DAO LLC Availability by State — Explainer

Matrix explainer. Coverage: whether a state's LLC Act lets an LLC elect “decentralized autonomous organization” (DAO) status by statute. 51 jurisdictions surveyed. Not legal advice.

Short answer

Two states, out of 51 jurisdictions surveyed, let an LLC elect DAO status under their LLC Act: Wyoming and Tennessee. Wyoming was first, in 2021; Tennessee followed in 2022. Every other jurisdiction surveyed has no DAO-specific election inside its LLC Act — including a handful of states with DAO-adjacent or blockchain-adjacent laws that look close but test out differently once read directly.

What actually counts as a DAO LLC election

A state clears the bar only if its LLC Act contains all three of these, confirmed directly from the statute text:

• A dedicated chapter or supplement that applies the base LLC Act to a decentralized organization except where the new chapter says otherwise — not a stray definition or a passing mention.
• An election mechanism: a statement in the articles of organization that the company is a decentralized autonomous organization, available to new formations and, in both states that qualify, to an existing LLC converting by amendment.
• A legal-name marker requirement — the entity's name must include a DAO-denoting term (Wyoming: “DAO,” “LAO,” or “DAO LLC”; Tennessee: “DO,” “DAO,” “DO LLC.,” or “DAO LLC.”).

General LLC freedom-of-contract — the fact that most states let members structure governance however an operating agreement provides, which could in principle describe something DAO-shaped — does not satisfy this test on its own. Without a named chapter, an election mechanism, and a name-marker requirement, a state is scored “no,” not “informally yes.”

Wyoming and Tennessee, specifically

Wyoming's Decentralized Autonomous Organization Supplement (W.S. 17-31-101 to 17-31-116, enacted 2021) states plainly: “A decentralized autonomous organization is a limited liability company whose articles of organization contain a statement that the company is a decentralized autonomous organization” (17-31-104(a)). The election and name-marker requirements sit in the same section (17-31-104(b)–(d)).

Tennessee's Decentralized Organization Supplement (Tenn. Code Ann. §§48-250-101 to -115, enacted 2022 as Public Chapter 852) follows the same shape: the base LLC Act applies to a decentralized organization except where the new chapter provides otherwise (§48-250-102), the election runs through the articles of organization for new or converting LLCs (§48-250-103(a)–(b)), and the legal name must carry a DAO-denoting marker (§48-250-103(d)).

Near misses worth naming

A few jurisdictions have real, enacted legislation that sits close to this topic without clearing the bar — worth naming directly so the distinction is clear, not just implied by their absence from the “yes” list:

• Utah enacted its own Decentralized Autonomous Organization Act in 2023 (Title 48, Chapter 5) — but it creates a separate, non-LLC entity type with its own formation and filing requirements. The statute itself bars the words “limited liability company” from a Utah DAO's legal name. A Utah DAO is a different structure, organized under a different chapter, not a DAO LLC.
• Vermont has permitted a Blockchain-Based LLC election since 2018 (11 V.S.A. §§4171–4176) — any LLC that uses blockchain technology for a material part of its business may elect BBLLC status. That is a technology-use designation, not a DAO-governance designation, and Vermont has no separate chapter naming or defining a DAO.
• West Virginia enacted a “Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act” in the same bill that touched its LLC statute — a leaderless-nonprofit-governance framework, a distinct and older legal concept predating blockchain DAOs, and not an LLC election of any kind.
• Virginia came closest to a third state without enacting one: a 2026 bill titled the “Limited Liability Decentralized Autonomous Organization (LLD) Act” was introduced but failed — passed by indefinitely in committee on a 15-0 vote. No DAO chapter exists in Virginia's LLC Act as a result.

What this page does not prove

• Two states is a count of statutes, not a count of DAOs actually formed. This page tracks whether the legal election exists, not how many entities have used it in either state.
• General LLC flexibility is not a substitute. An LLC in any of the other 49 jurisdictions can still structure member governance broadly through its operating agreement — that freedom exists nationwide and is a separate question from whether the state's LLC Act has a named DAO election.
• Legislation changes. Virginia's failed 2026 bill is a snapshot, not a permanent status — a future session could reintroduce and pass similar language. Confirm current status against the state's own legislature before relying on this page.

See also: Close LLC by State — Explainer