Personally, I think DAO is a joke, from a certain point of view, it personally split the ETH, the emergence of ETH and ETC
That was not intended as a joke. It was a good experiment. But it failed due to a bug in the software implementation.
As if it can be expected that complex code will not contain a bug or an exploit. That was the first failure but it is a *fundamental* failure: one cannot write complex software from scratch, without having it used, and the guarantee that no bug or exploit will exist.
Normal software gets around this, by updates, when bugs or exploits are detected. But, by definition, smart contracts cannot be updated because they are a contract which has, of course, to remain in place as it was originally convened (unless you make the update part of the contract, which opens even more the Pandora's box of potential bugs and exploits).
The principle of complex, Turing complete, bug free and exploit free smart contracts from the start, unstoppable and unalterable, is an oxymoron.
Moreover, the *economic function* of the DAO was ridiculous, as I posted earlier. There's nothing the DAO could economically accomplish which simple crowd funding cannot accomplish. It just got vastly more complicated, where some privileged got more to say about other people's money.
I really wonder what was the sense of this experiment, of which the disastrous outcome was evidently predictable. Did one really need to mess with $150 million to find out the obvious ?