Use Case: Budget Allocation Vote in a DAO

Imagine a DAO for funding open-source projects. A contributor submits a proposal:

> "Allocate 2 ETH to Project X for feature Y."

Problem:

DAO voters hesitate. The proposal sounds reasonable, but there's no deterministic proof that:

Feature Y is clearly defined

Project X will deliver

The proposal isn’t misusing DAO funds

Solution with DamageBDD:

Instead of just writing a markdown proposal, the contributor attaches a DamageBDD contract that:

Defines behavior: e.g., “When the feature is implemented, it must pass 3 test cases for API behavior.”

Locks funds in escrow: 2 ETH only gets released if and only if the tests pass.

Escapes domain coupling: no assumptions about the language, platform, or implementation—just behavior specs.

Flow:

1. Proposal is submitted with BDD contract.

2. DAO members review the spec, not the code.

3. Once voted in, smart contract enforces milestone testing.

4. If tests pass, funds are released automatically.

5. If not, funds stay in DAO treasury.

---

Result:

DAO governance becomes verifiable, testable, and neutral—no need for domain knowledge or trust in the dev. Just verifiable behavior.