The reason why "DAOs" require traditional governance is because blockchains can only do strict global consensus

The assumption is you need a token to organise said governance, but this is not true. Indeed, some DAOs would be much better off following the worker cooperative or consumer cooperative model, rather than the public company model, with democratic voting and vetos for checks and balances (instead of being controlled by few whales, as it is for almost all crypto projects now - not just not decentralized, but very centralized. VCAOs, if you will, pun intended) 

Yeah, I get it, token gambling is crypto's big usecase, but it doesn't have to be. Building the best possible protocol to attract the most users might not be such a bad idea for the long term

Interesting take! At Reputable, we're working on an alternative approach where DAOs can create custom reputation models with flexible parameters and weightings, tailored to assess and score governance participants (like devs, community members, etc..) based on their actual contributions and impact. This could reduce reliance on token-based voting that's often dominated by VCs or whales, and instead foster a governance system more aligned with true contributors