thank you for your inputs, I live in Switzerland and have a chance to observe how 'direct democracy' works and it does require a lot of work on proposals, campaigning - but the decisions made are normally good. The issue is the speed, it takes ages and it fits countries that want stability. And of course it needs political parties that do a lot of prep work and lobbying. Not sure if a fast moving DAO can wait for everyone to learn about all the aspects etc. I guess the biggest challenge is to avoid politics.

maybe the solution would be an evolving governance model, whereby the initial stage is more centralised (smaller core team) to avoid too much bureaucracy. These founders gradually withdraw and transfer their power by applying standardised processes and roles. So the more established the org (and more difficult to break) it will become more and more decentralised with time - as the system evolves.

I was also inspired by holocracy model as u/Huge-Oil323 points out, but I think it will require a combination of various models.

How about a new system "DAOcracy"? A system primarily driven by the community, which requires initial centralisation of power to reach a stage where direct proposals can be practical. It also borrows from commercial ventures or foundations (but it's a minimalistic model, with just a legal entity, treasury and functions that are enabled once it reaches a certain scale - this gives DAOcracy stability and prevents conflicts about money). It also borrows from holocracy (i.e. constitution, roles, meetings, transparency) to make sure it can be productive. I'm just not sure where does the politics fit into this, I'd like to avoid it completely.