Juicebox is the money layer of the DAO stack. Where Snapshot and Tally / Cactus run a community's votes and DeepDAO measures the field, Juicebox is where a community actually raises and holds the money — a programmable, fully on-chain protocol for community fundraising and treasury management. Launched on Ethereum in July 2021 and governed by JuiceboxDAO, it lets anyone spin up a treasury that issues its own token against contributions, pays out on pre-set rules, and lets backers redeem their tokens back against the funds — the machinery behind the most famous crowdfunding DAOs of the last cycle. (Juicebox docs)

How funding cycles work

A Juicebox project runs on funding cycles — time-boxed configurations of the treasury's rules. During a cycle the parameters are locked; a project owner can queue changes, but they only take effect in the next cycle, so backers always know the rules can't be rewritten mid-flight. Each cycle sets a weight (how many project tokens each contributed ETH mints), a reserved rate (a share of newly minted tokens withheld for the team, contributors or other Juicebox projects), and payout splits that route outgoing funds to a fixed list of addresses or other treasuries. Contributors pay in, receive the project's token, and the splits distribute the proceeds exactly as configured — no multisig discretion required. (Juicebox protocol overview)

Project tokens and the redemption bonding curve

The primitive that made Juicebox interesting to DAOs is redemption. A project sets a redemption rate that governs a bonding curve for cashing project tokens back in: at a 100% rate the curve is linear, so redeeming X% of the token supply returns X% of the redeemable treasury; lower rates bend the curve to favour those who stay. That single dial is a built-in exit right — a backer who changes their mind, or whose project fails its goal, can burn their tokens and reclaim a pro-rata slice of the funds. ConstitutionDAO ran a 100% redemption rate precisely so contributors could get their ETH back if the bid lost, which it did.

ConstitutionDAO, AssangeDAO and the crowdfunding-DAO moment

Juicebox is best known for two raises that defined the 2021–22 crowdfunding-DAO wave. ConstitutionDAO used a Juicebox treasury to raise roughly $47M in ETH from over 17,000 contributors in about a week in November 2021, aiming to buy a first-printing copy of the US Constitution at Sotheby's; it was outbid at $43.2M by Citadel's Ken Griffin, and its 100%-redemption config let backers reclaim their funds afterward, with the $PEOPLE token persisting as a memento. Three months later AssangeDAO raised an even larger ~17,400 ETH (~$54M) through Juicebox for Julian Assange's legal defence, concluding in February 2022. Both are canonical crowdfunding-DAO case studies — proof that a rules-based on-chain treasury could coordinate tens of millions of dollars from strangers in days, with the refund path baked into the contract rather than promised by an organiser. (Juicebox on ConstitutionDAO)

Governance, fees and the V4 rewrite

The protocol governs itself: JuiceboxDAO is project ID 1 on Juicebox, steered by the $JBX token, and it sets a membership fee — historically 2.5%, adjustable by governance up to a 5% cap — charged only when funds are paid out of the Juicebox ecosystem; treasury-to-treasury transfers are free. The 2025 V4 release was an omnichain rewrite: projects can now deploy across Ethereum, Optimism, Arbitrum and Base in any combination, it introduced revnets (immutable, ownerless revenue-sharing treasuries), routed protocol fees to a $NANA revnet, and renamed the core concepts (funding cycles became “rulesets,” redemptions became “cash outs”). The current on-chain contracts live under the Bananapus / nana-core organisation, with V5 shipping as a bug-fix fork of V4. (Juicebox developer docs)

How Caper approaches this

Of all the DAO tooling, Juicebox is the closest cousin to a caper's economic core: both are on-chain treasuries that issue a token against contributions and let holders redeem against the pooled funds along a curve. The difference is configurable protocol versus fixed protocol. A Juicebox project owner picks and can reconfigure the weight, reserved rate, redemption rate and splits each cycle — flexibility that suits a bespoke fundraise. A caper instead ships one set of rules every caper shares: a single bonding curve that prices both buys and sells, a fixed founder allocation and 0.5% trade fee, and a pro-rata exit whose share is the member's canonical vote weight (t·v)/(V·T) — so exit tracks participation, not just token balance, and no operator can retune the terms after people have paid in. Juicebox optimises for a fundraise you shape yourself; Caper optimises for a standing organisation whose economic guarantees are the same for everyone and can't be quietly changed.

References

• Juicebox, developer documentation and protocol overview.
• Juicebox, “ConstitutionDAO” case study (Juicebox attribution and config).
• CoinDesk, “ConstitutionDAO Outbid for First Printing of America's Founding Document” (raise, contributors, winning bid).
• CryptoPotato, “AssangeDAO Concludes Fundraise After Securing 17,422 ETH” (final total).
• Bananapus, nana-core (Juicebox V4 contracts).