The fun part is: "CFTC’s order first finds that virtual currencies traded on the bZx Protocol, including ETH and DAI, are “commodities” under the CEA.", which is close to "It's cute you set up your daos and automated protocols, but legally that's irrelevant."
Regarding ignoring the identity: "The order further finds that the Ooki DAO failed to adopt a customer identification program, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Commission regulations promulgated thereunder."
So they settled, interesting! Sad it didn't go to court, could have made a curious precedent. This is different, however (although I haven't done much legal work in this space) as it's an investment open source DAO can be structured in a way that does not have clear beneficiary structure and as long as the primary software developer can show that they can't exert ultimate control of the network, it's all for nil. (Now that's a whole different kettle of fish!) You have things like GNU Taler potentially being able to map the existing irl ownership structures quite closely, and all kinds of ZKP, Shamir-based stuff on the end of the spectrum where it all breaks down. I allude to the latter, which would make sense (technically using a mixer would constitute money laundering in the spirit of the law but we don't see people get charged with it, never. And doing so would set a disturbing precedent. If you're starting with some primary shareholder, you're probably doing DAO wrong, and it then becomes less decentralised and more like crypto cosplay on the prior structure.
The fun part is: "CFTC’s order first finds that virtual currencies traded on the bZx Protocol, including ETH and DAI, are “commodities” under the CEA.", which is close to "It's cute you set up your daos and automated protocols, but legally that's irrelevant."
Regarding ignoring the identity: "The order further finds that the Ooki DAO failed to adopt a customer identification program, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Commission regulations promulgated thereunder."