Lido DAO裁決：對去中心化治理的巨大打擊

去中心化自治組織 (DAO) 最初構想於 2016 年，它是加密貨幣對如何指導去中心化協議事務問題的回應。

The latest development in the ongoing legal saga surrounding decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) could have far-reaching implications for the future of decentralized finance (DeFi).

圍繞去中心化自治組織（DAO）的持續法律事件的最新進展可能會對去中心化金融（DeFi）的未來產生深遠的影響。

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) could be held liable for the actions of its members, opening the door for further legal actions against DAOs and their participants.

週一，一名聯邦法官裁定，去中心化自治組織 (DAO) 可能對其成員的行為承擔責任，這為針對 DAO 及其參與者採取進一步法律行動打開了大門。

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by Andrew Samuels, a Lido token (LDO) holder, who alleged that Lido DAO and several venture capital firms that participated in the DAO's token sale violated federal securities laws by offering and selling unregistered securities.

該裁決源於 Lido 代幣（LDO）持有者 Andrew Samuels 去年提起的訴訟，他指控 Lido DAO 和參與 DAO 代幣銷售的幾家風險投資公司透過發行和銷售未註冊的證券違反了聯邦證券法。

Samuels also claimed that Lido DAO, which is not legally incorporated, is a general partnership under California law, and that its members, including the VCs, are jointly liable for the DAO's debts and obligations.

Samuels 還聲稱，Lido DAO 不是合法註冊的，根據加州法律，它是一家普通合夥企業，其成員（包括風險投資公司）對 DAO 的債務和義務承擔連帶責任。

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria largely agreed with Samuels' argument, finding that he had "sufficiently alleged that the DAO had a partnership-like relationship with the VCs and that the VCs played a role in soliciting the purchase of Lido tokens."

美國地區法官 Vince Chhabria 在裁決中基本上同意 Samuels 的論點，認為他“充分聲稱 DAO 與風險投資公司之間存在類似合作夥伴關係，並且風險投資公司在招攬購買 Lido 代幣方面發揮了作用。 ”

The judge noted that the plaintiff had argued that the VCs "participated in discussions about exchange listings, which at least solicited the purchase of Lido tokens by others on those exchanges."

法官指出，原告辯稱風險投資公司“參與了有關交易所上市的討論，這至少招攬了其他人在這些交易所購買 Lido 代幣。”

However, the judge dismissed Samuels' claims against Robot Ventures, one of the VCs named in the lawsuit, and also agreed with Lido DAO's argument that it could not be held liable for the actions of Robot Ventures.

不過，法官駁回了 Samuels 對訴訟中點名的創投公司之一 Robot Ventures 的索賠，也同意 Lido DAO 的論點，即它不能對 Robot Ventures 的行為承擔責任。

Following the ruling, a lawyer for Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), one of the VCs named in the lawsuit, expressed disappointment with the decision and said that it had "broad implications for DAO participation."

裁決後，訴訟中提到的創投公司之一 Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) 的律師對這項決定表示失望，並表示這「對參與 DAO 具有廣泛影響」。

"We believe the Court erred in its analysis and will continue to defend a16z's role in supporting decentralized protocols," the lawyer added.

「我們認為法院的分析是錯誤的，並將繼續捍衛 a16z 在支持去中心化協議方面的作用，」律師補充道。

notably, this is not the first time that a court has ruled that a DAO can be considered a general partnership.

值得注意的是，這並不是法院第一次裁定 DAO 可以被視為普通合夥企業。

Earlier this year, a federal judge in California allowed a group of users who lost funds in a bZx exploit to proceed with a lawsuit against the decentralized exchange's DAO.

今年早些時候，加州的一名聯邦法官允許一群因 bZx 漏洞而損失資金的用戶對去中心化交易所的 DAO 提起訴訟。

In another case, a judge allowed a class action lawsuit against Compound Labs, the creator of the decentralized lending protocol Compound, to proceed with claims that the protocol's governance token was an unregistered security.

在另一起案件中，法官允許針對去中心化借貸協議Compound的創建者Compound Labs提起集體訴訟，聲稱該協議的治理代幣是未註冊的證券。

These rulings could have a significant impact on the way that DAOs are structured and operate in the future.

這些裁決可能會對 DAO 未來的建構和運作方式產生重大影響。

If DAOs are to be held to the same standards as general partnerships, then their members could face increased personal liability for the actions of the DAO.

如果 DAO 遵循與普通合夥企業相同的標準，那麼其成員可能會因 DAO 的行為而面臨更大的個人責任。

This may lead some DAOs to seek legal recognition and protection by forming limited liability companies (LLCs) or other types of legal entities.

這可能會導致一些 DAO 透過成立有限責任公司（LLC）或其他類型的法律實體來尋求法律認可和保護。