This chapter introduces Gödel’s IncompletenessGödel’s Incompleteness Theorems as a conceptual lens to rethink the ambitions and limitations of DAO governanceDAO governancedelegation systems. While DAOs aspire to transparencyTransparency, determinism, and trustlessness through code, Gödel reminds us that no formal system can be both complete and consistent. Protocols, like logical systems, inevitably face situations they cannot resolve from within their own rules. Case studies such as The DAO hack, MakerDAO’s “Black Thursday,” and Lido’s staking debates illustrate that crises, moral dilemmas, and unforeseen events often require interpretation, negotiation, and judgment beyond automated logic. This challenges the “code is law” paradigm, showing that governance cannot be reduced to execution alone. The chapter advances the idea of adaptive governance: hybrid models that combine algorithmic precision with human oversight. Mechanisms such as interpretative councils, constitutional layers, and meta-governance processes are presented as ways to embrace incompleteness without reverting to centralization. Ultimately, Gödel’s insights are reframed as design principles for DAOs: accept ambiguityAmbiguityinstitutional memory, enable dissent, preserve institutional memory, and resist the illusion of closure. Governance, conceived not as a finished architecture but as an evolving dialogue, requires humility, recognizing that incompleteness is not a flaw, but a safeguard for resilience.