# DAO Research Trends: Reflections and Learnings from the First European DAO Workshop (DAWO)
## 5 Exploring Legal and Regulatory Dimensions of DAOs  
The legal status and recognition of DAOs remains a significant challenge, as jurisdictions around the world struggle to establish appropriate regulations for these entities [12]. This lack of clear legal frameworks complicates the operation of DAOs, especially when they function across different countries [48; 49].  
The aspect of legal recognition of DAOs is subject to many studies and discussions and there are several approaches. The evolving landscape of legal frameworks for DAOs has garnered significant attention across various jurisdictions, as highlighted by [PERSON] et al. [50] in their comprehensive analysis of legal structures in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the UAE. Their research reveals that each jurisdiction offers distinct advantages and challenges, providing specific recommendations for legal entities, such as Associations, Cooperatives, and Foundations based on DAO objectives. Understanding these frameworks is critical for ensuring compliance and operational success in a decentralized environment. There is a need to expand this analysis to other regions and assess the long-term implications of legal choices on the development of DAOs.  
In Turkey, the lack of specific DAO regulations has led [PERSON] [51] to propose the application of general partnership rules under Turkish law, while also suggesting that the Association could serve as a temporary solution until more suitable regulations are established. Similarly, [PERSON] [52] argues for the creation of a new legal theory tailored specifically to DAOs, one that builds on existing corporate law but addresses the unique characteristics of these organizations. These results show that there is a critical discussion about whether new legal forms are necessary for the recognition of DAOs or if the existing legal structures suffice. The current legal framework surrounding DAOs is still evolving, particularly regarding liability. Traditional liability mechanisms may not fully address the complexities inherent in DAOs, such as decentralized governance, participant anonymity, and automated decision-making through smart contracts. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [53] have examined how these traditional mechanisms might be adapted to fit the decentralized nature of DAOs. They emphasize the importance of identifying authority and control in DAOs to assign responsibility and determine liability. However, this might be complex, and the area is still evolving. Their research underscores the need for new legal frameworks capable of handling these complexities while protecting both DAO participants and external parties.  
Furthermore, there is a need to address criminal and administrative responsibilities within these frameworks. In addition to liability concerns, blockchain-based dispute resolution (BBDR) platforms also face regulatory challenges, and [PERSON]'s [54] research emphasizes the importance of aligning BBDR platforms with existing legal standards to boost user confidence and ensure enforceability. Designing legal frameworks that integrate these platforms into established systems is crucial, with key areas for exploration, including the impact of legal structures on DAO governance, adapting legal theories to accommodate DAOs, and ensuring BBDR platforms meet regulatory requirements.