Metagov Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853442527
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
2144176869
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Computer Science

Reported finances

Revenue
$391,471
Expenses
$499,947
Assets
$224,452
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATHAN SCHNEIDER (DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT)
  • EUGENE LEVENTHAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSHUA TAN (DIRECTOR): $51,599 total reported compensation
  • EUGENE LEVENTHAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $38,022 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation is operated exclusively for scientific and educational purposes of conducting scholarly and scientific research about governance of virtual worlds and disseminate research to/for the benefit of the public, college/university faculty/students, and for related purposes.

What it reported doing in 2023

See schedule oscientific and educational research on online governance, including standards development metagov's educational research programs include daostar, calm tech, daochem, validator commons, and a series of high-impact events organized or hosted by metagov. In 2023, these programs drove forward metagov's mission to explore and promote effective governance and technical standards in digital communities. The daostar initiative operates as the standards body for decentralized autonomous organizations, supporting interoperability, innovation, and regulatory compliance for daos. Through the calm tech foundation, metagov advanced principles for designing digital tools that respect user attention and well-being. The validator commons introduced a "political party" model within the cosmos ecosystem, enabling cosmos validators to advocate for shared governance values, while daochem provided a novel approach to understanding daos by integrating diverse governance data sources for a comprehensive view.in addition to these research programs, metagov organized several major educational events in 2023 to foster community dialogue, share insights, and advance the field of digital governance. Notable events included dao harvard 2023 and dao stanford 2023, which brought together researchers, practitioners, and students to discuss the latest advancements and challenges in decentralized governance. The ai think tank at dweb camp, organized in collaboration with the internet archive, foresight institute, and openai, explored the intersection of ai governance and decentralized ecosystems. Additionally, dao palace 2023 and ai palace 2023, held at bueckeburg palace in germany, offered immersive settings to delve into governance and ai topics with a historical and cultural context, furthering metagov's commitment to enriching educational experiences in governance and technology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 73.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $367K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.