The [question][1] was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion **bolded**):
> Sorry, but _"How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?"_ is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, **a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography**; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this [meta on cryptocurrency-related questions](https://crypto.meta.stackexchange.com/q/985/555).

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of _currency_ is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of [cryptography][2] and [related][3].

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "used in" implies "related to", which is a symmetric but non-[transitive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitivity) relation.

My disputed assertion stopped short of claiming Direct Acyclic Graphs are not used in cryptography. I know that's false, for I used them in a [cryptanalytic attack][4]. Yes I stand by my assertion (disputed in title of the present meta), and it's relevance to closing the question, with the justification (as in a comment by another contributor): "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

  [1]: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/q/93805
  [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptography
  [3]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/related
  [4]: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00145-007-9007-5.pdf#page=20