Shreyas Hariharan is the co-founder at Llama, a company that builds economic infrastructure for DAOs. Llama has worked with a number of leading DAOs, including Aave, Uniswap, Gitcoin, PoolTogether, Fei Protocol, FWB, dYdX, Radicle, Harvest Finance, and many others. He visited the Crypto, Culture, & Society virtual campus recently to talk about building an economy within a DAO.
Though more complex activity has moved to the digital world, our tools to coordinate in a digitally-native way have yet to evolve at the same pace. DAOs are emerging as web3’s — and perhaps society’s — defining coordination mechanism, but they are still in their infancy. To reach their fullest potential, DAOs — just like nation states — must work to construct and maintain thriving internal economies that serve their missions.
This post delves into how DAOs can build sustainable internal economies, use both native tokens and treasuries to serve their goals, and apply models from economics, history, and anthropology to operate effectively.
The book How Asia Works by Joe Studwell details the economic models implemented by Asian governments including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, China, and others to build successful economies.
The success of these countries runs contrary to the conventional economic ideas emphasized by western universities and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Surprisingly, Studwell argues that unbridled free markets can be harmful for underdeveloped economies. Successful Asian economies have been intentional about two things: what parts of their economies they open up and when to open them up.
The book is well worth a read in full, however, numerous strategies cited include:
Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and China started off with a lot of land and a relatively uneducated labor force. At this scale, it was far too costly to train citizens for highly-skilled jobs in fields like information technology and financial services. Instead, the governments adopted land reform policies that distributed land to the same agricultural laborers who worked it. Smaller parcels of land operated by economically-incentivized farmers resulted in increased productivity and crop yield, which raised household income. The success in agriculture in turn fueled local manufacturing industries. Because manufacturers couldn’t become wealthy by local consumption (the local economy wasn’t rich enough), they had to focus on exports to the US, Europe, and other wealthier economies.
In this model, Studwell argues that the way to spur exports is not to open up the economy completely, but to be selective by setting up special economic zones and offering tax subsidies for industries that are deemed strategically important. Additionally, governments would selectively revalue the currency; China in particular is famous for devaluing its currency so that its exports were competitive in the global market.
While these strategies are not sustainable in the long term, they are vital at the early stages of economic development. After all, the economy needs a strong foundation before it can be fully open to foreign competition.
So what happens when we apply the Asian model for building an economy to the construction of a sustainable DAO?
Let’s use the example of the DAO Friends With Benefits.
A DAO is an internet-native organization that has its critical rules governed by smart contracts rather than legal contracts. You can encode important things like membership, ownership, key assets, or property the community owns on-chain. And at the edges, you have humans who govern over critical parts of the DAO like the shared bank account or treasury, upgrades to the protocol, and changes to the constitution of the DAO.
Today, most protocol DAOs allocate 40-60% of native tokens to a community treasury, which is then distributed via on-chain governance. The challenge here is that on-chain governance is slow and ineffective, which means hardly any native tokens get allocated.
However, the rules for allocating native tokens over time can be encoded in the beginning of the formation of the DAO. By setting these rules, DAOs create a game that builders, users, market participants, and other stakeholders can participate in to receive native tokens.
Bitcoin provides a great example of this idea in action. Bitcoins are created as a reward for mining, which serves an important function of using computing power to verify and record new Bitcoin transactions on the blockchain. The incentives laid out by its creator, Satoshi, have led to a whole ecosystem and economy of participants mining Bitcoin, including mining companies like Bitmain, hydropower plants including ones in Italy and Costa Rica, ASIC miners designed to mine Bitcoin, and more.
While the Bitcoin model is not without its critics, it established a transparent way for market participants to earn Bitcoin that has been very successful.
Curve is another example of a protocol that has a very transparent system for distributing native tokens, rewarding participants, and creating utility for those tokens. On the Curve protocol, you can lock up your tokens in a voting escrow, and they are subject to Curve’s vesting schedule. By locking your tokens you can not only accrue more tokens, but you also get to vote on distributing token rewards and adding new gauges, which measure how much a user is providing in liquidity, to the protocol.
An entire ecosystem with a great deal of activity both inside and outside the DAO has sprung up based on the rules that Curve created for utilizing and allocating its tokens.
For example, Convex Finance emerged as a protocol that unbundles the governance and economic rights of Curve holders. In a recent post for Llama, Kydo detailed how a group of people within Curve Finance pooled their voting power together to maximize their yield on CRV.
Business-to-business relationships are strict whereas DAO-to-DAO relationships are fluid. B2B relationships are defined by legal contracts, proprietary software, and private negotiations with key executives at the company. D2D (i.e. DAO-to-DAO) relationships are defined by smart contracts, governance forum posts, open-source software, and public negotiations with the DAO’s community, token holders, and core team.
D2D collaborations resemble nation state alliances more than corporate mergers and acquisitions do. You can think of a significant D2D token swap like the NATO agreement, which partly serves to protect each party and ensure that no one steps on each others' toes. Yearn is a good case study — they've helped several protocols like Pickle, Rari Capital, and Alchemix when they were exploited. This helps Yearn build trust with other DAOs.
When the code is open-source and forkable, what you want to "acquire" is the community and ecosystem development around the protocol. This cannot be done by force.
Successful collaborations involve product integrations, sharing of resources, support during attacks, and an increase in the economic value of both DAOs. Collaborations may also involve participation in each others' governance. The partnership exists as long as both communities want it.
Crypto enables almost anything to become financialized – from an open source protocol to a meme to a person’s future income. The financialization of everything combined with the ability to exchange anything for anything else via decentralized exchanges like Uniswap and Sushiswap indicate that we are entering a loosely-defined barter economy.
Anything can compete to be money. It’s easier than ever to create an asset out of anything, and it’s also easier than ever to exchange assets for each other.
When exchanges become more common (and more important to the economy), liquidity also becomes more important.
A useful analogy is that what bandwidth provided to the Internet age, liquidity provides to the blockchain age.
Bandwidth is the rate at which data flows across the network, and liquidity is the ease with which you can exchange your asset for something else. Having ample amounts of both is what allows a DAO economy to flourish.
Many anthropologists disagree with the commonly held idea that barter economies evolved before economies based on credit or currency, which was propagated most notably by the 18th century economist and philosopher Adam Smith. In practice, many anthropologists have instead suggested that early economies were gift economies based on generosity and reciprocity (e.g. I give you something you need and at some point down the road you return it in some way).
This seems to be emerging in intra-DAO interactions (e.g. between DAO member and DAO contributor). As trust builds within a DAO, members cultivate trust that they will at some point be rewarded for their efforts to advance the mission of the DAO.
The concern in web3, however, is that every interaction has the potential to become transactional. DAOs must be careful to prevent that from becoming part of the culture because it devalues the intrinsic and social motivations of members. The best DAOs will operate a gift economy internally, even if they are more transactional with other DAOs.
There is value to having permanent capital, because some projects require a longer time horizon and an inexhaustible source of funding. Chinese monasteries and university endowments have both been built with this understanding – the funds will need to exist in perpetuity.
DAO treasuries often fund long-term, open-source projects, which means the funding will need to last as long as possible.
As always, there are exceptions based on the goals of the project — whether for a DAO or a traditional institution. For example, the Gates Foundation plans to spend all its resources within twenty years of Bill and Melinda’s deaths so that they can focus on the most pressing problems today.
DAOs are interesting because they contain elements of both socialism and capitalism, two different ideologies. There’s a hybrid model emerging from both the libertarian leaning beliefs that everything can be financialized, and that money shouldn’t be controlled by any centralized entity AND the leftist view that labor should own more of the economy, not just wages. It’s why web3 contains a multitude of political views – because people can be attracted to it for different reasons and both sides can be right.
In many ways, DAOs offer a better model for coordination and distribution of ownership than some of our existing structures. Successful DAOs will build a thriving internal economy that drives their mission. They should be intentional about how they use their native tokens and treasury to sustain and grow their communities.
Crypto, Culture and Society (CCS) is a learning DAO focused on building liberal arts for crypto. Founded in 2020, CCS has grown into a full-stack educational initiative hosting workshops, electives, and other programming for its members. The CCS community includes technologists, creators, community builders, educators, and lifelong learners. You can keep up with CCS on Twitter, Substack, and via the Society Journal.
Thanks to Austin Green for discussions on this topic; Graeme Boy, David Phelps, Michael Bateman, and Daniel Schlabach for feedback on the post; Miru for the art; Tasha Kim for the graph design that accompanies this post; and Tom White for general editorial support.