Template
Template F — Hybrid Multi-Stakeholder
DAO; genuinely multi-party; full audited module stack with composed guardian veto.
Tier 2 — full smart-contract DAO with audited governance modules. Per-deployment audit required.
For properties that genuinely span multiple stakeholder shapes — where a single template cannot honestly represent the governance reality.
When to use Template F
A property uses Template F when the realistic governance involves multiple of the following at meaningful authority:
- Solo or family landowner
- Conservation NGO
- Corporate landowner or lessee
- Sovereign agency
- Indigenous community
If only one of these is the principal stakeholder, use the corresponding single template (A, B, D, E, or C). Template F is reserved for genuinely composed governance.
Examples:
- Indigenous co-management of a national park (Template E components + Template C components)
- Corporate lessee on community-owned land (Template D + Template C)
- Multi-NGO conservation block (multiple Template B components — though usually better split into per-parcel deployments instead)
- Mixed sovereign + private landowner adjacent properties under coordinated governance (E + A or B)
Why Template F requires Tier 2
When governance is genuinely multi-party with veto rights and FPIC checkpoints, smart contracts add real value:
- Multi-sig requirements across heterogeneous parties (sovereign + community + landowner)
- Clear governance trail for cross-stakeholder dispute review
- Cryptographic accountability for FPIC and sovereign approvals
A Vermont LLC with operating-agreement governance can express multi-party governance, but the operational complexity is much higher than for single-stakeholder LLCs. Smart contracts provide automation that reduces operational error.
Template F is the most expensive template
Per-deployment audit is required because each Hybrid composition is partially bespoke:
- The seat composition varies per deployment
- Voting weights vary per deployment
- FPIC integration with sovereign approval varies
- Cultural-guardian veto integration with corporate governance varies
A single audit of “the Hybrid template” doesn’t cover the deployment-specific composition. Each deployment needs:
- Verification that seat composition and voting work as designed
- Verification that veto and supermajority interactions don’t deadlock
- Verification of cross-stakeholder dispute paths
- Securities perimeter analysis specific to the composition
Per-deployment audit cost: ~$80k–$150k. This is on top of the audited core’s reusable audit ($200k for Template C audit, partly reusable for F).
Vehicle structure
Wrapper entity: jurisdictional-appropriate DAO LLC (Vermont BBLLC for US; Marshall Islands DAO LLC for non-US).
Treasury: smart-contract-managed multi-sig with on-chain governance triggers.
Operating agreement: incorporates the smart-contract operating logic; includes specific provisions for cross-stakeholder dispute resolution and political-disruption fallback.
Beneficiaries — composed from underlying templates
Template F’s seat composition draws from the templates being combined. For example, indigenous co-management of a national park (E + C):
| Seat | Holder | Voting weight | Veto rights |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign agency | National park service designee | Residual on national-policy decisions | National-policy veto |
| Indigenous community council | Community-determined seats | Majority on use decisions affecting community lands | Cultural FPIC veto |
| Cultural guardian | Community-designated | Cultural decisions | Cultural-action veto |
| Local management body | Park manager | Operational decisions | None |
| Adjacent stakeholders (optional) | Per agreement | Advisory | None |
| Landseed steward | Landseed PBC | Methodology authority | Guardian veto on destruction |
Each seat’s voting weight and veto scope are co-designed for the specific deployment.
Governance — explicit conflict resolution required
Multi-party governance is prone to deadlock. Template F’s governance module includes:
| Mechanism | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Decision class routing | Different decision classes go to different seat configurations (e.g., methodology decisions to sovereign + Landseed; cultural decisions to community + cultural guardian; treasury actions to all) |
| Mediation requirement | Disputes between seats trigger mandatory mediation before any litigation |
| Designated mediator | Pre-identified party (typically a regional partner organization) mediates |
| Time delays on contentious actions | Contentious decisions require longer review periods |
| Fallback to operating-agreement governance | If smart-contract governance deadlocks, fallback to operating-agreement-defined human review |
Without explicit conflict resolution, Template F deployments will deadlock. The audit must verify that conflict resolution mechanisms work.
Distribution profile
Distribution is composed from underlying templates. For E + C:
| Recipient | Share | Source template |
|---|---|---|
| Community fund | 30–50% | C-style |
| National environmental fund | 25–40% | E-style |
| Local management / stewardship reserve | 10–25% | E-style |
| Cultural-guardian-controlled discretionary fund | 5–15% | C-style |
| Landseed protocol fee | 2–5% | Universal |
Specific percentages are co-designed per deployment.
Deployment
| Phase | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-stakeholder engagement | 6–24 months | Each stakeholder’s institutional engagement, sovereign-treaty review, community FPIC, etc. |
| Co-design workshops | 6–12 months | Composition of seats, voting structure, distribution rules |
| Smart contract development (largely from audited core; bespoke composition) | 6–12 months | Composed module set assembled and parameterized |
| Per-deployment audit | 3–6 months | Specialized audit covering composition specifics |
| Outside review | 2–3 months parallel | Indigenous-rights advocate (for any C component); sovereign-treaty review (for any E component); securities review |
| Wrapper entity formation | 2–4 weeks | Jurisdictional DAO LLC |
| NRD-lite drafted | 8–16 weeks | Per drafting strategy; may require multiple jurisdictional considerations |
| NRD-lite recorded | 4–12 weeks | Per sovereign jurisdiction |
| Capacity building | Ongoing | Each stakeholder’s technical and operational capacity |
| Operational | Ongoing | With ongoing multi-stakeholder coordination |
Total: 24–48 months. The slowest deployment of any template. The complexity is the architectural concession to multi-party reality.
Risks specific to Template F
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Stakeholder-coalition disagreement on basic governance | Comprehensive pre-deployment co-design; if disagreement persists, deployment delayed |
| One stakeholder withdraws mid-deployment | Operating agreement provides for graceful withdrawal; remaining stakeholders may renegotiate |
| Smart contract deadlock from veto interactions | Audit verifies; fallback to operating-agreement governance |
| Cross-stakeholder political conflict (e.g., government vs. community) | Mediation-first; in extreme cases, deployment may need to suspend |
| Ambiguity on which jurisdiction’s law applies | Choice-of-law clauses explicit per dispute class |
| Per-deployment audit expense | Budgeted; deployments where the cost cannot be justified should not use Template F |
When NOT to use Template F
Template F is overkill if:
- The actual governance is single-stakeholder-dominant; multi-party engagement is informal
- The “complexity” is administrative rather than substantive
- The property could be split into multiple parcels each with a single-template DAO/LLC
The discipline: ask whether the property is genuinely multi-stakeholder. If the answer is unclear, default away from Template F. Use it sparingly.
Template F’s existence signals
A growing volume of Template F deployments would signal that:
- The architecture’s other templates aren’t capturing real-world stakeholder shapes (problem)
- Or: the architecture is being deployed in increasingly complex situations (success)
Operations should track Template F prevalence. If more than ~15% of deployments are Template F, evaluate whether new single-template additions to the library are needed.
Audit budget for Template F deployments
| Item | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Initial Template F audit (composing existing audited modules) | $150k–$300k (in addition to per-component template audit) |
| Per-deployment Hybrid audit | $80k–$150k |
| Composition-specific securities review | $30k–$50k |
| Outside reviews (per applicable component) | $20k–$50k each |
Total per deployment: $280k–$550k just for audit and review. Plus all other deployment costs. Template F deployments should typically have $1M+ deployment budgets. Properties where this cannot be justified should not use Template F.