TYPEOriginalResearch PUBLISHED05September2025 DOI10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 Governance for regenerative coordination: the evolution from OPENACCESS EDITEDBY DAO to DAO 3.0 GuangshengYu, CommonwealthScientificandIndustrial ResearchOrganisation(CSIRO),Australia Kate Bennett* REVIEWEDBY GianluigiViscusi, LinköpingUniversity,Sweden InstituteforSustainableFutures,UniversityofTechnologySydney,Sydney,NSW,Australia ClaudioSchifanella, UniversityofTurin,Italy MayssamDaaboul, AmericanUniversityofScienceand Introduction: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), digital Technology,Lebanon organizations governed by code and community, offer new paradigms for *CORRESPONDENCE KateBennett, collective governance; yet many early examples have reproduced the power kate.bennett@student.uts.edu.au asymmetries, exclusionary participation models, and inefficiencies found in RECEIVED17May2025 traditional systems. This study examines how DAO governance can evolve to ACCEPTED08August2025 support fair, inclusive, and regenerative capital flows across distributed PUBLISHED05September2025 ecosystems, particularly in contexts where traditional coordination CITATION infrastructure islimited. BennettK(2025)Governanceforregenerative Methods:AqualitativecasestudywasconductedonHypha,anorganisationthat coordination:theevolutionfromDAOto DAO3.0. evolvedfromaclassicDAOtoaDecentralizedHumanOrganization(DHO)and Front.Blockchain8:1630402. subsequently to an Adaptable Organization, or DAO 3.0. Data was collected doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, then interpreted COPYRIGHT using a People–Process–Technology framework to identify governance ©2025Bennett.Thisisanopen-accessarticle design principles. This was supported by a comparative taxonomy mapping distributedunderthetermsoftheCreative CommonsAttributionLicense(CCBY).Theuse, theevolution fromDAO 1.0 to DAO 3.0. distributionorreproductioninotherforumsis Results: Findings show a progression from early token-weighted DAO 1.0 permitted,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)and models, through protocol-optimized DAO 2.0 structures, to DAO 3.0’s thecopyrightowner(s)arecreditedandthatthe originalpublicationinthisjournaliscited,in modular, relational, and context-adaptive designs. Hypha’s governance accordancewithacceptedacademicpractice. innovations include multi-layer modular voting, “leadership without control” Nouse,distributionorreproductionis protocols, real-time capital flow mechanisms, and trust-based safeguards that permittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththese terms. addressfairnessfailures,enhanceadaptability,andenablegovernancetorespond dynamically tohuman complexity and local contexts. Discussion: The Hypha case study positions DAO 3.0 as a prototype for regenerative coordination infrastructure where governance operates as a living system, balancing technological automation with human-centered design. This research expands DAO governance theory by clarifying conceptual boundaries, integrating recent literature, and providing practical guidance for policymakers, developers, and capital providers seeking to design equitable, regenerativegovernance and coordinationsystems. KEYWORDS DAOgovernance,DAO3.0,regenerativefinance,decentralizedcoordinationsystems, participatory governance, modular governance architecture, Web3, developmentfinance 1 Introduction Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have emerged as a radical reimagining of organizational structure, promising to replace centralized control with transparent,token-basedcoordinationanddistributeddecision-making.ThelaunchofThe DAOonEthereumin2016markedthefirstlarge-scaleimplementationofthisconcept:an FrontiersinBlockchain 01 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 ambitiousexperimentthatbothcoinedthetermandcatalyzedthe automation with human and ecological flourishing, maximizing broader DAO movement. Despite its early pitfalls and the hard regenerative potential by designing for modularity, relational lessonsitleftinitswake(Jentzsch,2016),theprojectignitedawave trust,and systems thinking inspiredby thelogic oflifeitself. ofinnovationindecentralizedgovernanceinfrastructure.Yetasthe Hypha’s contributors are globally distributed, and earlier ecosystemhasexpanded,manyprojectshavestruggledtodeliveron iterations of the technology have been applied in various their democratic ideals. Rather than achieving broad-based community-led, impact-focused initiatives. However, the participation, most DAOs have replicated familiar patterns of platform’s development remains primarily grounded in the exclusion: technocratic interfaces, plutocratic voting mechanisms, team’s own organizational experience, serving as a live test-bed and rigid governance protocols that often concentrate rather than for regenerative governance in practice. Drawing on qualitative distribute power. interviews with Hypha core contributors, this paper explores how These limitations are particularly acute in global development its governance system evolved in response to practical, contexts, especially in low-income and emerging markets, where philosophical, and technical constraints, and what this evolution financial exclusion, institutional distrust, and infrastructure gaps revealsaboutthefutureofdecentralizedcoordination.Theanalysis already challenge traditional models. Poorly designed DAOs risk appliesaregenerativetheoreticallenswithempiricaldataanalyzed reinforcing digital colonialism rather than enabling inclusive basedonthePeople–Process–Technology(PPT)framework:awell- governance (Birhane, 2020; Hassan and De Filippi, 2021). At the establishedapproachforstructuringorganizationalchangeanalysis same time, as the field of regenerative finance – that is, finance that distinguishes between human factors, institutional processes, groundedinlivingsystemsprinciplesanddesignedtosupportthe and enablingtechnologies. (Leavitt,1965;Barkiet al.,2008). evolutionary health of people and planet (Bennett 2025a, Bennett In doing so, the paper contributes both conceptually and 2025b; Fullerton 2015, Fullerton 2017; Mang and Haggard, practically to the fields of DAO governance, regenerative finance, 2016) – continues to evolve, new questions are emerging around and development strategy. It reframes DAO governance as a how decentralized systems, when thoughtfully designed, might dynamic, relational process: one that must move beyond support more participatory, place-based approaches to tokenomics and automation-centric design to embrace human coordination, particularly in under-resourced environments. complexity, contextual adaptability, and the interdependence of ThisstudyismotivatedbytheneedtounderstandhowDAOs capital, governance, and community. It positions Hypha’s DAO canovercomewell-documentedgovernancechallengesandsupport 3.0 model as an early prototype for regenerative coordination participatory, regenerative development, particularly in resource- infrastructure, offering insight not only to blockchain developers constrainedenvironments.Hypha(https://hypha.earth)–thefocus andDAOtheorists,butalsotopolicymakers,capitalproviders,and caseforthisstudy–isadecentralizedcoordinationandgovernance local actors seeking todesign more justand inclusivesystems. platformdesignedtoenablepurpose-drivencommunitiestomanage sharedresources,mobilizecapital,andcoordinatecollectiveaction. 2 Background and conceptual framing WhilemanyDAOplatforms(e.g.,Aragon,Colony,DAOstack)are experimentingwithgovernanceinnovations,Hyphawasselectedfor this case study due to its explicit design for regenerative Governance,broadly,referstotheframeworksandmechanisms coordination and the author’s direct access to, and experience through which collective decision-making and resource allocation with, its core team and their multi-year governance evolution. arecoordinatedwithinorganizations(Puranametal.,2014).With Unlike other platforms, Hypha is intentionally built around the rise of blockchain technology, new models of decentralized regenerative principles, providing unique relevance to the governance have emerged that reimagine authority, control, and research aims. trust(FebreroandPereira,2022;Lumineauetal.,2021).Blockchain- This study addresses two key research questions: Firstly, how basedplatformsprovideprogrammable,transparentinfrastructures can DAO governance structures evolve to support adaptive, for collaborative organization, but also introduce new boundary inclusive, and context-specific coordination? Secondly, how might conditions and design trade-offs (Pereira et al., 2019). DAOs thesestructuresenableparticipatorycapitalmobilizationinsupport represent the most fully realized expression of this paradigm, ofregenerative development, especially in emergingmarkets? enacting organizational forms governed by both code and In Hypha’s case, the first observed shift away from standard community, but their real-world impact depends on overcoming DAOstructureswasintheirtransitiontoa“DecentralisedHuman well-known governancechallenges. Organisation”(DHO)model,acknowledgingthattrulyregenerative TheliteratureonDAOsisexpandingrapidly,reflectingafieldin practice requires human experience–sensemaking, participation, fluxasbothtechnicalarchitecturesandgovernancelogicsevolve.To and development–to be placed at the heart of the DAO. Building date, most research has focused on technical platform features on this, Hypha transitioned to an Adaptable Organization (AO) (Baninemeh et al., 2023), protocol design, or early taxonomies of model recognising that living systems, including human DAOformsandoperations(BonnetandTeuteberg,2024;Qinetal., organizations, are by nature responsive, adaptive, and flexible. 2023;Valienteetal.,2022).Thesestudieshaveadvancedthestateof Governance structures must therefore accommodate phases of knowledge by mapping the technical, social, and architectural centralization and decentralization, collaboration and autonomy, dimensions of DAOs and providing decision frameworks for automation and human judgment, meeting organizations where platform selection and deployment. However, a common theyareandsupportingvitalityateverystageofdevelopment.Inthis limitation is their tendency to treat DAO governance as static, paper, that final AO stage is situated conceptually as DAO 3.0: a primarily technological, or abstracted from the lived realities of third-generation governance architecture that balances technical participantsandcommunities(Tanetal.,2023).Fewstudiesaddress FrontiersinBlockchain 02 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 how DAOs actually evolve in practice–that is, how governance ontheirabilitytoadapttothelivedrealitiesandrelationaldynamics structures adapt over time in response to human, social, and oftheirparticipants,asarguedbyChafferetal.(2024)inthecontext ecological complexity, or how coordination can be of human-agent coevolution. This seems to be at odds with the operationalized beyondtechnicalcode. persistentfocusofDAOliteratureontechnicalandstaticaspectsof Despite rapid technical progress, most DAO research and DAOgovernance.Recentsurveys(BonnetandTeuteberg,2024;Qin practice to date remains heavily focused on protocol design, et al., 2023; Tan et al., 2023; Valiente et al., 2022) and platform voting mechanisms, and economic incentives, with relatively studies(Baninemehetal.,2023)havemappedDAOarchitectures, limited attention paid to the lived, human experience of selection criteria, and key technical-social dilemmas. Yet, they organizational participation, adaptive governance, and the social overwhelmingly analyze DAOs as static systems, with little complexitythat emergesat scale (Tan etal., 2023). attention to how governance structures adapt over time to This paper addresses this gap by foregrounding the human, social, and ecological complexity. Usability, onboarding, organizational, relational, and adaptive aspects of DAO evolution, meaningfulparticipation,andtheinterplayoftechnicalandsocial with particular focus on human-centered and regenerative dynamics remain persistent problems, as human-computer coordination in real-world contexts. The following subsections interaction (HCI) and organizational science approaches are first review the trajectory of DAO governance and its limitations, rarely applied rigorouslyto DAO systems(Tan etal., 2023). thenpresentHyphaasapracticalcasestudyoflivedgovernanceand technology evolution, before contextually grounding this enquiry intoDAO governance forregenerative coordination. 2.2 Reframing DAO governance: toward adaptable organizations 2.1 From DAO ideals to governance realities Hypha’s journey provides a unique practice-based lens for exploring these adaptive challenges. Initially structured as a DAOs are widely touted for their potential to democratize classic DAO, Hypha’s early iterations struggled with the same governance and automate coordination, promising to replace limitations as the broader Web3 ecosystem: friction in decision- centralized intermediaries with code-based rules and community making, unclear roles, and token-centric rigidity. In response, consensus.Inpractice,however,mostDAOsremaindominatedby Hypha’s team undertook a multi-year governance redesign, token-weightedvoting,rigidstructures,andinterfacesthatexclude shifting from code-centricity to human systems, relational thosewithlimiteddigitalliteracyorcapital.Definitionalambiguity coherence, and ecosystemic coordination. persists(HassanandDeFilippi,2021)includingwhetherautonomy This led initially to the development of the Decentralized impliestheabsenceofhumanagency,orwhethergovernancemust Human Organization (DHO) – a model that foregrounds sense- alsobedecentralizedbeyondinfrastructurealone.AsRikkenetal. making, community care, and inner development as core (2019) point out, governance in DAOs remains highly entangled governance principles. Unlike DAO 2.0 models that focus with both application and infrastructure layers, particularly in primarily on technical upgrades, the DHO approach embeds permissionless environments, challenging assumptions about relational and developmental practices directly into governance separable, “pure” decentralization. As Borgogno and Martino architecture. As a transitional step, it bridged automation with (2024) argue, early DAO implementations often replicated firm- adaptive, ecosystemic logic, culminating in Hypha’s current likehierarchiesandunresolvedpowerasymmetriesundertheguise governance: DAO 3.0 – an adaptable organization with modular, ofdecentralization,challengingtheassumptionthatsmartcontracts composablelayers,nesteddecision-making,real-timecapitalflows, alonecanguarantee democratic participation or accountability. andtrustscaffoldingforbothinstitutionsandcoalitions.Contextual These limitations are especially problematic when DAO adaptability in Hypha is operationalized through its membranic infrastructure is deployed in development contexts. In many low- governance spaces1, role-based participation, customizable voting incomeandemergingmarkets,governanceandfinancechallenges logic, and sense-making scaffolds, enabling different subgroups to are deeply intertwined with systemic inequities in digital access, select, adapt, and iterate governance processes to local needs and financialinclusion,andinstitutionaltrust.DAOs,ifpoorlydesigned, evolvingcontexts. risk becoming a new form of digital colonialism, embedding Hypha’sDAO3.0modelthusrespondsnotjustbyreengineering technocratic decision-making into systems that already protocols,butbycenteringtrust,contextualadaptation,andthereal- marginalize those at the edge. As Gloerich and others have world coordination of people and systems. Drawing on systems argued, blockchain systems can reproduce the same extractive, universalizing logic that has historically underpinned colonial and capitalist expansion, drawing on the constructs of data colonialism and digital frontierism (Couldry and Mejias, 2023; 1 Membranic governance spaces refer to semi-permeable, nested Gloerich, 2023; Thatcher, O’Sullivan and Mahmoudi, 2016). organizational units (akin to biological membranes) that both protect Conversely, with thoughtful design, DAOs could evolve to serve local context and identity and enable selective flows of information, asadaptivegovernanceframeworks:toolsforenablinglocalagency, resources, and participation across the DAO. This is distinct from the transparentvalueflows,andregenerativecollaborationattheedges “node” concept used in much of the DAO literature (e.g., Qin et al., ofthefinancial system. 2023),asmembranicspacesemphasizetheimportanceofboundaries, While the technological possibilities are vast, the potential for adaptability, and context-sensitive collaboration at multiple layers of DAOstoreinforceorsubvertexistinginequitiesdependscritically governance. FrontiersinBlockchain 03 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 thinking, regenerative development, and living systems design, Indoingso,thepapercontributestotwoparallelacademicand Hypha’s architecture treats governance as an emergent property, applied debates: how DAO governance structures can evolve to one that must dynamically evolve as context shifts. In this way, supportadaptive,inclusive,andcontext-specificcoordination;and Hypha moves from “governing the machine” to “cultivating the how these structures might enable more participatory capital organism” (Hutchins 2019), operationalizing a governance logic mobilization in support of regenerative development, particularly grounded inlivingsystems, notjustcode. in emergingmarkets. This approach contrasts sharply with most DAO research, Hypha’sexperiencedoesnotofferaperfectmodel,butrathera which (even when attentive to modularity and stakeholder living system in motion: an evolving experiment illuminating the diversity) rarely engages the full complexity of human, ecological, design tensions and practical constraints involved in building and systemic evolution. Human-centered, adaptive governance governance systems truly capable of supporting people and structures, such as those pioneered by the DHO and DAO planet in thelongterm. 3.0 models, remain rare but increasingly necessary (Tan et al., 2023). As conceptual work in human-agent collaboration 3 Methodology (Chaffer and Goldston, 2024) and living systems design (Laloux, 2014;nRhythm,2025)makesclear,effectivedecentralizedsystems mustadaptcontinuously,notonlyatthetechnical,butalsoatthe This paper adopts a qualitative case study methodology to social, ethical, andorganizational level. explore how decentralized governance systems can evolve to support fair, inclusive, and regenerative capital flows. Hypha was selected as a critical case due to the transparently documented 2.3 Grounding the enquiry: governance for nature of its governance evolution, traceable through publicly regenerative coordination and capital flows accessible coordination tools, including archived discussions on Discord, comprehensive meeting recordings, and on-chain Tanetal.(2023)arguethatthenextfrontierinDAOresearch proposal and voting records that log every formal decision made lies in bringing organizational science, ethnography, and systems within the organization. These open records document Hypha’s thinkingintothedesignandevaluationofDAOs.Theyemphasize progression through three distinct stages of DAO governance that DAOs should be seen as evolving, complex adaptive systems architecture: an initial DAO model, the transition to a whoselegitimacy,resilience,andregenerativepotentialdependnot Decentralized Human Organization (DHO), and the only on code, but on emergent social structures, communication implementation of a DAO 3.0 framework via the launch of norms, and the continuous interplay of people, process, and Hypha V3. This case offers a unique opportunity to examine technology. governance innovation across technical, human, and Hence the focus of this research on DAO governance for philosophical dimensions, grounded in lived practice and real- regenerative coordination: a mode of organizing and governing timeexperimentation. collective action that places living systems–human, ecological, To structure the analysis, this study employs the and social–at the centre of design and decision-making. Distinct People–Process–Technology (PPT) framework: a from automation-centric models, regenerative coordination multidimensional analytic lens first introduced by Harold Leavitt prioritizes conscious participation, sensemaking, and the (1965) and widely adopted in digital transformation and development of human actors, recognizing that adaptive and organizational change scholarship (Chang and Chen, 2025; equitable outcomes arise from the ongoing interaction of people, Lockett, 2023; Soja and Soja, 2017; Taher, 2023). PPT captures technology,andcontext.Thepurposeofcoordinationisnotmerely thedynamicinterplaybetweenhumanfactors,processinnovation, theefficientexecutionofpre-programmedrules,butthecontinuous and technological infrastructure, and is a well-established emergence of value, agency, and resilience within and across framework for digital transformation across diverse communities and ecosystems. fields—including manufacturing, education, healthcare, and ThisframingdrawsontheworkofFullerton(2015),Mangand tourism (Mugdh and Pilla, 2012; Sunmola et al., 2021; Taher, Haggard,2016,andorganizationaltheoristssuchasLaloux(2014), 2023; Wu et al., 2024). It is also frequently used to structure whoarguethatlivingsystemsthrivewhenorganizationalformsare organizational readiness, innovation, and change management designedtonurturethepotentialofbothindividualsandthewider (Wu etal., 2024;Lockett, 2023). system. In the context of DAOs, regenerative coordination thus While PPT is widely recognized in digital transformation entails governance architectures that honour human sovereignty, research, most studies apply it to traditional or IT-centric embed purpose at every level, and ensure that those affected by contexts, with few addressing the dynamic, adaptive interactions decisions retain meaningful agency withinthe process. among people, process, and technology in decentralized digital The analysis that follows examines Hypha’s evolution from ecosystems or regenerative finance. This study extends prior PPT DAO to DHO to DAO 3.0 – alongside its latest V3 DAO applicationsbyoperationalizingtheframeworkwithinthecontextof technology-to investigate how adaptive governance structures can DAOgovernanceandregenerativeorganizationaldesign.Indoing supportfair,inclusive,andregenerativeflowsofcapital,particularly so,itprovides anempiricalfoundation foranalyzing howhuman, in contexts where institutional infrastructure is weak, financial processual, and technological factors co-evolve in the design and ecosystems are fragmented, and real-world impact is often evolution of decentralized governance, addressing a noted gap in under-resourced. both DAOand PPT literatures. FrontiersinBlockchain 04 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 Inthiscase,thePPTframeworkisusedtoexplorehowhuman notseektogeneralizeacrossDAOecosystemsbutinsteadoffersa readiness (people), institutional logic and coordination (process), depth-orientedanalysis ofoneplatform’sgovernancearchitecture. and infrastructure design (technology) converge within Hypha’s Its purpose is to surface the design tensions, cultural shifts, and evolvinggovernancesystem.Thisapproachalignswiththebroader technical adaptations involved in prototyping regenerative methodological design of the author’s doctoral research, which coordination infrastructure, and to inform broader conversations draws on Participatory Action Design Research (PADR) aboutthe futureofdecentralized governance. principles to examine the co-development and deployment of regenerative finance infrastructure in collaboration with both 4 Findings local and globalactors. Primarydatawascollectedthroughsemi-structuredinterviews withthreecorecontributorstothedesign,deployment,andongoing ThefindingsarestructuredusingaPeople–Process–Technology evolutionofHypha’splatform.Participantswereselectedfortheir framework,enablingalayeredanalysisofhowHypha’sgovernance sustained, hands-on involvement across governance design, model has evolved across human behaviour, operational technical architecture, tokenomics, and organizational mechanisms, and technological design in response to challenges development. In keeping with Hypha’s highly collaborative, commonly observed in DAO ecosystems. Drawing on primary multi-hatted team model, each interviewee contributed insights interviews with three core contributors–triangulated with across multiple domains, reflecting both specialized expertise and whitepapers, platform documentation, and deployment notes–this the integrated, participatory approach that characterized the sectionexploreshowthesethreedimensionsintersecttoproducea V3 development process. While the small sample reflects the governance system designed to support regenerative capital flows, bounded and deeply collaborative nature of the core development fairness, and adaptability in distributed ecosystems. team,itenabledanin-depthexplorationoftheplatform’sinternal evolutionanddecision-making.Interviewsfocusedonparticipants’ reflections on earlier DAO iterations, the transition to DHO and 4.1 People: consciousness, inclusion, and DAO 3.0 models, and their assessment of Hypha’s approach to co-creation inclusion, fairness, and systemicadaptability. Atthetimeofdatacollection,HyphaV3hadnotyetlaunched This section examines the human dimension of governance: publicly;therefore,theresearchcentersontheperspectivesofthose focusing on the cultural readiness, inner development, and social activelyinvolvedintheplatform’sinternaldesignandtesting.These inclusion required for decentralized systems to function participantswereuniquelypositionedtoreflectonthemotivations, regeneratively. It explores how Hypha’s governance architecture constraints,andphilosophicalevolutioninformingV3.Asthegoal scaffolds participant growth, supports diverse engagement styles, was not to achieve saturation across a population but to trace the and fostersashift fromtransactional torelational participation. governance evolution of a single platform, the study prioritizes Hyphacontributorsemphasizedthattoolingaloneisinsufficient depth over breadth. Future research could expand this inquiry to deliver fair or inclusive outcomes. What’s required first is a through user-focused interviews post-deployment. culturalandcognitiveshiftfromtransactional,hierarchicalthinking Interview transcripts were analyzed using a combination of toward relational, co-creative, and regenerative modes of inductive thematic analysis and pattern coding, aligned to the engagement. As one contributor explained: “You need to change PPT framework. A preliminary round of open coding in NVivo yourselffirst.Ifyouexpectthetechtomakethesystemregenerative generated43uniquecodes.Thesewerethenreviewedforthematic withoutthat innershift, it’snot goingto work.” coherence and grouped into three primary clusters aligned to the Thisshift isparticularly pronouncedacross generational lines, PPT model. An additional parent code–Contextual Barriers–was where younger participants are often more naturally attuned to addedtocaptureenvironmentalandinfrastructuralconditionsthat, decentralized systems, while older users may carry embedded whileexternaltoHypha’sgovernancedesign,significantlyinfluence assumptions that need unlearning. The governance infrastructure itsviabilityandreal-worldimpact.Codingmemosweremaintained thus plays a pedagogical role, supporting evolving levels of tosupportanalyticreflexivityandmitigateresearcherbias.Subcodes contributor readiness. weredevelopedinductivelythroughrecurringparticipantlanguage To reduce burnout and confusion, Hypha V3 introduced and reflect themes such as relational trust, dissent scaffolding, modular governance “spaces” that let participants contribute in modular interoperability, and infrastructure constraints. A full ways aligned with their level of expertise, commitment, and codingstructure is provided inSupplementary Appendix A. interest. Rather than forcing everyone into the same decision- Secondary data sources included Hypha’s whitepapers, making structure, these spaces enable tiered participation with tokenomics documentation, platform demos, and ecosystem clear roles and soft boundaries. One participant noted: “It’s about communication materials, which were triangulated with the puttingpeopleintherightcirclesotheycancommitintherightway. interview findings. The analysis was further contextualized with The idea of a core team is not about exclusivity—it’s about referencetoDAOgovernanceliterature,regenerativedesigntheory, stewardship.” and decentralized finance scholarship. In Hypha V3, a “governance space” is a modular, semi- This approach aligns with established principles for rigorous autonomous unit–functioning like a subDAO or working casestudyresearchininformationsystemsandsoftwareengineering group–with its own membership, decision logic, and treasury. (Runesonetal.,2012),emphasizingcontextualdepth,transparency Spaces can be created for specific projects, teams, or initiatives, indatacollection,andanalyticaltriangulation.Thiscasestudydoes allowingparticipantstotailorgovernanceprotocolstotheirunique FrontiersinBlockchain 05 frontiersin.org

Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 context.Forexample,aprojectteamcanformanewspace,onboard simplicity: “We chose to rewrite the whole thing rather than keep relevantmembers,setcustomvotingthresholds,managelocalfunds, piling complexity. Our goal became to achieve complexity through and enter into agreements with other spaces or the parent DAO. simplicity.” Thisnestedstructure,referredtoas“membranic”becauseitoperates Thisshiftculminatedinafractaltechnicalarchitecture,inwhich likesemi-permeableboundariesinbiologicalsystems.Enablesboth every governance space has three core elements: membership, independent action and interconnected collaboration. agreements, and treasury. This standardized yet flexible schema This structural shift allowed Hypha to replace the “hyper- allows for rapid setup, intuitive use, and interoperability across involved or disengaged” dynamic of earlier versions with a model nested or standalone DAOs. Importantly, Hypha concealed the thatinvites participation without demanding uniformity. technical complexity of blockchain systems, making Web3 invisible to the end-user: “We’ve put blockchain where it belongs—in the background. No one needs to know it’s there. They 4.2 Process: governance as emergent, justlog in withtheiremail and startcontributing.” layered, and adaptive The platform also supports real-time, cross-currency capital flows, automated fund deployment through proposals, and space- This section analyzes the operational logic of Hypha’s to-space agreements. These features make it possible to mobilize governance system: how decisions are proposed, shaped, and capital into hyperlocal contexts–i.e., the smallest, community- enacted. It highlights the shift from flat, uniform structures to specific scale–without friction, while ensuring traceability and layered, membranic architectures that prioritize sense-making, transparency in how funds and impact circulate. Mobile support alignment over consensus, and allow governance to accessibility and chatbot-style modular interfaces are part of the adapt organicallyacross contexts. roadmap,althoughtheMVPversionfocusedfirstonawebinterface At the process level, Hypha’s governance evolution reflects a for speed and completeness. Nonetheless, the architecture was move away from static DAO templates toward emergent, layered, intentionally designed for future adaptation in low-bandwidth or and dialogic decision-making. Key among these was the last-mile environments, a critical condition for equitable institutionalization of sense-making—the space for dialogue and participation in development contexts. deliberation before formal decision-making.“Posting a proposal without having done the sense-making beforehand? Ninety percent of thetime, itfails.” 4.4 Comparative framing: addressing This learning drove the integration of a dedicated discussion common DAO governance challenges feature,designedtosupportstructuredco-creationandincorporate diverse viewpoints before proposals advance. Unlike consensus or TocontextualizethedesignevolutionofHyphawithinbroader majority voting, this approach enables alignment even without DAOgovernancechallenges,Table1comparescommonlimitations agreement:“I may not agree, but I understand and support inDAOtoolingwithcorrespondingdesignresponsesintheHypha the direction.” ecosystem. This comparative framing underscores how Hypha’s Hypha also embraced a fractal and membranic architecture, governance architecture both responds to and reimagines core allowing decision-making processes to emerge organically across challenges found in early DAO tooling. It also lays the nested layers, whether global, local, or thematic. This layered foundation for broader reflection on what these innovations coordination framework replaced the one-size-fits-all approach of imply for the future of DAO governance, which is the focus of earlyDAOs,whereallmemberswereexpectedtoengageequallyin thefollowing discussion. alldecisions, oftenresulting inchaos orstagnation. Choice emerged as a consistent design principle in Hypha’s processlayer.Userscanselecttheirowngovernanceconfigurations, 5 Discussion: reimagining governance customizeentry/exitrules,anddefinedecision-makingthresholds. for regenerative coordination Asonecontributorputit:“Theguidingprinciplewasnottotellpeople what they cannot do—it was to give them the freedom to do what The findings presented in the previous section illustrate that works intheir context.” Hypha’s governance architecture represents more than just a technical evolution–it reflects a deeper reorientation of what decentralized governance can be. In contrast to many DAOs that 4.3 Technology: modularity, accessibility, replicate financialized or technocratic governance structures, and real-time capital flow Hypha’s trajectory signals a transition toward regenerative governance: a model that centres human consciousness, relational This section explores the infrastructure layer underpinning trust,and system adaptability ascore design principles. Hypha’s governance system. It traces the redesign of Hypha’s ThispositionsHyphawithinadistinctcategoryofwhatmightbe technical architecture to enable modularity, seamless onboarding, termed DAO 3.0: a new generation of decentralized governance andreal-timecapitalflows,whileabstractingawaythecomplexityof systems that respond to the limitations of early DAO tooling by Web3 to ensure accessibility across diverse user groups and embracing complexity, diversity, and evolution. Where DAO environments. 1.0 emphasized hard-coded rules and token-weighted decisions, The technological layer of Hypha’s governance system was and DAO 2.0 focused on protocol optimization and security, redesigned from the ground up around a principle of elegant DAO 3.0 reflects a philosophical and technical shift toward FrontiersinBlockchain 06 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 TABLE1HowHyphaaddressestypicalDAOlimitations. Governance challenge* Hypharesponse Participation Token-basedplutocracy ⁃Role-basedgovernance:decouplesvotingpowerfromcapitalownership Technocraticexclusion ⁃Multi-votingplugins:enablesdiversevotingmethodstailoredtocommunitycontext ⁃Web2-styleonboarding:simplifiesuserinterfaces,reducingtechnicalbarrierstoentry ⁃Wallet-freeparticipation:allowsengagementwithoutrequiringcryptoexpertise Coordination Governancefatigue/lowturnout ⁃Sense-makingmechanisms:structuredspacesfordialogueandalignmentbeforeformalvoting ⁃Layeredgovernance:distributesdecision-makingresponsibilitiestopreventfatigue ⁃Culturalceremonies:fosterscollectivepurpose,enhancingsustainedengagement Adaptability Rigidorone-sizegovernancelogic ⁃Modulartemplates:enablescustomizablegovernanceprotocolstomeetspecificorganizationalneeds ⁃Composablegovernancespaces:supportsflexibleandadaptivedecision-makingatmultiplescales Applicability Lackofreal-worldapplicability ⁃Field-testedusecases:implementedacrossdiversereal-worldcontextsincludingenergy,climate,and economicregenerationinitiatives ⁃Communityvalidation:activelyshapedbypracticalinputanditerativefeedbackfromactualusers Accountability Top-downtokencontrol ⁃Leadershipwithoutcontrolprinciple:shiftsemphasisfromcentralizedtoken-holdingtodistributed agencyandcollectivestewardship ⁃Safetyrails:embeddedprotocolsensureaccountabilityandmitigatepowerconcentrationrisks Legitimacy Opaqueprocesses/misalignmentbetweenauthority ⁃Role-basedagencystructures:clarifywhoholdsresponsibility,reducingambiguityindecisionrights andtrust ⁃Visibletrustmetricsandreputationallayers:reinforcealignmentbetweenauthorityandsocialcapital ⁃Deliberativeprocessscaffolding:ensureslegitimacyisbuiltthroughinclusion,notjustexecution(e.g., proposalsonlypassaftersense-makinganddissentwindows) Security Vulnerabilitiesingovernance-layerintegrity ⁃Embeddedtrustscaffolding:real-timesense-makinganddissentmechanismsreducethelikelihoodof hostileorunfitproposalspassingwithoutscrutiny ⁃Nestedgovernancelayers:limitstheblastradiusofbaddecisionsbydistributingauthorityandisolating riskwithinspecificsubspaces ⁃Human-in-the-looparchitecture:reintroducesjudgmentandcontextualawareness,mitigatingrisks fromcode-onlyexecution *GovernancechallengesinthistablearesynthesizedfromcommonthemesinDAO,literature(see(BorgognoandMartino,2024;Buterin,2021;deFilippi,2019;DuPontand Campbell-Verduyn,2017;Han,Lee&Li,2025;HassanandDeFilippi,2021;Rikken,Janssen&Kwee,2019)andgroupedintosevenhigher-ordercategories:participation,coordination, adaptability,applicability,accountability,legitimacy,andsecurity.AcompletemappingoftheDAO,governancechallengessynthesizedfromtheliterature,alongwiththeirsourcereferences,is providedinSupplementaryAppendixTableB1. governanceasalivingsystem:emergent,contextual,andco-evolving governanceistheneedtomovefromstaticcodetowardadaptive, with thecommunities it serves. relationship-driven models thatsupport learning and resilience. These research findings contribute to ongoing academic and Bycontrast,Hyphatreatsgovernancenotasafixedstructurebut practitioner debates in three interrelated ways, which are outlined asalivingprocess,onethatevolveswiththeneeds,capacities,and below. While this paper does not engage in a formal theoretical contextsofitsparticipants.Thismirrorscallsinrecentliteraturefor exposition of the terms “ecosystem” or “infrastructure,” both “complex adaptive” and “living systems” DAOs (Qin et al., 2023; concepts feature prominently in the empirical findings and Tan et al., 2023) and is a view aligned with regenerative systems warrant clarification. Here, “ecosystem” refers to the relational theory, which sees governance as an emergent property of and organizational networks in which Hypha operates, including relationship, not simply a function of structure or code community contributors, technology users, partner organizations, (Fullerton, 2015;Mangand Haggard, 2016). and aligned impact initiatives. “Infrastructure” refers to the Inthismodel,sense-makingprecedessense-doing.Deliberation integrated technological and governance tools that enable anddissentarenotinefficienciestobeminimized,butcriticalstages coordinationandvalueexchangewithinandacrossthosenetworks. of collective alignment. “I may not agree, but I understand and support the direction”was a phrase used by multiple contributors, capturing a form of coherence that transcends consensus. 5.1 Governance as a living system: from Importantly, this does not suggest unanimity or harmony, but control to conscious coordination rather functional alignment: the capacity to move forward while holding difference. MuchoftheDAOliteraturecritiquesthetendencytowardhard- The evolution of Hypha’sgovernance architecture reflects this coded, inflexible governance systems that assume participants are philosophy.Featuressuchasdiscussionstages,optionalscaffoldsfor rationalactorsoperatinginstaticenvironments(Baninemehetal., dissent, and layered participation enable the system to breathe, 2023;deFilippi,2019;Qinetal.,2023;Tanetal.,2023;Valienteetal., adapting not only to new users and contexts but also to evolving 2022).Forexample,Baninemehetal.(2023)andQinetal.(2023) internalvaluesandcapacities.Theemphasisonnested,membranic highlightthatearlyDAOs(1.0)reliedondeterministic,rule-bound spaces allows subgroups to move at their own pace while staying logic and token-weighted voting, leading to brittle structures with alignedtothebroaderwhole,akeyfeatureofresilient,regenerative little capacity for context or dissent. While Tan et al. (2023) and systemsandanevolutionbeyondthelimitationsmappedinrecent Valiente et al. (2022) emphasize that acentral challenge for DAO platform reviews. FrontiersinBlockchain 07 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 FIGURE1 EvolutionofDAOgovernancemodels:Fromcode-basedcoordinationtoregenerativedesign.ComparativeevolutionofDAO,governancemodels; DAO,3.0buildsonprioriterationsbyintegratingsocial,technical,andphilosophicalshiftstowardrelational,adaptive,andregenerativegovernance systems.(SeeSupplementaryAppendixBforaliteraturesynthesisunderpinningthisDAO,governanceevolutionframework). 5.2 Tools that teach: infrastructure as a accessible and meaningful to a diverse range of contributors.” pedagogical medium Valiente et al. (2022) and Qin et al. (2023) similarly note the importance of moving beyond technical onboarding to Where traditional platforms assume users will adapt to the scaffolded, context-sensitive engagement, but highlight that most system, Hypha assumes the system must teach users how to current architectures remain “automation-first.” participate meaningfully, a direction anticipated but rarely Hypha’s approach mirrors the concept of tools as teachers, realized in the DAO 2.0 platforms (Aragon, DAOStack) drawing on regenerative design principles where form and discussed by Baninemeh et al. (2023) and critiqued by Tan function co-evolve. By making participation easier to navigate etal.(2023). and more accessible (e.g., login with email, clear invitations to Hypha’sinterfacesanddesignflowsareintentionallystructured contribute at varying levels), the platform reduces friction while tohelpparticipants“learndecentralizationbydoing.”Thisincludes preserving the complexity needed for meaningful coordination. intuitive onboarding, modular templates for governance and This “infrastructure as pedagogy” reflects a broader shift toward budgeting, and clear affordances for role-based participation. The living,developmentalgovernancesystems(ChafferandGoldston, design logic reflects a recognition that governance is a 2024; Tan et al., 2023), and supports the co-evolution of user developmental journey, and that infrastructure should scaffold capabilityandsystemadaptability(Qinetal.,2023).Ratherthan capability-building rather than assume it. This is aligned with the abstracting governance into arcane rituals or burying it in recentcallbyTanetal.(2023)forgreaterusabilityandparticipatory technocratic assumptions, Hypha renders it visible, learnable, learninginthespace:“DAOscontinuetostrugglewithonboarding, and adaptable, providing an interface not just to a platform, but inclusive participation, and decision-making processes that are to a culture. FrontiersinBlockchain 08 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 5.3 Beyond function: DAO 3.0 as ecosystem design, adaptive logic, and relational coordination into the infrastructure governance stack. Figure1contraststhesethreegenerationsofDAOarchitecture The multi-layered, modular design of Hypha V3 enables across five key governance dimensions: participation, tooling, governance to flex across scales, supporting both nested DAOs decision logic, inclusion bias, and governance role. The and cross-DAO value exchange, capabilities now being theorized framework is derived from a synthesis of DAO governance ascrucialforecosystemicfinance–wherecommunities,projects,and literature and extended through field-based insights from the capital providers co-create governance structures that reflect their Hypha case. While simplified for conceptual clarity, the shared purpose and operational needs–and adaptive, coalition- distinctions reflect widely documented patterns across DAO based governance (Qin et al., 2023; Valiente et al., 2022; ecosystems. For a literature-informed breakdown and full citation Baninemeh etal., 2023). of sources supporting these distinctions, see Supplementary Baninemeh et al. (2023) identify the emergence of “nested Appendix Table B2 inAppendix B. DAOs, customizable decision logic, and interoperability” as ThiscomparisonhighlightshowDAO3.0reframesgovernance defining features of the most advanced platforms. Qin et al. as a dynamic, living system capable of supporting regenerative (2023)further suggestthatDAOs areevolving towardsystems capital flows across complex ecosystems. The DAO 3.0 models, that “serve specific organizations with multiple goals and as described here, integrate modular infrastructure, participatory complex functions, with robots and digital humans assisting scaffolds, and real-time capital flows to support governance as an humans”,avision realizedin Hypha’s modular, context-aware adaptive, relationalsystem ratherthan astaticprotocol. design. Valiente et al. (2022) propose ontology-based frameworks to enable interoperability, cross-organizational governance, and knowledge formalization–needs directly 7 Limitations addressed in Hypha’s membranic governance architecture and modular APIs. Thisstudyislimitedinseveralimportantrespects.First,whileit Hypha’s support for real-time, cross-currency transactions, provides in-depth insights into the design, philosophy, and combined with reputation-based mutual credit and customizable architecture of Hypha’s DAO 3.0 model, it does so prior to the votinglogic,showsthatgovernanceandcapitalinfrastructurecanbe platform’s full public release. As a result, the findings reflect integrated,offeringafoundationforcoalition-basedfinancingand primarily the intentions and reasoning of system designers rather regenerativeeconomicdesign.Thisrespondsdirectlytocritiquesof thandirectuserexperiencesoradoptionoutcomes.Futureresearch DAO governance as form without function (Tan et al., 2023) and will be needed to assess how Hypha’s governance innovations offersanappliedmodelforcoordinatingfundingandgovernancein perform in practice across diverse ecosystems and regenerative development (Fullerton, 2015; Mang and Haggard, stakeholder groups. 2016). As Tan et al. (2023) conclude, the next frontier for DAOs Second, the study focuses on a single case, which naturally is the realization of human-centric, adaptive, ecosystemic limits generalizability. While Hypha’s evolution offers a governance, and this is exactly what Hypha’s V3 architecture compelling prototype for regenerative governance, it is seeks to achieve. grounded in a specific community, context, and development These findings both confirmand extendthe taxonomy and trajectory.Nonetheless,theinsightspresentedherecontributeto futuredirectionsoutlinedinrecentDAOgovernanceliterature broader conversations in DAO governance theory, regenerative (Baninemehetal.,2023;Qinetal.,2023;Valienteetal.,2022). finance, and decentralized coordination, and may serve as a Together, these insights suggest that DAO governance must foundation for comparative or longitudinal analyses across evolve not just in structure, but in paradigm: toward a living, diverse DAO ecosystems. adaptive, and relational form of coordination that reflects Third, while Hypha’s governance infrastructure is already the complexity of the ecosystems it aims to serve. The alignedwithmanyoftheprinciplesnecessaryfordeploymentin following section introduces a conceptual framework for this low-income and emerging market contexts–such as wallet-free evolution,positioningDAO3.0asadistinctgovernancemodel participation, role-based voting, and real-time capital flow–its emerging from, and moving beyond, the limitations of its full accessibility in these environments will depend on ongoing predecessors. interface development. At the time of writing, the platform operates primarily through a web-based interface, which may pose usability barriers in mobile-first, low-bandwidth settings. 6 DAO governance evolution: from However,theHyphateamhassignalledaroadmaptowardmore code to coordination inclusive access models, including mobile-responsive design, chatbot interfaces, and embedded governance modules that DAOgovernancehasundergoneamarkedtransformationsince reduce cognitive and technical load. These developments will its origins in 2016. While early implementations (DAO 1.0) be critical for unlocking the platform’s full potential in under- emphasized automation, code-based execution, and token voting, resourced environments. Future research should explore how second-generation models (DAO 2.0) introduced modularity, off- these interface adaptations impact participation, trust, and chain coordination mechanisms, and optimization through coalition-building in real-world development finance contexts. stakeholder tooling. DAO 3.0 models–including Hypha’s Withoutcarefuldesignandcontextualgrounding,evenadvanced V3 – extend this trajectory by embedding human-centered DAOmodelsriskreinscribingwhatGloerich(2023)describesas FrontiersinBlockchain 09 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 “blockchain colonialism”: a system where datafication and Whilethepresentstudyisboundedbyitspre-launchfocusona tokenization overwrite cultural, ecological, and relational single platform, it lays a foundation for future research. The next complexity with tradable abstractions. phase will examine user engagement, participation, and impact as Andlastly,althoughDAO3.0modelsaddressmanyinternal Hypha V3 is deployed in real-world settings, including an governance limitations, issues around legal status and liability ecosystemic finance pilot for regenerative development. As the remain unresolved. The absence of formal legal personhood technology evolves, there will also be opportunities to evaluate continues to create uncertainty around member liability, how interface innovation shapes participation and trust, contractual enforceability, and external legitimacy (Borgogno especially in low-income or under-resourced contexts. Hypha’s and Martino, 2024). However, the emergence of DAO- rich archive of governance records presents unique opportunities recognized legal entities in jurisdictions such as the Marshall for researchers to further investigate the lived dynamics of Islands, Wyoming, and Liechtenstein reflects a growing decentralized coordination, sensemaking, and power-sharing. willingness to provide legal scaffolding for decentralized Beyond the Hypha-specific use case, further research should coordination. Concurrently, DAO 3.0 architecture (such as criticallyexaminehowpower,inclusion,andethicalrisks–including Hypha’s V3) is increasingly designed to operate as a digital digital colonialism and governance capture–play out in post- twin of off-chain legal entities, enabling real-world deployment contexts and diverse communities, ensuring that accountability while preserving the flexibility and inclusivity of DAO systems serve to redress rather than reinforce historical on-chain governance. inequities. Insum,thispaper contributestoanemergingmovementthat seeks to evolve decentralized governance from code to 8 Conclusion consciousness, from rigid structure to relational stewardship, and from extraction to regeneration. The evolution mapped here ThisstudysetouttoexaminehowDAOgovernancesystemscan demonstrates that DAOs, when intentionally designed and evolve to support fair, inclusive, and regenerative coordination, continually reimagined, have the potential to become particularly in contexts where traditional infrastructure is limited. infrastructures for more just, adaptive, and regenerative ThroughaqualitativecasestudyofHyphaanditsprogressionfrom collaboration, serving both people and planet in a rapidly DAOtoDHOtoDAO3.0,thisresearchhassurfacedcriticaldesign changing world. shifts that challenge prevailing Web3 governance paradigms and offer new possibilities for adaptive, trust-based, and context- Data availability statement responsive organizational models. Theoretically, this work advances DAO scholarship by articulating and empirically grounding a new taxonomy of Theoriginalcontributionspresentedinthestudyareincludedin governance evolution. The DAO 3.0 model expressed in this thearticle/SupplementaryMaterial,furtherinquiriescanbedirected study moves decisively beyond automation-first, token-voting to thecorresponding author. paradigmstoenvisiongovernanceasaliving,relationalsystem.It demonstrates how participatory scaffolding, nested modularity, Ethics statement and conscious sensemaking can be operationalized to support adaptiveandregenerativecoordination.Indoingso,theresearch extends the scope of DAO theory from structural and technical ThestudiesinvolvinghumanswereapprovedbyUniversityof questionstoincludecultural,ethical,andecologicaldimensions, Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), addressing recent calls for more human-centered, purpose- approval number ETH24-9253. The studies were conducted in driven, and contextually adaptive forms of decentralized accordance with the local legislation and institutional governance. requirements. The participants provided their written informed Practically, the findings provide actionable insights for consentto participate inthis study. designers, platform developers, policymakers, and practitioners across the Web3 and development finance landscapes. The integration of real-time capital flows, flexible governance layers, Author contributions and embedded trust mechanisms in Hypha’s architecture demonstrates how DAOs can move from static protocols to KB: Writing –review and editing, Writing –original draft. dynamic systems capable of supporting ecosystemic finance and coalition-based development. Thispointsto tangiblepathwaysfor Funding building more inclusive, resilient, and impactful digital organizations. Importantly, this research also highlights the critical role of Theauthor(s)declarethatfinancialsupportwasreceivedforthe culture, consciousness, and care in the evolution of decentralized research and/or publication of this article. This research was systems.AsHypha’scaseshows,thefutureofDAOgovernancelies conducted as part of the author’s doctoral studies, which are notjustinnewtools,butinashiftofmindset:fromcodeasstructure supported by the Australian Government through a Research to stewardship as practice, and from coordination as control to Training Program (RTP) Scholarship and a Top-Up Scholarship regeneration asethos. fromtheDigital FinanceCooperative Research Centre (DFCRC). FrontiersinBlockchain 10 frontiersin.org

Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 Acknowledgments suggestions, and synthesis of existing ideas. All intellectual content, analysis, and original contributions are the work of the Theauthorwishestothanktheinterviewparticipants—Ronnie author.Thefinalmanuscriptwasreviewedandapprovedsolelyby Potel, Alex Prate, and Arsenije Savic—for their generous theauthor. contributions of time, insight, and lived experience in shaping Anyalternativetext(alttext)providedalongsidefiguresinthis thisresearch.AppreciationisalsoextendedtothebroaderHypha articlehasbeengeneratedbyFrontierswiththesupportofartificial ecosystemforitsongoingcommitmenttoopencollaborationand intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure governance innovation. accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify anyissues, please contact us. Conflict of interest Publisher’s note Theauthordeclaresnocommercialorfinancialrelationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The Allclaimsexpressedinthisarticlearesolelythoseoftheauthors author previously collaborated with Hypha as an Impact and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated Ecosystem Builder over two years ago and is currently organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the engaged in a separate ecosystemic finance pilot with the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or organisation as part of doctoral research. These relationships claimthatmaybemadebyitsmanufacturer,isnotguaranteedor did not influence the design, analysis, or reporting of this endorsed bythe publisher. case study. Generative AI statement Supplementary material The author(s) declare that Generative AI was used in the TheSupplementaryMaterialforthisarticlecanbefoundonline creation of this manuscript. The author used ChatGPT by at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402/ OpenAI to assist with language refinement, structural full#supplementary-material References Baninemeh,E.,Farshidi,S.,andJansen,S.(2023).Adecisionmodelfordecentralized DuPont, Q., and Campbell-Verduyn, M. (2017). “Experiments in algorithmic autonomousorganizationplatformselection:threeindustrycasestudies.Blockchain governance: a history and ethnography of,” in “The DAO,” a failed decentralized Res.Appl.4(2),100127.doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2023.100127 autonomousorganization.1edn.UnitedKingdom:Routledge,157–177. Barki,H.,Pare,G.,andSicotte,C.(2008).LinkingITimplementationandacceptance Febrero, P., and Pereira, J. (2022). Cryptocurrency constellations across viatheconstructofpsychologicalownershipofinformationtechnology.J.Inf.Tech.23 the three-dimensional space: governance decentralization, security, and (4),269–280.doi:10.1057/jit.2008.12 scalability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 69 (6), 3127–3138. doi:10.1109/tem. Barrera,C.(2023).MakerDAO’sproblemsareatextbookcaseofgovernancefailure. 2020.3030105 CoinDesk. Available online at: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2020/03/17/ Fullerton,J.(2015).Regenerativecapitalism:howuniversalprinciplesandpatternswill makerdaos-problems-are-a-textbook-case-of-governance-failure. shapeournewEconomy.TheCapitalInstitute. Bennett, K. (2025a). An evaluation of the regenerative claims of Web3’s ReFi Fullerton,J.(2017).Financeforaregenerativeworld,thecapitalInstitute. movement.Front.Blockchain8,1564083,doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1564083 Gloerich,I.(2023).TowardsDAOsofdifference:readingblockchainthroughthe Bennett, K. (2025b). The ReFi movement in Web3: implications for the global decolonialthoughtofSylviawynter’. commons.Front.Blockchain8,1564073,doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1564073 Han,J.,Lee,J.,andLi,T.(2025).AreviewofDAOgovernance:recentliterature Birhane,A.(2020).“AlgorithmicColonizationofAfrica”,inImaginingAI:howthe andemergingtrends.J.Corp.financeAmsterdam,Neth.91,102734.doi:10.1016/j. worldseesintelligent machines.EditorsC.Stephen andD.Kanta, (Oxford:Oxford jcorpfin.2025.102734 Academic).doi:10.1093/oso/9780192865366.003.0016 Hassan, S., and De Filippi, P. (2021). Decentralized autonomous organization. Bonnet,S.,andTeuteberg, F.(2024). Decentralizedautonomousorganizations: a InternetPolicyRev.10.doi:10.14763/2021.2.1556 systematicliteraturereviewandresearchAgenda.Int.J.innovationTechnol.Manag.21 Jentzsch,C.(2016).ThehistoryoftheDAOandlessonslearned.slock.itBlog,weblog. (4),2450026.doi:10.1142/s0219877024500263 Available online at: https://medium.com/slock-it-blog/the-history-of-the-dao-and- Borgogno, O., and Martino, E. (2024). Decentralised autonomous organisations: lessons-learned-d06740f8cfa5. targetingthepotentialbeyondthehype.Law,innovationTechnol.16(2),392–431. Laloux, F., and Parker, (2014). Reinventing organizations: a guide to creating doi:10.1080/17579961.2024.2392933 organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness, First edition, Buterin, V. (2021). Moving beyond coin voting governance. Available online at: Brussels,Belgium. https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html. Leavitt, H. J. (1965). “Applied organizational change in industry: structural, Chaffer,T.J.,andGoldston,J.(2024).Incentivizedsymbiosis:aparadigmforhuman- technological and humanistic approaches”, in J. G. March 1 Edn, Handbook of agentcoevolution. organizations.Chicago,IL:RandMcNallyandCo.1144–1170. Chang,Y.-W.,andChen,J.(2025).Anempiricalinvestigationofcriticalsuccess Li,S.,andChen,Y.(2024).Governingdecentralizedautonomousorganizations factorsinimplementingdigitaltransformation.Technol.Forecast.andSoc.change217, asdigitalcommons.J.Bus.Ventur.Insights21,e00450.doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2024. 124161.doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124161 e00450 Couldry,N.,andMejias,U.A.(2023).Thedecolonialturnindataandtechnology Lockett, R. (2023). The technology Doesn’t matter: Prioritizing the people in IT research: whatisatstakeandwhereisitheading? Inf.Commun.andSoc.26(4), Businessalignment.1edn.Newark:Wiley. 786–802.doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1986102 Lumineau,F.,Wang,W.,andSchilke,O.(2021).Blockchaingovernance—anewway deFilippi,P.(2019).Blockchaintechnologyanddecentralizedgovernance:thepitfalls oforganizingcollaborations?Organ.Sci.(Providence,R.I.)32(2),500–521.doi:10.1287/ ofatrustlessdream. orsc.2020.1379 FrontiersinBlockchain 11 frontiersin.org Bennett 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1630402 Mang,P.,andHaggard,B.(2016).Regenesisgroup2016,regenerativeDevelopment Soja,E.,andSoja,P.(2017).ExploringRootproblemsinEnterprisesystemadoption anddesign:aFrameworkforevolvingSustainability.1edn.Incorporated,Newark:John fromanemployeeAgeperspective:apeople-process-technologyframework.Inf.Syst. WileyandSons. Manag.34(4),333–346.doi:10.1080/10580530.2017.1366218 Mugdh, M., and Pilla, S. (2012). Revenue cycle optimization in Health care Sunmola,F.T.,Javahernia,A.,andVosniakos,G.C.(2021).Manufacturingprocess institutions: a conceptual framework for change management. health care Manag. innovationdeploymentreadinessfromanextendedpeople,process,andtechnology 31(1),75–80.doi:10.1097/hcm.0b013e318242d409 frameworkviewpoint.ProcediaManuf.55(C),409–416.doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2021. 10.056 nRhythm(2025).RegenerativedesignpatternsfororganizationalHealth.Available onlineat:https://www.nrhythm.co/approach. Taher, A. (2023). Stakeholders’ opinions support the people-process-technology framework for implementing digital transformation in higher education. Technol. Pereira, J., Tavalaei, M. M., and Ozalp, H. (2019). Blockchain-based platforms: pedagogyEduc.32(5),555–567.doi:10.1080/1475939x.2023.2248134 decentralized infrastructures and its boundary conditions. Technol. Forecast. and Soc.change146,94–102.doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.030 Tan,J.,Merk,T.,Hubbard,S.,Oak,E.R.,Rong,H.,Pirovich,J.,etal.(2023).Open Puranam,P.,Alexy,O.,andReitzig,M.(2014).What’s“new”aboutnewformsof problemsinDAOs.doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.19201 organizing?Acad.Manag.Rev.39(2),162–180.doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0436 Thatcher, J., Sullivan, D., and Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Data colonialism through accumulationbydispossession:newmetaphorsfordailydata.Environ.Plan.D,Soc.and Qin,R.,Ding,W.,Li,J.,Guan,S.,Wang,G.,Ren,Y.,etal.(2023).Web3-Based space34(6),990–1006.doi:10.1177/0263775816633195 decentralized autonomousorganizationsandoperations:architectures, models, and mechanisms.IEEETrans.Syst.man,Cybern.53(4),2073–2082.doi:10.1109/tsmc.2022. Valiente,M.-C.,Rozas,D.,Ovalle-Perandones,M.-A.,Garoufallou,E.,andVlachidis, 3228530 A. (2022). Integration of Ontologies with decentralized autonomous organizations development:asystematicliteraturereview,1537.Switzerland:SpringerInternational an R d ik d k e e c n en , t O ra ., li J z a e n d ss a e u n t , o M no . m ,a o n u d s K or w g e a e n , i Z za . t ( io 2 n 01 s. 9) I . n G f. o P v o e l r it n y an 24 ce ,3 c 9 h 7 a – ll 4 e 1 n 7 g . es do o i f :1 b 0 l . o 3 c 2 k 3 c 3 h / a ip in - PublishingAG,171–184. 190154 Wu, R.,Tao,J.,andYu,S.(2024). Enhancingsustainability inmanufacturing: a methodologyforquantitativeassessmentandimprovementoflife-cycledesignconflict Runeson,P.,Host,M.,Rainer,A.,andRegnell,B.(2012).Casestudyresearchin managing capabilities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 48, 339–361. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024. softwareengineering:guidelinesandexamples.1stedn.Hoboken,N.J:Wiley. 05.017 FrontiersinBlockchain 12 frontiersin.org