# kaal:claim:3782201-024

**Claim.** Because voting power in the 2016 DAO could be purchased, the exact cost of destroying it was calculable, and had it lasted longer than a month someone would eventually have amassed the money to arbitrage its trivial governance structure.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- governance systems in which voting power is purchasable

**Source quote.**

> Voting power could be purchased, so we know precisely how much money it would cost to destroy the RWOQ DAO. If it were more successful, and lasted longer than a month, someone would have eventually amassed the money to arbitrage the trivial governance structure.

**From.** Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, *Future of Decentralization* (2021), The 2016 DAO, page 23

**Cite as.** Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Future of Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782201

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `bedf7bcfbb7a9b0112b5848cb0d941b1d41f330dafeee0143a30ff5e8aa53700` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Calcaterra%20and%20Kaal%20-%202021%20-%20Future%20of%20Decentralization.pdf

**Failure mode.** governance arbitrage through purchasable voting power  (family: plutocratic-capture)

**Topics.** governance-design, dao

**Keywords.** governance-arbitrage, the-dao, vote-buying, dao-design

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.