I do not think you are being too cynical, but I’ll offer a bit of nuance from my perspective. There are significant parallels between what you talk about and the work I did in my PhD (looking at governance in disaster resilience contexts).
Rather than saying that DAOs are revolutionising the wrong thing, I’d say (as you do) that they are currently revolutionising the easy thing (structure, mechanisms, process). Revolutions are needed here, but they’re just the first step. Culture is the hard nut to crack. The problem is both obvious, but also not obvious.
I’d generalise the two parts you talk about as objective (tangible, measurable) and subjective (intangible, not easily measured). The key problem here can be illustrated using Kahneman’s “what you see is all there is” heuristic - basically we’re wired to only consider what we ‘see/observe’ when making decisions. It is much easier to see tangible factors like structures, mechanisms, processes, and outcomes, than intangible factors such as culture.
As Stiglitz (2018, p.13) says: “What we measure affects what we do. If we measure the wrong thing, we will do the wrong thing. If we don’t measure something, it becomes neglected, as if the problem didn’t exist.”
Governance processes that deliver good outcomes require a strong understanding of both the tangible and intangible factors in play. A common pattern of deficiency in almost all governance processes (especially public facing ones) is that the measurements we use to determine success rarely account for the intangible factors that help drive success, leading to systematic errors that undermine intentions and deliver poor outcomes.
So when you ask if it is obvious that people need to get together and talk… yes and no. The problems are really obvious to anyone who experiences it. Especially to people on the ground - at the coal face. But it’s almost entirely invisible/ignored at the top, the decision-making level, because the intangible determinants of success are not captured/accounted for. This dissonance can have a toxic effect on institutions.
The role you describe culture consultants playing seems to be a structured approach to ensuring that those making decisions at the top adequately understand the values and drives off those at the bottom. This ‘intangible’ connection is a strong driver of resilience and institutional success.
Intentionally and systematically building this capacity in decentralised organisations would make a big difference imo. However, my experience is with hierarchical institutions, so I expect things will be different in decentralised land. Instead of just having to convince the leadership of what needs to happen, you’ll need to convince everyone who holds influence over decision-making. This changes the problem, though I’m not sure if it makes it easier or harder. Probably both in different ways.
I wish you all the best on your project!