To survive, a DAO has to attract the participation of significant active stakeholders to the stream of building and voting proposals for the evolution of the specific underlying subject (dapps, networks, etc).
The underlying subject, in a living and vibrant DAO, inevitably evolves. Why then, shouldn't the relations between a possible Parent DAO and the Sub Dao change? Such relations should be mutable and dynamically constructed on the basis of an interest on the part of a DAO to align itself, on the basis of principles, underlying subject or other, with other DAOs. This alignment could be long lasting, temporary or even ephemeral (i.e. on the base of a single proposal).
Inspired by the Inter-blockchain communication protocol (IBC) and on the basis of the above, it could be worth to think of an Inter-DAO Collaboration protocol (IDC), i.e. a protocol that allows other DAOs to participate (propose and vote) in the governance of other DAOs, on the basis of an invitation from the latter. This invitation (whitelist, rules, etc.) would in fact create a one-way relationship (which could eventually be reciprocal - and therefore bidirectional - with a counter-invitation). This would preserve the sovereignty (and hence the governance based on its own tokenomics) of the individual DAO and promote dynamic relationships without forcing anyone to simplify into a hierarchical structure of any kind.
Such a Network of DAOs would express a range of rich and unprecedented information such as the relationships between the DAOs (and thus several possible aligned nebulae) the brightness, in terms of the vitality of individual DAOs, all changing over time through the transformation of aggregations and vitality
- Proposal Module that instead of executing on members (people who have staked some tokens) in the DAO voting, lets a whitelist of DAOs to vote
- Whitelisting of other DAOs becomes either a subDAO / pod decision, or a decision by the normal members voting on proposals