wording that limits sub-DAO creations by Members

[lyricalpolymath]

first of all congrats on working on this! :)

I understand that the Operating Agreement are not the BBLLC bylaws, right?

relating to this line in the Operating Agreement template

In whatever form, such funds shall not be commingled with funds of any other entity managed, controlled, owned or advised by any of the Members.

although I understand the spirit of the rule,
I think this limits a potential scenario where the parent DAO can create and own other subcompanies or sub-DAOs, which could be proposed and managed by one of the members of the parent DAO.

in the real world companies can create and own other companies
and if they are owned it's possible to interpret that the funds assigned to the sub-company or the sub-DAO belong to the parent DAO as well, and hence could be seen as "commingled".

possibly a better formulation would be

In whatever form, such funds shall not be commingled with funds of any other entity managed, controlled, owned or advised by any of the Members, unless the Members vote to approve it"

[orishim]

Thank you for this great feedback. This is a really interesting point that we should definitely consider amending the next time we make an amendment proposal.

dOrg hadn't explicitly considered sub-DAO creation when we launched but it makes sense to have language for it (especially to help others who want to use this template).

[ckeene]

One of my favorite anecdotes from the Enron debacle is that the board of directors voted twice to explicitly overrule the corporate code of ethics by allowing their CFO to create a related entity with comingled responsibilities.

Although Sub-DAOs seem useful, they raise a lot of complexity and opportunity for fiscal & moral ambiguity - this seems like an area where Keep It Simple has more utility.