How to Structure a Sub-DAO for Specialized Research Fields

A Sub-DAO is a semi-autonomous organizational unit nested within a parent DAO, designed to manage a specific domain, such as a research field like ZK cryptography or MEV economics. Unlike a general-purpose working group, a Sub-DAO typically has its own treasury, dedicated governance token or voting weight allocation, and a clear mandate. This structure allows for focused decision-making and faster iteration on specialized topics without requiring consensus from the entire, often broader, parent DAO community. It is a critical tool for scaling decentralized research efforts.

The core components for structuring a research Sub-DAO include a mandate charter, a funding mechanism, and a governance framework. The charter defines the Sub-DAO's scope, goals, and success metrics—for example, "Produce two verifiable benchmarks for new ZK-VMs in the next quarter." Funding is often provided via a stream from the parent treasury (using tools like Superfluid) or a one-time grant, held in a multi-sig or a dedicated Gnosis Safe. Governance can be permissioned (e.g., only accredited researchers vote) or use a token-weighted model specific to the Sub-DAO.

From a technical perspective, a Sub-DAO's operations are often managed by a suite of smart contracts. A common setup involves a Governor contract (like OpenZeppelin's Governor) for proposal voting, a Treasury contract to hold and disburse funds, and potentially a Registry for managing membership. For example, a proposal to fund a specific research bounty might be executed via the Governor, which then triggers a payment from the Treasury to the researcher's address upon completion, all recorded on-chain.

Effective research Sub-DAOs implement clear contribution and review processes. Work is often organized around Research Proposals (RPs) or Request for Comments (RFCs), which are submitted, debated, and approved by the Sub-DAO members. Peer review is facilitated through decentralized tools like Codex or Antifreeze for manuscript management. Compensation can be structured as bounties for specific deliverables, retroactive public goods funding (like Optimism's RPGF model), or stable streaming payments for ongoing roles.

Several successful models exist in practice. Uniswap Grants operates as a Sub-DAO focused on funding ecosystem development. mStable's Ecosystem Committee is a Sub-DAO managing grants and integrations. For a pure research example, consider a hypothetical "L2 Security Sub-DAO" within a larger scaling collective. It would have a budget to audit new rollup designs, commission formal verification reports, and maintain a vulnerability database, making swift, expert decisions without delaying the parent DAO's general operations.

Before deploying any smart contracts, define the sub-DAO's core parameters. This includes its purpose (e.g., zero-knowledge cryptography, DeFi mechanism design), membership criteria (token-gated, reputation-based, or multisig), and decision-making scope. Determine which decisions are made on-chain via proposals (like funding allocations) and which are handled off-chain (like peer review). Tools like Aragon OSx, DAOstack, or OpenZeppelin Governor provide modular frameworks for encoding these rules. Start by drafting a lightweight operating agreement that outlines these initial governance parameters.

A secure, multi-signature treasury is non-negotiable for managing research grants and operational funds. Use a Gnosis Safe configured with a relevant threshold (e.g., 3-of-5 signers) as the sub-DAO's vault. Fund it with the parent DAO's native token or a stablecoin like USDC for predictable budgeting. Integrate a tool like SafeSnap to enable gasless, off-chain voting that executes on-chain transactions only after a proposal passes. This separates deliberation from execution, reducing gas costs for members while maintaining security. Establish clear guidelines for proposal types, such as Grant Proposal, Operational Budget, and Protocol Upgrade.

For specialized research, the proposal and review process must be tailored. Implement a structured workflow using tools like Snapshot for signaling votes and Discourse or Commonwealth for in-depth discussion. A typical flow might be: 1) Idea posted for community feedback, 2) Formal research proposal (RFC) drafted with milestones and budget, 3) Peer review by designated experts or a committee, 4) Snapshot vote for approval, 5) Automated payout via Sablier or Superfluid streams upon milestone completion. This ensures accountability and continuous delivery of work.

Technical setup involves deploying and connecting the chosen governance modules. If using Aragon OSx, you will deploy a DAO contract, then install plugins like the TokenVotingPlugin for membership voting or MultisigPlugin for a council. For OpenZeppelin Governor, you'll deploy a Governor contract and a compatible ERC20Votes or ERC721Votes token. Ensure the sub-DAO's treasury Safe is set as the owner or executor of these contracts. Write and test all configuration scripts (e.g., using Hardhat or Foundry) before mainnet deployment to verify proposal lifecycle and execution paths.

Finally, establish clear reporting and knowledge-sharing mechanisms. Require funded researchers to publish findings in a public repository (like GitHub or IPFS) and present results to the parent DAO. Use Orbit or SourceCred to track contributions and reward community participation. The sub-DAO should be designed as a minimum viable structure that can evolve; build in upgrade mechanisms through governance to adjust parameters like voting periods, quorum, and membership as the research field matures.

A Sub-DAO's scope is its formal, on-chain mandate. It explicitly defines what the specialized group is authorized to research, propose, and execute. For a research Sub-DAO, this could be a specific domain like Zero-Knowledge Proofs, DeFi Mechanism Design, or Layer 2 Scaling. The scope should be narrow enough to foster deep expertise but broad enough to allow for exploration within the field. This is typically encoded in the parent DAO's governance framework, such as a Moloch v3 Guild or an Aragon OSx `Permission** that grants proposal-creation rights for a specific IPFS content hash representing the scope document.

Authority determines what the Sub-DAO can do with its findings. This is distinct from scope and must be explicitly granted by the parent DAO. Common authority models include: - Advisory: The Sub-DAO can only publish research reports and recommendations. - Proposal Power: The Sub-DAO can draft and submit fully-formed governance proposals (e.g., funding requests, protocol upgrades) to the parent DAO for a vote. - Treasury Authority: The Sub-DAO controls a designated budget from the parent treasury for grants, bug bounties, or contractor payments, often with a spending limit per proposal. The chosen model dictates the Sub-DAO's smart contract structure and permission setup.

For example, a ZK Research Sub-DAO might have a scope defined as "Research and development of zk-SNARK and zk-STARK applications for the parent protocol's privacy features." Its authority could be set to Proposal Power, allowing it to directly propose the integration of a specific proving system like Halo2 or Plonky2. This authority would be enforced via a smart contract, such as an OpenZeppelin Governor contract where the Sub-DAO's address is whitelisted as a proposer for proposals tagged with a specific topicId related to ZK research.

The first decision is determining the initial treasury composition. Will it be a single-asset treasury (e.g., all in USDC for stability) or a multi-asset portfolio? For a research Sub-DAO, a common model is a stablecoin-heavy treasury to fund predictable operational costs like grants and bounties, paired with a smaller allocation of the parent DAO's governance token to align incentives. The treasury is typically seeded via a one-time allocation from the parent DAO's main treasury, governed by an on-chain vote. For example, a MolochDAO-style ragequit mechanism can be implemented, allowing members to exit with a proportional share of the treasury if they disagree with a funding decision, aligning long-term commitment.

Next, establish clear funding mechanisms for research proposals. The core model is a grants program, but it requires structure to avoid ad-hoc spending. Implement a standardized proposal template requiring: a detailed research scope, expected deliverables (e.g., a whitepaper, prototype code, dataset), a timeline, a budget breakdown, and key performance indicators (KPIs). Funding is often released in milestone-based tranches, verified by the Sub-DAO's council or via optimistic approval periods. For smaller, rapid tasks, a bounty system managed by platforms like Coordinape or Dework can efficiently allocate capital for specific, well-defined research questions or literature reviews.

Transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. All treasury transactions—inflows, grants paid, operational expenses—must be recorded on-chain or verifiable via tools like OpenZeppelin Defender for secure multi-sig management. Implement a multi-signature wallet (e.g., Safe{Wallet}) as the treasury's core, with a council of elected members holding the signing keys. Define clear spending limits: small recurring expenses (e.g., API costs) may be auto-approved, while large grants require a full member vote. Regular financial reporting, such as quarterly statements generated by DeepDAO or Llama, is essential for maintaining trust with both the parent DAO and the research community.

Finally, plan for treasury diversification and growth. A research Sub-DAO is not just a cost center; it can generate value. Mechanisms for this include: - Retaining intellectual property (IP) rights or licensing fees for developed technology. - Allocating a portion of grant funds to acquire project tokens or equity, creating a potential return. - Running a retroactive funding round for successful research that led to profitable implementations, similar to Optimism's RetroPGF. This turns the treasury into a regenerative asset, funding future research from past successes and reducing long-term reliance on the parent DAO.

The core of a research Sub-DAO is its governance framework. This is the set of rules, encoded primarily in smart contracts, that automates proposal submission, voting, and treasury management. Unlike a general-purpose DAO, a research Sub-DAO's governance must be tailored to evaluate technical merit. Common models include a multisig council for rapid operational decisions (e.g., paying a grant) paired with a broader token-weighted vote for major strategic shifts. The choice between a Moloch v2, Compound Governor, or a custom OpenZeppelin Governor contract depends on the desired proposal lifecycle and voting mechanics.

Proposal types should reflect the Sub-DAO's mission. For a cryptography research group, standard proposals might include: Research Grant Application, Conference Funding Request, Publication Bounty, and Core Protocol Upgrade. Each type should have a tailored template requiring specific data, such as a research abstract, milestone definitions, budget breakdown, or links to academic pre-prints. Structuring proposals this way ensures consistent evaluation criteria and reduces governance overhead. Smart contracts can enforce these templates, rejecting submissions that don't meet the required format.

Voting mechanisms must align with expertise. Pure token voting can lead to decisions made by large tokenholders without domain knowledge. To mitigate this, consider conviction voting for funding proposals, where voting power increases the longer a member stakes their tokens on an option, or holographic consensus to fast-track proposals with strong early community signaling. For highly technical validation, implement a peer review committee—a small group of elected experts whose approval is a prerequisite for a proposal to move to a full DAO vote. Their reviews can be stored on-chain via IPFS or Arweave for transparency.

Treasury management is critical. A Sub-DAO's treasury, often a Gnosis Safe multi-signature wallet, should be configured with spending limits and automated streams. Use Sablier or Superfluid for streaming grant payouts upon verified milestone completion, reducing counterparty risk. Establish clear rules: for example, grants under 5 ETH can be approved by a 3-of-5 multisig, while amounts above that require a full Sub-DAO vote. All transactions must be visible on a dashboard like Boardroom or Tally to maintain trust and accountability among members.

Finally, define clear exit or sunset mechanisms. Research fields evolve, and a Sub-DAO may complete its mandate or need to pivot. The governance rules should specify a process for dissolving the Sub-DAO and redistributing any remaining treasury funds back to the parent DAO or to a successor entity. This could be triggered by a supermajority vote or after a prolonged period of inactivity. Planning for an orderly conclusion from the start ensures resources are never permanently locked in an inactive organization.

The core of a research Sub-DAO is a modular smart contract architecture. A typical stack includes a governance module (e.g., OpenZeppelin Governor), a treasury module for fund management, and a specialized research registry. The registry is a critical custom component that stores metadata for research proposals, including IPFS hashes for papers, data, and code, alongside on-chain attestations of peer review and completion status. This structure ensures all research outputs are immutably recorded and accessible, forming a verifiable ledger of the collective's work.

For deployment, start by selecting an appropriate base chain considering transaction costs and tooling. Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism, or app-chains using Cosmos SDK or Polygon CDK, are common choices for research DAOs due to lower fees. Use a development framework like Hardhat or Foundry to write and test your contracts. Key initial steps involve deploying the treasury (a multi-signature wallet like Safe), the governance token (ERC-20 or ERC-1155 for badges), and the governor contract, configuring parameters like voting delay and quorum.

The research proposal lifecycle must be encoded into the smart contracts. A typical flow begins with a member submitting a proposal to the governor, which includes a call to the treasury to disburse funds and a call to the research registry to create a new entry. Voting occurs on-chain, and upon successful execution, funds are released. Smart contracts should also enforce milestone-based payouts, where subsequent treasury transactions are only authorized after the registry is updated with proof of a completed milestone, verified by an on-chain attestation from assigned reviewers.

Integrate off-chain data responsibly using oracles and decentralized storage. Store large research files, datasets, and manuscript PDFs on IPFS or Arweave, recording the Content Identifier (CID) in the on-chain registry. For verifiable off-chain computation or data fetching, use a decentralized oracle network like Chainlink. This hybrid approach keeps gas costs manageable while maintaining cryptographic guarantees about the data's integrity and availability, which is essential for reproducible research.

Security and upgradeability are paramount. All contracts must undergo rigorous audits before mainnet deployment. Use proxy patterns (e.g., Transparent Proxy or UUPS) for your core logic contracts to allow for future upgrades, but place the upgrade mechanism under the DAO's governance control. This ensures the community can patch vulnerabilities or adopt new standards without sacrificing decentralization. Tools like OpenZeppelin Defender can automate proposal creation and contract administration post-deployment.

Effective Sub-DAO governance requires a formalized reporting cadence. Establish a regular schedule—such as bi-weekly written updates and quarterly review calls—for the Sub-DAO's core team to present to the parent DAO's governance body. These reports should move beyond activity logs to focus on outcomes. Key components include a treasury report detailing budget burn rate and remaining runway, a research progress update against the approved roadmap, and a summary of community engagement metrics from forums and working groups. This structured transparency builds trust and allows for proactive course correction.

Define clear, measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that align the Sub-DAO's specialized work with the parent DAO's broader mission. For a research Sub-DAO, KPIs might include: the number of peer-reviewed publications or technical reports produced, the volume of code commits to a shared repository (e.g., a GitHub org), successful grant acquisitions from external funders like the Ethereum Foundation, or the adoption rate of proposed standards by other projects. These metrics should be agreed upon during the Sub-DAO's charter ratification and reviewed during quarterly reports. Avoid vanity metrics; focus on indicators that demonstrate genuine contribution and impact.

The ultimate mechanism for alignment is the control of the Sub-DAO Treasury. A common multi-sig setup involves a 3-of-5 wallet where two signers are appointed by the Sub-DAO and three are designated by the parent DAO. This ensures the Sub-DAO can operate efficiently for day-to-day expenses while requiring parent DAO consensus for large, strategic expenditures. All transactions should be visible on-chain and summarized in treasury reports. Tools like Safe{Wallet} for fund custody and Dune Analytics or DeepDAO for dashboarding can automate much of this transparency, making it easier for all stakeholders to monitor health and alignment.

Building a functional research Sub-DAO requires moving from theory to practice. Start by deploying your governance framework using a tool like Aragon, Colony, or DAOhaus. Define your initial membership and token distribution, then lock the governance parameters into your chosen smart contracts. For on-chain research outputs, consider using IPFS or Arweave for permanent storage, with content identifiers (CIDs) recorded on-chain for provenance. Establish clear communication channels on Discord or Telegram and a shared workspace on Notion or GitHub to coordinate work.

To ensure long-term success, your Sub-DAO must integrate with its parent organization. This involves setting up a secure cross-chain bridge or messaging layer like Axelar or Wormhole if operating on a different blockchain. Establish a formal proposal process for requesting funding from the main DAO treasury, which typically involves submitting a detailed research plan, budget, and expected deliverables. Implement reporting mechanisms, such as quarterly on-chain attestations or verifiable credential badges (e.g., using Disco.xyz), to maintain accountability and transparency with stakeholders.

The final step is to operationalize your research workflow. Create bounties on platforms like Layer3 or DeWork for specific literature reviews or data analysis tasks. Use Snapshot for off-chain sentiment polling on research directions before committing on-chain votes. For managing grants and milestone-based payments, leverage smart contract templates from OpenZeppelin or Superfluid for streaming payments. Continuously monitor key metrics: proposal participation rate, research output velocity, and treasury burn rate. This data will be crucial for iterating on your Sub-DAO's structure and processes in subsequent governance cycles.