DAOs, Open Source, and "turquoise" management have emerged from a shared desire to operate effectively without rigid hierarchies and leaders making all the decisions. However, each model faces its own crises when considered separately. Web3 researcher Vladimir Menaskop explains why these three approaches can only succeed together.

From the Author

Recently, an article on Habr discussed how OS projects often rely on one or two enthusiasts who work for little or no pay.

This reminded me of my extensive experience with DAOs. Back in 2025, I participated in over 100 such organizations, but by 2026, it became clear that reaching the next milestone of 1,000 might never happen.

Why? Because the leading analytical platform in the sector, DeepDAO, shut down, and many DAOs either folded or abandoned their fundamental principles.

On the other hand, some realized the pitfalls and opted for a planned and deep restructuring. Surprisingly, the first to do so were market leaders who had been conservative in other areas: Ethereum, Uniswap, and Aave.

Reflecting on my 21 years in IT, I realized that all three elements of self-organization—DAOs as a form, "turquoise" as a methodology, and Open Source as a tool—form a cohesive whole. But let's take it step by step.

DAOs

There's been a lot written about DAOs on ForkLog, but let's highlight some less obvious points.

What is a DAO? Literally, it stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Yet, this brief definition hides an internal paradox. Let's recall the definitions:

  1. Decentralized—this is a system where governance and structure are created without a single center, with control and authority distributed among many independent participants.
  2. Autonomous—independent, acting on its own without external control or connection to common networks.
  3. Organization—a group of people working together to achieve common goals and objectives.

At first glance, these terms seem incompatible. The swan of decentralization pulls towards ideologies where a center is an unacceptable luxury. The pike of autonomy unnecessarily reinforces this stance, focusing not on internal structure but on non-compliance with external systems. The perch of organization, on the other hand, asserts that a center does exist, but it is not in governance; rather, it lies in the problems being solved and the goals set.

This is why there is no such thing as a "generic DAO." Limited liability companies exist in a generic sense; open or closed joint-stock companies do too; even simple partnerships or cooperatives exist generically. However, a DAO cannot exist in such an abstract form.

Of course, one might argue that there are entire platforms like Aragon or xDAO that standardize the process of creating decentralized autonomous organizations. However, they only assist with the toolkit. They can stitch together a body, but it will still be a corpse—formally alive but not a unified organism, and certainly not a full-fledged entity. Such Frankenstein monsters are abundant today, if not the overwhelming majority.

My personal experience in decentralized autonomous organizations has always suggested that this is wrong: we have substituted form for content. Therefore, for the past ten years, I have been practicing the creation of micro-DAOs, which are not aimed at success but solely at passing on the principles of the DAO approach from person to person. And I must admit, this works, albeit slowly. Here, we will need the second element—"turquoise" management.

Turquoise

In my life, Frederic Laloux's book "Reinventing Organizations" appeared long before I read my first article about DAOs. This is because decentralization existed long before blockchain. In our small IT company of five, we initially advocated this approach, and Laloux helped us formalize our experience and derive some common principles.

Since then, I have been part of various turquoise communities, studied the experiences of many companies (from offline sectors to gaming), written analytical articles, and attempted to educate others in this field.

About seven years ago, I became an administrator of a Telegram channel dedicated to turquoise management. There, people discussed DAOs without using the term, worked in DAOs without knowing about them, and engaged in many other activities that essentially boiled down to DAOs.

I tried to bridge the two worlds by organizing several online meetings for participants from different groups: those discussing "turquoise" and those already building DAOs. And… nothing substantial came of it: it turned out that these were two largely similar but parallel universes.

However, it was during this time that I had another realization—each of the elements (both DAOs and "turquoise") requires an unimaginable internal restructuring. What does it mean to have no boss? What does it mean to have no external control? What does it mean to work only in networked entities? This restructuring demands a tremendous amount of resources: time, attention, understanding, and even money. Therefore, each group simply could not switch to another process of similar complexity.

Moreover, such a union would still be incomplete, at least without the third element.

Open Source

I don't think readers need an explanation of what open-source software is, but it's crucial to note that almost all DAOs use it by default.

Here, a synthesis of science, art, and, if you will, magic emerges:

  1. DAOs help organize business within the economy of action (or rather, that part of it which I call crypto-offshore), created through the tools and mechanics of Web 3.0 and Web3.
  2. The profits from this business (whether network fees or profits from successful liquidations) can be distributed as grants among different teams.
  3. Finally, to ensure that the profit extraction process demonstrates both quantitative and qualitative growth, "turquoise" management methods must be applied (the last year and a half of Aave's development is a prime example of this).

However, when Open Source is detached from this triad, it essentially does not thrive but merely survives: you must rely on donations from those who find it easier to fork than to support you with cash.

The Open Secret

You might think that such an "insight" is an already well-understood process. The problem is, it is not.

All these elements are quite developed: each is backed by a coherent, if not perfectly structured, theory; each has its supporters and, importantly, practice. But separately. Together, they only work in exceptional cases, when enthusiasts have already immersed themselves in each sphere and drawn conclusions. Something similar can be found in the assertion "1 BTC = 1 BTC": it seems clear to everyone, but in reality, it is not.

Thus, it appears that such projects have a future: uncertain, like any other, but still a future.

Especially since each of the three elements is currently experiencing a crisis:

  • DAOs—due to yet another crypto winter;
  • "turquoise"—due to a crisis in management ideas;
  • Open Source—due to a lack of financial support.

Therefore, in such times, it is crucial to focus not on solving immediate and constantly arising problems but on much more fundamental issues. Perhaps this will lead us to another dilemma, where we must choose two out of three components to evolve effectively. Or perhaps there is simply a fourth or even fifth element that will complement this set.

If you entered the crypto sphere not just for the latest hype but for something greater, this approach will surely be beneficial.