A conditional ownership market that selects actions by the value of an ownership token does not by that rule alone represent the interests or establish the consent of affected nonholders.

groundsUntitled source

Futarchy is not sufficient for cases where a DAO has control over an asset but is not supposed to be the owner of that asset. For example, consider an upgradeable borrow-lend protocol with a fair market cap of \$10m and total deposits of \$100m. Futarchy alone would not be enough to reject a proposal to steal all the deposits—in such a scenario the attacker would be rational in buying DAO tokens above their "fair" value.