Challenging the 100-Member Requirement for DUNAs Under Wyoming Law

Introduction

The Wyoming Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (the "Act") represents a groundbreaking effort to provide legal recognition and structure to Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and other decentralized entities. However, the Act imposes a 100-member minimum requirement for an organization to qualify as a Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA). This requirement, while ostensibly designed to ensure the legitimacy and stability of DUNAs, may inadvertently stifle innovation, limit the applicability of the Act to smaller communities, and create unnecessary barriers to entry. This paper argues that the 100-member requirement is overly restrictive, conflicts with principles of state and federal law, and should be reduced to a more reasonable number, such as 12, to better align with the goals of fostering decentralized innovation and community-driven organizations.

I. The 100-Member Requirement: A Barrier to Innovation and Community Formation

The 100-member requirement for DUNAs is akin to imposing a minimum size on nonprofit organizations, LLCs, or corporations, which is not a standard practice in U.S. law. This requirement disproportionately affects smaller communities and startups that could benefit from the legal protections and structure provided by the Act. For example:

• Nonprofit Organizations: Under federal and state law, there is no minimum membership requirement for forming a nonprofit organization. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants tax-exempt status to organizations based on their purpose and activities, not their size. For instance, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) allows even small groups to qualify as tax-exempt entities if they meet the statutory criteria.
• LLCs and Corporations: Wyoming law, like most state laws, does not impose a minimum number of members or shareholders for forming an LLC or corporation. Wyoming Statutes § 17-29-101 et seq. (the Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act) allows single-member LLCs, reflecting a policy of encouraging business formation regardless of size.
• Community Formation: The 100-member requirement contradicts the very concept of a "community," which can be as small as a handful of individuals united by a common purpose. For example, a neighborhood association or a local charity with fewer than 100 members can still have a significant impact on its community. Imposing a 100-member minimum undermines the Act's potential to empower smaller, grassroots organizations.

II. Legal Conflicts and Precedents

The 100-member requirement raises several legal concerns under both Wyoming and federal law:

• Equal Protection and Due Process: The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. By imposing a 100-member requirement, the Act creates an arbitrary distinction between larger and smaller organizations, potentially violating the principle of equal protection. In Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), the Supreme Court held that laws creating arbitrary classifications must be struck down.
• Freedom of Association: The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of association. In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to associate includes the right to form organizations, regardless of their size. The 100-member requirement could be seen as an undue restriction on this right.
• Precedents in Nonprofit and Corporate Law: Wyoming's own laws do not impose size requirements on other types of entities. For example, Wyoming Statutes § 17-19-101 et seq. (the Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation Act) allows nonprofits to form with as few as one member. This inconsistency suggests that the 100-member requirement for DUNAs is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis.

III. Policy Arguments for Reducing the Member Requirement

1. Encouraging Innovation: DAOs and decentralized organizations are often experimental and community-driven. By reducing the member requirement to 12, Wyoming could encourage smaller, innovative projects to take advantage of the Act's legal protections, fostering a more inclusive ecosystem.

2. Mitigating Fraud and Fiscal Negligence: The Act's provisions on governance, liability protection, and indemnity are sufficient to address concerns about fraud and fiscal negligence, regardless of the size of the organization. Smaller organizations are not inherently more prone to misconduct, and the Act's existing safeguards are adequate to mitigate these risks.

3. Aligning with Community Needs: Many communities, particularly in rural areas, may not have 100 members interested in forming a DUNA. Reducing the requirement would allow these communities to benefit from the Act's provisions, promoting local economic development and civic engagement.

IV. Applying Principles of Persuasion and Legal Argumentation

1. The Socratic Method: By questioning the rationale behind the 100-member requirement, we can expose its lack of a clear, logical basis. For example:

• Why should a DUNA with 99 members be denied legal recognition, while one with 100 members qualifies?
• What evidence supports the claim that smaller organizations are more prone to fraud or mismanagement?

2. How to Win Friends and Influence People: To persuade lawmakers and stakeholders, we must frame the argument in terms of shared values and mutual benefits. For example:

• Emphasize the importance of fostering innovation and community empowerment, which are goals shared by both proponents of the Act and its critics.
• Highlight the potential economic and social benefits of allowing smaller organizations to form DUNAs, such as job creation and increased civic engagement.

3. Legal Persuasion: Use analogies to existing laws and precedents to demonstrate the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the 100-member requirement. For example:

• Compare the Act to the Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation Act, which imposes no minimum membership requirement.
• Cite federal cases like Reed v. Reed and NAACP v. Alabama to show that arbitrary restrictions on organizational formation are unconstitutional.

V. Proposed Amendments to the Act

To address these concerns, the Act should be amended as follows:

1. Reduce the Minimum Membership Requirement: Lower the minimum number of members required to form a DUNA from 100 to 12, aligning with the size of many small communities and startups.
2. Add a Safeguard for Smaller Organizations: Include provisions requiring smaller DUNAs to adopt additional governance measures, such as regular audits or reporting requirements, to address concerns about fraud and fiscal negligence.
3. Clarify the Definition of "Community": Define "community" in a way that reflects the diverse sizes and structures of organizations that may seek to form DUNAs, ensuring that the Act is inclusive and flexible.

Conclusion

The 100-member requirement for DUNAs under Wyoming law is an unnecessary barrier to innovation and community formation. By reducing this requirement to a more reasonable number, such as 12, Wyoming can better align the Act with principles of state and federal law, foster a more inclusive ecosystem for decentralized organizations, and empower smaller communities to take advantage of the Act's legal protections. This change would not only enhance the Act's applicability but also reinforce Wyoming's position as a leader in blockchain and decentralized technology innovation.

Legal Disclaimer

Disclaimer

The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by accessing or using this information. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice, and you should not rely on it as such. Always consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction for advice regarding any specific legal issue or matter. Laws and regulations may vary by location and are subject to change, and only a licensed attorney can provide guidance tailored to your unique circumstances.

The author, publisher, and any affiliated parties disclaim any liability for any actions taken or not taken based on the information provided in this document. Use of this information is at your own risk. If you require legal assistance, please seek the aid of a competent attorney.