The need for an operating agreement is inextricably tied to the existence of an organization’s assets. The US government doesn’t require book clubs or volunteer groups to have operating agreements because there is no money to have a dispute over– but if the group is collecting, spending, or making money (non-profit, company, philanthropy, etc), it needs to have an operating agreement. The operating agreement answers things like who can direct them money and what that money may be used for. Operating agreements in the traditional world provide the framework for what should occur. The piece of paper (or PDF) indicates what everyone agrees to do, but it’s left up to interpretation. It allows powers to be stretched, abused, and misinterpreted. When an On-Chain Organization creates their treasury contract, it is also an operating agreement that provides the framework for everything that can happen.
Currently, banks are quite clumsy. They do their best to interpret the terms of a textual operating agreement and figure out who has authority to open accounts, access funds, send payments, enter contracts. In the future, the proper people simply have powers granted to them and they can seamlessly fill their roles without additional friction.
As on-chain governance improves, on-chain organizations will move beyond stages 1 & 2 to stages 3 & 4.
The breadth of options available in phase 4 will be enormous. Operators and founders will have a suite of tools at their fingertips to establish governance structures, empower organizational leaders, delegate responsibilities, and establish guardrails.