The Meme That Made Us Wonder
It all started with a meme. A simple, funny image calling out the blurred lines between “Labs” and “DAOs,” hinting that these supposedly decentralized organizations might actually be two sides of the same profit-driven coin.
The idea stuck with us. As we dug deeper, it became clear that this wasn’t just a joke — it was the tip of an iceberg. Labs and DAOs, while presenting themselves as separate entities, seemed less about community empowerment and more about playing a careful game of legal and financial gymnastics.
What if this decentralization thing was all just… an illusion?
DAOs and Labs: The Perfect Setup
DAOs, or decentralized autonomous organizations, promise a radical vision for the future of finance: community-owned, self-governing entities where decisions are made collectively, without the need for centralized control. Think of $MKR (MakerDAO) or $UNI (UniswapDAO), promising a decentralized dream where the community calls the shots.
Meanwhile, Labs — companies like ConsenSys and others — provide the infrastructure, tools, and guidance that make these DAOs operational. At first glance, they look like mere support systems. But often, they’re the ones quietly steering the ship — setting the rules and reaping rewards from behind the scenes.
DAOs appear to be democratic, with token holders voting on proposals in a seemingly decentralized structure. But if you look closer, it’s less of a playground for community empowerment and more of a puppet show. Labs are the invisible puppeteers, orchestrating a “decentralized” theater where token holders move according to strings they can’t see.
The Loop of Profits
The setup between DAOs and Labs is brilliantly designed to funnel profits back to Labs, all while maintaining the illusion of decentralization. Here’s how this profit loop works:
- Labs Create the Infrastructure: Labs set up the DAO’s framework, write the code, and structure token sales. They don’t “own” the DAO, technically — but they control the playground.
- DAOs as Profit Funnels: Once the DAO is up and running, Labs continue to profit by providing “support” services. Every transaction, every governance token issued, every fee — all roads lead back to Labs.
- The Legal Separation Trick: By operating as a DAO-Labs duo, they dodge many regulatory requirements. The DAO is technically a separate entity, but it’s structured to keep Labs in control without having to publicly call the shots.
For token holders, this setup looks like a dream — a decentralized, community-driven ecosystem. But in reality, they’re entering a carefully curated environment where control isn’t distributed; it’s disguised. Token holders think they’re part of something revolutionary, but in truth, they’re dancing to the beat of an invisible drummer.
Governance Tokens: Power or Illusion?
DAOs market their governance tokens as tools of empowerment. More tokens mean more say in decisions, right? But here’s the catch: Labs or their affiliates often hold a massive chunk of these tokens from the beginning. This creates the illusion of community voting while Labs pull the real strings behind the scenes.
- Token Distribution: Labs often hold enough tokens to outweigh the community’s vote. Token holders may feel like they’re participating, but key decisions can be quietly influenced by those with the biggest stake.
- Curated Democracy: Proposals may look community-driven, but they’re often strategically framed to guide outcomes in Labs’ favor. It’s a loop: the DAO votes, Labs influence, and the cycle repeats.
Token holders feel they’re shaping the future of the DAO. In reality, Labs designed the system to ensure they’re always a step ahead. It’s a manufactured democracy, where choices are carefully curated to keep control in the hands of the unseen puppet masters.
Is there really freedom if all the options are preselected by those in power?
The VC Game: Who’s Truly Profiting?
Behind every Lab is often a group of venture capitalists (VCs) who saw the potential for profit early on. By funding Labs, VCs tap into an ecosystem that operates outside traditional regulations. Here’s how the game unfolds:
- Investment Loophole: VCs fund Labs, which provides the DAO’s backbone. The DAO, in turn, generates token sales, creating returns for Labs and its investors.
- Risk Outsourcing: Labs and their backers can profit without bearing the risks directly. If the token value plummets, it’s the token holders — often retail investors — who lose out, not the VCs.
This is a power game, and Labs and VCs are the strategists. It’s a setup as brilliant as it is cold: Labs get to say they’re building for the community, while VCs quietly extract value through token sales and fees. Token holders? They’re just pieces on a board, caught in a game designed to insulate Labs and their investors from risk.
The house always wins.
Code as Control
One of the most compelling arguments for DAOs is the transparency of “code as law.” Every decision, every transaction — right there on the blockchain for anyone to see. But this openness can be deceiving. Labs create the code, setting the rules from the start. What token holders see as transparency is, in reality, a controlled environment dictated by the original developers.
- Immutable, Yet Controlled: The code is unchangeable, which should theoretically protect token holders. But if Labs wrote the code with certain biases or restrictions, they maintain indirect control.
- Invisible Influence: Labs dictate the rules of engagement. Token holders vote, yes, but they’re limited to the options Labs coded in. It’s like choosing from a menu where the chef decides the ingredients — you have a say, but only within the chef’s design.
This coded structure gives Labs the security of immutability while allowing them to stay in control, even if they don’t appear to be directly pulling the strings.
The more transparent the code, the more invisible the control.
What seems like openness is actually a carefully crafted maze, designed to lead token holders in circles.
The DAO Incident: A Cautionary Tale
To really see how this plays out, let’s look back at The DAO, one of the first and most infamous decentralized autonomous organizations. This DAO was meant to be a community-led venture capital fund where token holders voted on which projects to support. In theory, it was a decentralized, democratic system.
But the reality was something else. The creators of The DAO had baked control into the code from the start, giving them a powerful position in guiding decisions. Token holders thought they had autonomy, but every decision they made was within the boundaries set by a handful of original developers.
Then, the hammer dropped. A hacker exploited a vulnerability in the code, siphoning off over $50 million in Ethereum ($ETH). The DAO’s developers were powerless to stop it because the code — “immutable” and “transparent” — left no way to intervene. Ethereum itself had to be “forked” to reverse the damage, splitting into Ethereum ($ETH) and Ethereum Classic ($ETC).
The DAO incident showed that, with the right structure, DAOs can be set up to appear independent while maintaining indirect control. Today’s DAOs are built from this same playbook, luring token holders into a structure where Labs quietly hold the keys.
Token Holders: Bearing the Burden
The setup is brilliant — if you’re Labs or a VC. For token holders, though, the story isn’t as rosy. When the DAO performs poorly, when token prices plummet, Labs and VCs stay protected. Token holders, on the other hand, shoulder the risk.
- Asymmetric Risk: Labs take the profits; token holders bear the losses. This is the DAO’s dirty little secret. Decentralization serves as a marketing tool, luring in hopeful community members who think they’re part of something bigger.
- Legal Loopholes: Unlike shareholders, token holders don’t have legal protections. They’re not investors — they’re participants. And this technicality means that, in a crisis, Labs and its backers have no obligation to bail them out.
The promise of community can be a powerful sedative, soothing doubts even as control tightens invisibly around them. For the DAO’s everyday participants, the promise of empowerment can quickly fade when reality hits.
The Illusion of Community
In the end, the DAO-Labs dynamic isn’t about decentralization or community-driven projects. It’s a legal and financial strategy, built on the image of decentralization but designed to protect and enrich the very people it claims to disrupt. Labs create the framework, VCs fund it, and token holders join, unknowingly signing up for a structure that feels decentralized but operates like a centralized machine.
Token holders believe they’re part of something radical. Labs assure them they’re reshaping finance, democratizing access, empowering individuals. But the real beneficiaries? Labs and their investors. The rest is just an illusion — a well-orchestrated dance where token holders follow the beat set by those who wrote the code.
Final Thoughts
This isn’t to say that all DAOs are scams or that every Lab is manipulating its community. There are exceptions. But the meme we started with captured a reality that many don’t see: DAOs and Labs, in many cases, operate in a way that seems less about true decentralization and more about profit maximization under the guise of community.
In a world where decentralization is often a mirage, the question isn’t just who holds the keys — but whether the keys themselves are even real. As we embrace this innovation, it’s crucial to ask ourselves: Are we truly decentralizing power, or just reshuffling it amongst the CABAL?
Astraea is an analyst with a rich background in finance, having worked at various research firms where he gained deep insights into investments and corporate strategies. Now, he blends this expertise with a unique perspective, crafting content for those venturing in finance, tech, or crypto. For more information check out ascendant.finance or join the Discord.
https://twitter.com/ascendantfi
https://twitter.com/cryptocadetapp
https://twitter.com/thetechjd
