Has the DAO failed? Actually, it's not that sudden; everyone has just finally been honest with each other.

On-chain, there can be no owner, but once a project has value, can be sued, or faces regulation, the world will force it to find a "responsible party." Foundations, companies, legal representatives—these are not accidents but a gentle slap from reality to the ideal. Decentralization isn't defeated; it’s just that it chose to step back.

What is the biggest trap of DAO? Thinking that "collective voting equals collective innocence." But the reality is the opposite: decisions can be voted on, but someone must bear the responsibility. Your vote can be anonymous, but at the moment of signing, you must put your name. So it seems very common—governance is hotly discussed on-chain, but the real risks quietly shift onto a specific off-chain entity. This is not a bug; it’s human nature’s automatic compensation.

As soon as it involves brands, trademarks, regulation, bank accounts, decentralization suddenly becomes silent. Voting still happens, arguments still happen, but the truly problematic issues are bypassed. DAO can fine-tune parameters well, but when faced with irreversible real-world consequences, it becomes timid.

The irony is that this decline isn’t caused by external enemies but by repeated "rational decisions" piling up. No one betrays, no one schemes; it’s just each time saying, "This is safer." Every concession seems reasonable at the time, but by the time you realize it, sovereignty has already been divided, contracted, and permanently frozen.

So, foundations are not an emergency solution; they are the final form of decentralization in the real world—a shell that allows the community to continue voting, keep dreaming they have power, while never having to sign off on the consequences. As long as responsibility cannot be separated, decentralization can only be a story, not a system.