DAOs are useful for democratizing control of whatever you want (apps, investment funds, etc.). Because their voting power is typically tokenized, you naturally have varying levels of investment and thus power among members. Most of the time, this means that the elite few have full control of the DAO's direction, and most participants don't bother to vote.
Compared with traditional online communities where a single person or company has full control, DAOs move slower. It takes time to communicate plans to members, gather support for a proposal, and cast votes before even implementing what you want to do.
In most cases, DAOs start out as centralized entities and wait to tokenize and split control among members until they reach a certain level of maturity. This is what we're doing now with KAP.
As long as the centralized entity in control acts in the community's best interest, centralization is a very useful tool. While a community is just starting out, the owners have to behave or risk losing momentum well before they have enough people interested in sharing control.
Unfortunately, the shift to decentralization tends to slow down operations drastically as we've already said. So, I'm proposing a DAO model where there is a dictator appointed by the community. They can make decisions quickly, but members have the right to veto any decision made. Members can also choose to restrict the dictator's powers or elect a new dictator at any time with a standard voting procedure.
This plays well with human psychology. As you know, people tend to ignore voting, leaving feedback, etc. whenever they're happy with the way things are. They won't take the time to vote until something happens that they don't like. Veto votes are perfect for keeping the DAO in line with community desires.
P.S. I'm probably not the first person to come up with this. If you know of any DAOs already doing this or anyone else talking about this topic, let me know so I can reach out to them.