A man named Elon Musk, who makes electric cars and rockets, is not happy with the rules in a place called Delaware. He had a big amount of money that he could get from his company, but a judge there said it was too much and took it away. So, another man named Balaji Srinivasan has an idea to use something called DAOs instead. DAOs are like groups where people can make decisions together without a boss. They use special technology called blockchain that makes them fair and easy to use. Some places in the US and even far away have started to accept this new way of making companies. Read from source...

- The article is written with an obvious bias towards DAOs and Srinivasan's vision. It does not provide a balanced view of the pros and cons of using blockchain platforms for incorporation.
- The author fails to mention that Delaware has been the preferred state for incorporation for many companies due to its well-established corporate laws, courts, and reputation. The recent legal challenges in Delaware do not necessarily mean it is no longer a viable option for incorporation.
- The article also ignores the fact that DAOs are not without their own challenges and risks. For example, they lack legal recognition and enforceability, which could pose problems for companies seeking to operate globally. Additionally, DAOs may face regulatory uncertainty and potential legal issues depending on the jurisdiction they operate in.
- The author's use of Musk's opinion post as a starting point is misleading, as it does not reflect the views or opinions of most experts or professionals in the field. Musk's personal experience with Delaware should not be taken as a representative sample of the broader issues and considerations related to incorporation and corporate governance.
- The author's reliance on Srinivasan's opinion is problematic, as he has a vested interest in promoting DAOs and blockchain platforms. He is an advocate for this technology and a co-founder of several companies involved in the space. His views should be taken with caution and evaluated critically.
- The article also suffers from emotional language, such as "tried hard to drive away corporations" or "invalidated a pay package worth $55.8 billion". These expressions are exaggerated and sensationalized, which detracts from the credibility and objectivity of the piece.
- The article does not provide sufficient evidence or data to support its claims. It would have been more helpful if it included statistics on the adoption rates, benefits, or challenges of using DAOs for incorporation, as well as comparisons with traditional methods. This would have made the article more informative and persuasive for readers.