Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Corporate Wrapper Obstacle Épistémologique
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2026.29.360324Keywords:
Web3, privacy, smart contracts, autopoiesis, Zweckvermögen, legal personalityAbstract
The relevance of this study is driven by the necessity to transform modern civil law doctrine toward a post-non-classical stage. Civil law constantly faces challenges from newly emerging relationships. The new decentralized internet, Web3, has shifted the paradigm for perceiving the elements of civil legal relations; as this article demonstrates, a new legal object exists on the blockchain, even though current civil norms state otherwise. In this regard, decentralized autonomous organizations are not merely a technological phenomenon but also a challenge to existing civil law theories and an instrument for protecting human rights amid the identity crisis of the information society and "surveillance capitalism". The purpose of this work is to substantiate a paradigm shift in research on decentralized autonomous organizations and to analyze their legal status by deconstructing the values they defend: privacy, dignity, and autonomy. The methodology is based on the axiological and historical approaches to Roman law and Kantian ethics to comprehend the depth of privacy problems and the relevance of these decentralized entities, alongside the synergetic method, which views a decentralized autonomous organization as a dissipative structure. The results demonstrate that such an organization is an autopoietic system where the protocol acts as a slaving principle (teleonomy of the code), while in bifurcation points preserving teleology of the community. It is argued that applying general corporate laws is dogmatically flawed due to the absence of affectio societatis (mutual trust) and undermines the very causa finalis of these decentralized systems – advocating for a decentralized internet and a shift of power to users, rather than creating just another form of a limited liability company. Prospects for further research include the proposal to treat these decentralized organizations as a sui generis construct. It is concluded that regulators should create "strange attractors" by applying the legal construct of Zweckvermögen (purpose-bound patrimony) to smart contracts, allowing these structures to participate in offline legal relationships without destroying their unique nature.
References
Punchenko, O.P. (2014). Methodological Innovations in Modern Scientific Cognition. Humanities Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia State Engineering Academy, 1(57), 27-37. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/znpgvzdia_2014_57_5.
Udianskyi, V.V. (2025). Genesis and Legal Nature of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Personified Purpose and Algorithmic Will. Theory and Practice of Jurisprudence, 1(27), 64-90. https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2025.27.332083.
De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the Law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2867sp.
European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union. (2022). The Impact of Pegasus on fundamental Rights and Democratic Processes. European Parliament. https://doi.org/10.2861/031930.
Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. M. Gregor, Trans. & Ed. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
Hughes, E. (1993). A Cypherpunk's Manifesto. Activism. Retrieved from https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html.
Cantürk, B.C. (2026). Correction to: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: is a New Liability Regime Possible? Current Landscape of German and Turkish Company Law and a New Liability Regime Recommendation. In M. Lustenberger, F. Spychiger, & L. Küng (Eds.). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations – Governance, Technology, and Legal Perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03273-7_10.
Weidener, L., Heurich, B., & Lukács, B. (2026). Bridging Social Capital and Financial Incentives: Navigating Liability and Regulatory Challenges in DAO Governance. In M. Lustenberger, F. Spychiger, & L. Küng (Eds.). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations – Governance, Technology, and Legal Perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03273-7_6.
Furnari, S.L., & Villani, C. (2026). Regulation of Financial Protocol DAOs: Addressing the Problems of Decentralization and AI Governance. In M. Lustenberger, F. Spychiger, & L. Küng (Eds.), Decentralized Autonomous Organizations – Governance, Technology, and Legal Perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03273-7_7.
Abelson, H., Anderson, R., Bellovin, S.M., Benaloh, J., Blaze, M., Callas, J., Diffie, W., Landau, S., Neumann, P.G., Rivest, R.L., Schiller, J.I., Schneier, B., Teague, V., & Troncoso, C. (2024). Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning. Journal of Cybersecurity, 10(1), Article tyad020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyad020.
Santoro, F. (2024). Autopoiesis in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations as Complex Systems: A Comparative Analysis and Case Studies. International Journal of Blockchain Technology and Applications, 2(2), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJBTA.2024.2.2.90-99.
Bordeleau, E., & Casemajor, N. (2025). Interspecies Cyber-Governance: BeeDAO and the Artistic Imaginaries of Blockchain for Planetary Regeneration. Journal of Urban Technology, 32(4), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2025.2475123.
Shillig, M. (2024). From Corporate (Law) Theory to DAO (Law) Theory. Retrieved from https://dawo24.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Abstract_16.pdf.
Whitman, J. Q. (2004). The two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal, 113(6), 1151-1221.
Periñán, B. (2012). The Origin of Privacy as A Legal Value: A Reflection on Roman and English Law. American Journal of Legal History, 52(2), 183-201.
Giltaij, J. (2016). Existimatio as "Human Dignity" in Late-Classical Roman Law. Fundamina, 22(2), 232-249.
Cicero, M. T. (n.d.). De Domo Sua.Retrieved from https://www.attalus.org/cicero/domo3.html.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975).
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books.
Danylian, O.H., & Dzoban, O.P. (2019). Scientific Research Methodology. Kharkiv: Pravo.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Law as a Social System. Northwestern University Law Review, 83(1), 136-150.
Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction. Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1995).
Colneric, N. (2021). Legal Opinion Commissioned by MEP Patrick Breyer: Screening for Child Pornography. The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Legal-Opinion-Screening-for-child-pornography-2021-03-04.pdf.
Anderson, R. (2022). Chat Control or Child Protection? ARXIV. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.08958.
Dirac, P.A.M. (1967). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ruhl, J.B. (1996). Complexity Theory as a Paradigm for the Dynamical Law-And-Society System: A Wake-up Call for Legal Reductionism and the Modern Administrative State. Duke Law Journal, 45(5), 849-928.
European Parliament, Council of the European Union, & European Commission. (2023). European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade (2023/C 23/01). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023C0123(01).
De Filippi, P., & Hassan, S. (2016). Blockchain Technology as a Regulatory Technology: From Code is Law to Law is Code. First Monday, 21. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i12.7113.
Leuciuc, E.G., & Ene, V.C. (2024). Affectio Societatis: An Analysis of Cohesion and Trust in the Structure of Limited Liability Companies. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 11(2), 261-268. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/11.2/247.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Владислав Удянський

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


