Attack 1 · original
Do we even need smart contracts?
Solo landowners don't operate hardware wallets. Land trusts have institutional governance already. Corporate landowners want board-style governance. For Templates A, B, D, E, G, smart contracts are over-engineering — a Vermont LLC with a sound operating agreement and a multi-sig treasury wallet does the job at roughly 10% of the cost.
Scenario
Solo landowners don't operate hardware wallets. Land trusts have institutional governance already. Corporate landowners want board-style governance. For Templates A, B, D, E, G, smart contracts are over-engineering — a Vermont LLC with a sound operating agreement and a multi-sig treasury wallet does the job at roughly 10% of the cost.
Mechanism
Uniform smart-contract DAO assumption inflates audit cost from ~$200k (Template C only) to ~$500k+. The architectural elegance of 'everything is a DAO' breaks down because most templates don't benefit from on-chain governance.
Mitigation
Graduated complexity adopted: Tier 1 (Templates A, B, D, E, G) uses Vermont LLC + multi-sig treasury + operating-agreement governance; Tier 2 (Templates C, F) uses full smart-contract DAO with audited governance modules. Cryptographic attestation, per-property isolation, Earth Credits/positions firewall, and permissioned membership remain universal across both tiers.
Residual risk
Tier 1 deployments lack the automated governance trail and cryptographic on-chain auditability that Tier 2 provides. Manual discipline must substitute for technical enforcement in multi-sig contexts.