Commentary-3
With respect to Administrator (Article 3(2)), common terms used for Administrators may include 'Directors', 'Trustees' or 'Committee Members,' depending on the preference of the DAO in question.
With respect to Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (Article 3(7)), the definition distinguishes between Smart Contracts that qualify as DAOs for the purpose of this Model Law and those that do not qualify as DAOs, based on the technical design and implementation of their governance structure. The governance of a DAO is always technically---although not necessarily operationally---decentralized. From a purely technical perspective, the DAO must provide at least the potential of decentralized governance. For example, a Smart Contract that is controlled by an Externally Owned Account will not qualify as a DAO within the scope of this Model Law, because one single entity can unilaterally affect the operation of said Smart Contract. This holds true even if the actions of said single entity are determined by a distributed governance system operating outside of the blockchain. Conversely, a Smart Contract whose governance is based on a Token-based system will most likely qualify as a DAO, even if a single entity could theoretically control a majority of these tokens.
With respect to Smart Contract (Article 3(33)), the reference to "predefined conditions" means that all terms are explicitly fixed and immutable, whereas "deterministic conditions" means that for any valid input provided, the same result is returned regardless of when the function is executed.
With respect to Person (Article 3(27)), we follow the approach of the OECD Model Tax Convention (2017), which defines a person as "an individual, a company and any other body of persons".[^14] The OECD Report on the Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention (1999), clarifies that this term also covers foundations and partnerships.[^15]