# Osmosis Community Audit SubDAO **URL:** \ **Category:** Sub DAOs\ **Created:** [January 11, 2024, 8:47am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/osmosis-community-audit-subdao/2159 "2024-01-11T08:47:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 20
**Author:** ![jasonsprouse](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.osmosis.zone/jasonsprouse/32/1600_2.png) [@jasonsprouse](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/jasonsprouse)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2024, 7:41pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/osmosis-community-audit-subdao/2159/20 "2024-01-22T19:41:27Z")
Here’s the same information shared in Osmosis. > [@IBCX: The First Rebalancing](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/ibcx-the-first-rebalancing/1408/10): > > I’m in agreement that Regen shouldn’t be removed. Using their current market cap as a metric for the value Regen adds to IBCX seems very capitalistic. There are several ways to go about growing the value of that chain and if we could get a team of people using DAO DAO to coordinate an international operation it could realize it’s true potential. Having all the chains/DAOs that are a part of the IBCX index employee people to do traditional labor could accomplish two things at once - Organica… I’m not saying it to be passive aggressive. Searching for or sharing links across several comms channels to communicate a consistent message to multiple communities is a waste of time in principle for anyone. If your one who is efficient with time management - you wouldn’t expect this for yourself or anyone else - hence why having an IBCX oriented DAO and community representatives across different IBCX chains is the most logical way to consolidate that kind of effort. > [@LeonoorsCryptoman](#): > > (especially since DAOs are illegal according to current legal frameworks, so if you want to bring it to a higher standard and comply with laws and regulations, then DAOs are not the way to go… but I guess you already knew that). DAO’s are formal legally represented entitles in several jurisdictions - including the United States. > [@LeonoorsCryptoman](#): > > In my opinion if we manage to get the forum more alive with good discussions on the (right) content, we don’t need to overcomplicate things with a DAO. Content ≠ conducting business across multiple sectors taking in income that taxes will have to be paid on with paid employees with the goal to provide benefits too also. > [@LeonoorsCryptoman](#): > > Anyways, I think you should create a separate thread for your wishes and ideas, since they are a different topic. This thread was started by @POSTHUMAN to create an Audit subDAO to assess funding requests, regardless of the content. I think a subdao auditing this kind of propostion is in the scope of the inital thread, but it is deserving of it’s own thread - I do agree. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/osmosis-community-audit-subdao/2159)._