I believe there is great power in community controlled "balance sheets." We are designing DACs that have many parallels to companies but the only real asset and source of liquidity are the shares of the DAC itself. For a large DAC this may be a plausible source of funds/liquidity for expenses such as development. However, many smaller organizations could benefit from organizing on a blockchain with a community controlled fund containing a liquid asset (BTSX/BitUSD?) that they can use to advance the goals of the organization. These organizations are more analogous to standard companies organized financially on a blockchain, not necessarily a DAC, but subgroups on a SuperDAC that allows their formation.
Imagine instead of donating to a charity, you opened your bitshares wallet and bought shares of the charity and that was the way to donate. The charity issues new shares and the money you pay for the shares goes into a fund controlled by all shareholders. Now you didn't just give your money and trust that it is spent well, but you rightly become part of the charity and get a say in how the money is spent. You can give the shares as a gift if you like or if you lose faith in the direction of the community you can sell your shares. The mission of the charity can change with the desires of the current stakeholders. For a pure charity you would expect it to continuously issue new shares to raise money that it spends on charitable projects decided by the vote of shareholders.
If you wanted to raise money for your crypto project. Instead of doing a standard "IPO" where people need to send you money and trust that you are not a scammer, you can form a group that issues new shares for sale and the money goes into the community balance sheet. The new shareholders of your crypto project can then decide to pay you a salary out of the community fund to pay for your development work over time. If you abandon the project or don't update your shareholders to show progress, they can pull the plug on you and dissolve the remaining funds to the shareholders, or hire a new paid developer to continue the work. The shareholders are partners with the dev working on a common goal and share power.
Think of the balance sheet as a large multisig address where each share is a signature and it requires 51% of signatures to send. These are "majority rules" organizations subject to a 51% attack like anything else. So you should only buy shares of groups where you either trust the majority owners or feel that the shares are sufficiently distributed to prevent collusion. A majority that abuses power will generally be abandoned and find their shares worthless. Small startups short on trust could potentially have the balance subject to spending limits or trusted 3rd party arbitration.