There is some good information here:
Here are the key takeaways:
Most DAOs use direct democracy, with token holders voting on everything. However, many DAOs are transitioning to representative democracy, with decision-making delegated to an elected council. It’s recommended to match decision-making models to decision types.
DAOs without a strategy tend to be directionless. Prioritisation frameworks are crucial in helping the community make strategic decisions. Only 55% of analysed DAOs had a formal mission statement, vision, values, or public roadmap.
Most DAOs fund domain-specific working groups without an overall DAO budget, leading to an unsustainable budget. It’s suggested that funding could be more effective if tied to the DAO’s goals.
DAOs often focus more on ideas rather than execution during the proposal stage. Ways to incentivise execution in a DAO include a “do-ocracy”, constrained delegation, and separation of power between parties responsible for decisions about strategy, budgets, and execution.
Power dynamics exist within all DAOs, and undefined power can result in unchecked authority. Defining power structures helps to avoid factions and enables the implementation of checks and balances.
DAOs should distinguish between representatives who manage DAO resources or make decisions on behalf of token holders and contributors who work for the DAO. Implementing basic HR practices is necessary to prevent contributor burnout and ensure fair compensation.
Path to Decentralisation:
There’s often a struggle to balance control between the core team and the community. Providing transparency into what the core team controls and the path for transitioning this to the community can help address this issue.
DAOs should create policies that are flexible and reactive, maintaining transformability to prevent the recurrence of past issues. Unchecked policies could lead to over-specifying and overcorrecting.