Polkadot.law - LEGAL WRAPPERS FOR DECENTRALIZED AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATIONS; A CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL GLOBAL REVIEW FOR THE POLKADOT DAO

[wariomx]

gm Polkadot people,

On behalf of the Softlaw Research Team, I’m happy to share the academic research funded under referendum #1676

You can view and download the full 114-page academic research at https://www.polkadot.law/

---

Deliveries:

1. Academic Paper:

• Foundations and Background
• Section I. Legal Wrappers
• Section II. Enforceability of treasury proposals
• Discussion

2. Digital Portal:

• Vivecoded project: github repo

---

Changes:

1. Foundations and Background:
We added a full introduction chapter bcs the academic paper’s goal is to educate policymakers, lawyers, and provide clarity to community members who may be new to the blockchain and web3 ecosystem.

2. Global Review Chapter (Section I). We decided to expand the United States of America scope into a more comprehensive global analysis, including jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and others.

3. Treasury Proposals (Section II):
We did not analyse adr clauses deeply, as the section main focus is to recognize treasury proposals as enforceable contracts under international law.

4. Portal Purpose:
Initially the goal of the portal was to serve as a unified resource hub for the legal initiatives within the Polkadot ecosystem, including: i) legal bounty, ii) PCF and iii) research hub.
However: i) the bounty was closed, ii) in october, we received an email from the PCF informing us that they have created a new webpage, and they request us to remove the PCF section from our portal, (which IMO is fair). As a result, we’re evolving the digital portal into a more complete Legal Research Hub.

Extras:
1. Academic Workshops: We conducted two DAO workshops with a Mexican university for business students. Here are the POAPs: i) group 1 and ii) group 2

2. Appointment of Dot Directors Brief. We wrote a brief regarding the Appointment of DOT Directors addressing questions raised in past refs and forum discussions

---

What comes next?

We are working to distribute the paper through other channels,

We welcome feedback,

---

Thank you for the opportunity to work with the DAO,

Saluting you from one little corner of cyberspace,

Cheers,
Wario,

---

Disclaimer
This paper is provided for academic and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice regarding decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), legal entities, associations, organizations, contracts, digital assets, treasury proposals, or related governance structures. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. The views expressed are solely those of the authors. Readers should consult their own qualified legal counsel before taking any action based on the matters discussed herein.

[thewhiterabbitM]

Dear friend, thank you for taking the time to research, but as you may have noticed, the Polkadot leadership (Parity and W3F) already have a clear idea of ​​what to do, and I think all our efforts are completely futile.

[wariomx]

Hi friend, this work is for the DAO, not any specific voter, as it was approved under OpenGov; now imo, this work could help policymakers and legal scholars in framing law and regulations that reflects DAO values

[thewhiterabbitM]

DAO? Where is it?

[wariomx]

As of today, in 2026, the average participation is 264 voters.

[thewhiterabbitM]

We’ve recovered the O for Organization and completely lost the D for decentralization and the A for autonomous…

What are you talking about? The number of voters that doesn’t affect the final result, is completely useless.

[wariomx]

Yeah prob you are right, the number of voters does not affect the outcome per se, but a wapper is needed to protect all voters. All members have rights and duties (currently risks - liability), not just whales, especially if you are ( or have been) active (with or without delegation) on open gov.

More importantly, the research goes beyond the current politics of openGov, its academic.

[Nukeme3]

In times like these, it is important to appreciate the people who are still doing their part because they feel the need to contribute to this grand experiment. I’ll save this for later and read it earnestly.

Similar to the slot auctions (which I recall Jonas from W3F wrote up a paper showing that after the hype, a market price was found indicating a sucessful model), the network switched to the coretime sales and provided additional learning opportunities, the evolution of OpenGov is another great lesson on the importance of not only focusing on resilient technology, but resilient society systems as well.

Even with W3F throwing its might around, we should still be active in the democratic process. Discuss, debate, and learn together to keep our goals aligned with our core tenets of what we believe this system should be.

[wariomx]

gm DOTDAO,

Here’s a link to a current discussion about the future of Polkadot.law:

Discussion #451: Polkadot.law – Global Crypto Regulation and Public Policy Hub.

We consider this to be a community project, so we are interested in involving the majority of DOTDAO members and token holders, therefore the discussion will continue open for two more weeks,

All comments, feedback and suggestions are welcome

[thewhiterabbitM]

gm, and thanks for opening this as a community discussion and keeping the window open. I’d like to help this land, so I’ll be straight on sequencing first, because it affects whether the rest is worth your effort.

Before going further on Phase 2, it would be worth getting an early read from the Web3 Foundation. W3F now votes directly and selectively on treasury proposals, against published criteria that include clear milestones, demonstrable value to Polkadot, and avoiding duplication. On a 100k ask of this profile their position tends to be decisive, so an informal signal now, before the work, is the difference between a refined proposal and effort that risks going nowhere. I raise it to save you that, not to gatekeep.

On the substance, the Phase 1 paper was a real contribution and committing all outputs under CC BY 4.0 is the right call. My questions are about fit and accountability.

1. Relationship to the PCF. The Polkadot Community Foundation already exists as the DAO’s off-chain legal counterparty, created to carry legal and operational accountability and to execute the community’s will in the real world. A standing legal and policy hub sits close to that mandate. Could you set out how Polkadot.law is meant to relate to the PCF: run independently, or commissioned through or housed within it, so the ecosystem builds one accountable legal home rather than two? I’m aware the PCF’s community-director seats are still unfilled, which complicates routing anything through it today, but that reads as an argument for completing that process rather than building alongside it. If there’s a clear reason the PCF is not the natural vehicle, that reasoning would help the thread.

2. Deliverables and verification. Phase 1 had a single verifiable output. Phase 2 reads more as a twelve-month mandate, described as a research agenda, diffusion and engagement. For a spend this size, would you restructure around defined milestones with acceptance criteria: named papers on named topics, each CC BY 4.0, payment on delivery, plus diffusion indicators the treasury can independently verify such as dated submissions, consultations responded to, and publications actually placed? On the university and journal list, are any of those relationships backed by a signed LOI or MOU today, or are they targets at this stage?

3. One disclosure. Section 4.1 references a case study of treasury-funded media and 7.1 links specific disputes. To keep that research above reproach, could you confirm whether Softlaw or any team member has a relationship to the parties involved?

None of this is opposition. The need is real and the prior delivery earns a serious read. Get an early signal from W3F, show clearly how this differs from the PCF rather than running parallel to it, and tie the spend to verifiable deliverables, and this becomes something the community can get behind.

[wariomx]

gm @thewhiterabbitM

Regarding your questions:

@thewhiterabbitM

1. Relationship to the PCF. The Polkadot Community Foundation already exists as the DAO’s off-chain legal counterparty, created to carry legal and operational accountability and to execute the community’s will in the real world. A standing legal and policy hub sits close to that mandate. Could you set out how Polkadot.law is meant to relate to the PCF: run independently, or commissioned through or housed within it, so the ecosystem builds one accountable legal home rather than two? I’m aware the PCF’s community-director seats are still unfilled, which complicates routing anything through it today, but that reads as an argument for completing that process rather than building alongside it. If there’s a clear reason the PCF is not the natural vehicle, that reasoning would help the thread.

Polkadot.law does not intend to fill the PCF role. Our objective is purely academic, and while institutional collaboration might warrant legal representation, we pretend to use Softlaw S.A. de C.V. as initial vehicle, and later ratify it through open gov.

We prefer to work independently of the PCF to fast-track our work, but if we are successful, DOTDAO will decide future formalizations.

@thewhiterabbitM

2. Deliverables and verification. Phase 1 had a single verifiable output. Phase 2 reads more as a twelve-month mandate, described as a research agenda, diffusion and engagement. For a spend this size, would you restructure around defined milestones with acceptance criteria: named papers on named topics, each CC BY 4.0, payment on delivery, plus diffusion indicators the treasury can independently verify such as dated submissions, consultations responded to, and publications actually placed? On the university and journal list, are any of those relationships backed by a signed LOI or MOU today, or are they targets at this stage?

As you mentioned we are proposing a 12 month contract, with 3 parallel activities, research, diffusion, and institutional engagement. I agree that this deserves greater clarity:

Deliverables:

a. Academic Research, with a minimum of four papers. Initially we are suggesting legal personality, privacy, asset ownership ( ip case study ), and protecting DOTDAO members from liability (case study 2). However we are open to other topics of interest.

b. Publication. The internal publication will be through the polkadot.law web page. The external varies, because it depends on the other institutions:

c. Engagement. We do not currently hold any MOU or LOI. At the moment we can classify the institutions as targets. I can say that we have initiated informal communications, especially when we circulated the previous paper, but there has been no formal follow-up or publication.

Verification: You are right and we are currently working to establish four clear milestones with an initial payment, and subsequents every three months.

@thewhiterabbitM

3. One disclosure. Section 4.1 references a case study of treasury-funded media and 7.1 links specific disputes. To keep that research above reproach, could you confirm whether Softlaw or any team member has a relationship to the parties involved?

No we do not have any kind of relationship with the parties involved. What could cause confusion was my previous status as an ambassador candidate, but the program was not authorized by the DAO nor formalized on-chain.

Thanks for all the feedback and the advice.

[rvalle]

Widely distributed decision-making. Gav I guess.

[wariomx]

You can view the current voter participation trend on openshore portal, cited in the paper btw.

[wariomx]

In case anyone else is interested, today, June 27, the average participation is 326: