🗳️ DAO Voting: On-Chain Democracy
Learn how decentralized governance works in practice
Your Progress
0 / 5 completed🗳️ DAO Voting: Power, Participation, and the Token Problem
DAOs promise democratic governance—one token, one vote. But in reality, voting power follows token distribution. A whale with 500k tokens outweighs 10,000 small holders. Participation is low (typically 5-15% turnout). And most holders never vote, creating oligarchic control by the few who do.
🎮 Interactive: Voter Power Simulator
Compare three types of DAO participants. See how token holdings determine voting power and influence in decentralized governance.
Active Participant
Engaged community member who votes on every proposal
✅ Advantages
- • High participation
- • Informed decisions
- • Community voice
- • Consistent engagement
❌ Disadvantages
- • Limited voting power
- • Time intensive
- • Outvoted by whales
- • Needs delegation
Real Example: ENS DAO active voters (2-3k UNI holders regularly vote)
📊 The Participation Problem
Uniswap: 10M+ holders, <1M vote. Compound: 92% never vote. Apathy dominates.
Top 10 holders often control 30-50% of voting power. Decisions by the few, not the many.
$50 gas fee to vote with $100 worth of tokens? Not rational. Off-chain voting (Snapshot) helps.
Small holders delegate to active participants. UNI has 12k delegated addresses with meaningful power.
💡 Key Insight
DAO voting sounds democratic but operates as plutocracy—rule by the wealthy. Token holders = voters, and token distribution is highly unequal. The promise: community governance. The reality: 10-20 whales + delegates control most decisions. Low participation means a small active minority governs the passive majority. This isn't necessarily bad—engaged stakeholders making decisions can work—but it's not the egalitarian vision sold. Next, we'll explore how voting mechanics, quorum rules, and delegation shape who really controls DAOs.