporation, we create a hybrid. By leveraging memberless Cayman foundations and anchoring them to onchain governance through unalterable bylaws, DAO-adjacent BORGs preserve the supremacy of the DAO while providing the legal clarity and protection of a conventional organization. This approach appeals to both the technically minded, who value the onchain enforcement and transparency, and the legally minded, who value the clear allocation of duties and remedies. It’s a novel cypherpunk solution: using one of the most flexible entity forms available to ensure that even in the eyes of law, the code and community values will lead. As DAO ecosystems continue to grow and interact with real-world systems, we at MetaLeX believe the BORG framework – continually refined through projects like Lido, Yearn, zkSync, Everclear, and beyond – is a promising path to organizing the disorganized and giving DAO contributors the tools to operate safely at the intersection of blockchain and meatspace.

Sources