Happy New Year and Welcome Back!
Today, I want to explore a different economic model for artists, one I mostly avoided writing about last year. My hesitation came from not wanting it to become the default answer to every conversation about alternative economies in the arts.
This piece looks at decentralized philanthropy in the arts, often referred to as a DAO. The word still carries some baggage. Crypto has earned a reputation that makes people cautious. Even so, now that the initial hype has cooled, it feels like the right moment to look at DAOs as a structure rather than a trend.
If you have read my earlier posts, you know I am interested in collective governance in the arts, even without crypto. At a basic level, a DAO is a group of people pooling resources and making decisions together, with shared rules laid out in advance. It resembles a cooperative or a charitable trust for artists more than a speculative financial product.
Instead of focusing on technical details, this piece stays with the underlying idea.
What a DAO feels like in practice
Imagine a group of people committing to a shared effort. Everyone contributes a modest amount to a common pool, similar to sharing studio expenses or funding a community project. Artists bring forward proposals, such as a mural, a sculpture, or an animation, and the group discusses them and votes.
The group decides which projects to fund and also what feels worth making together.
Funding happens upfront. The criteria are visible. Decisions are made by people you can actually talk to. Compared to traditional grants, which tend to be slow and opaque, this process feels more like an ongoing conversation among peers who are invested in the work.
A concrete example, functional art
Picture a small group focused on functional art, such as custom lamps, furniture, or public benches. A dozen members, including artists and supporters, each contribute a small monthly amount. Artists submit proposals, for example a powder-coated steel reading lamp, a bench that doubles as a planter, or a modular light installation for a library.
Members vote, and the selected artists receive payment upfront for materials and labor. People who help with fabrication, coordination, or documentation may also be paid for their time.
Once completed, the objects might be installed in public spaces, sold to collectors, or placed in community settings. Any revenue is shared transparently. Artists retain ownership of their work, while the group benefits collectively and helps fund future projects.
Governance, ownership, and structure
Most DAOs rely on simple and explicit governance. Proposals are submitted in a shared space, members comment and vote, and decisions follow agreed-upon rules. Some groups give each person one vote. Others give slightly more weight to people who contribute more time or resources.
Legal structures vary. Some groups remain informal collectives. Others register as an LLC or a nonprofit to clarify ownership, liability, and how money moves. The shared value across these approaches is clarity, which reduces confusion and conflict later.
Different models in practice
DAOs are used for more than collectibles or speculative markets. Some groups apply this structure to cooperation, research, and shared cultural goals.
Black Swan DAO explores artist-led governance and mutual support without relying on art market mechanics. ConstitutionDAO demonstrated how large groups could pool resources around a shared cultural objective. Projects such as ArtDAO, Covalence, and Ensembl use collective decision-making to support research, collaboration, and shared artistic practice.
These models differ in scale and focus, but the core idea remains consistent. People pool resources and make decisions together. What gets produced depends on the values and priorities of the group.
Upsides and challenges
The main strength of this model is its practicality. Work gets made. Funding is immediate. Responsibility is shared. Artists do not carry uncertainty alone while waiting for decisions.
Small groups tend to function best. Trust plays a central role. As groups grow, coordination becomes more complex and decision-making can slow down. The balance between flexibility and structure requires ongoing attention.
There are also clear risks. Many DAOs depend on cryptocurrency, which makes funding unstable. When funding drops, energy and participation often drop with it. Decision-making can become tiring, and maintaining the structure can take time away from creative work.
Some groups reduce this risk by mixing approaches, such as combining small membership dues, sponsorships, or grants with crypto-based funds. These hybrid models make it easier to support experimental work with more consistency.
How someone might start one
Starting a DAO usually begins with a small group and a clear purpose. The first step is defining the goal in concrete terms. Smaller and more specific missions tend to work better.
The next step is gathering a committed core group. This model works best when people already trust one another and are willing to contribute time as well as money.
From there, it helps to agree on simple rules. These include how proposals are submitted, how often decisions are made, how funds are distributed, and how disagreements are handled.
Starting small matters. Funding a single project allows the group to learn what works and what needs adjustment. Most strong DAOs grow out of practice rather than theory.
Why this is interesting now
The early hype phase has passed. The tools are clearer, and expectations are more realistic. There is also a stronger understanding of what collective governance can support.
For artists interested in shared risk, cooperative creation, and more immediate forms of support, DAOs offer one possible path. They exist alongside grants, galleries, and institutions rather than replacing them.
They also raise a broader question. What happens when artistic value is shaped by groups of people choosing, together, to support work they believe in?
DAOs are not a cure-all. They are, however, a serious experiment in how collaboration can turn ideas into real and shared creative outcomes.
Don’t forget that the paid newsletter comes out later this week with my plans for this year, and plenty of worksheets and templates to make you dizzy!
References
https://medium.com/@wac-lab/demystifying-arts-culture-daos-1edf78f39c57
https://www.rightclicksave.com/article/daos-in-the-art-world
The problem I’ve seen w DAOs is most people don’t want to do the day to day work of making a DAO actually work.
So is there or can there be a profit motive behind DAO's? When you say that the "collective group benefits", are we speaking in terms of "everybody gets to sit on the park bench" or "everyone gets their cut of the municipal fund to create park benches" (including of course, the artist chosen to actually make the bench prototype)? Call me a cynic but I would think that moneyed individuals could more easily revert back to traditional philanthropic foundations and be on more solid legal and economic ground, right?