When we look at direct democracy as a governing model, the structural flaws become pretty apparent—especially once you understand how DAOs operate in the crypto space.

Let's be honest: most direct democracy implementations haven't exactly set the world on fire in terms of outcomes. And if you've tracked any major DAO governance votes, you already know why. Mass participation without proper incentive alignment tends to default to mob dynamics rather than informed decision-making.

The actual purpose of any democratic system should be keeping those in power answerable to stakeholders. That's the whole point. But when you collapse authority into pure majority voting? You often end up with whoever can mobilize the loudest voices—not necessarily the best choices for the protocol or community.

DAOs expose this vulnerability in real time. You see token holders voting on complex technical decisions they don't fully understand, or governance getting gamed by coordinated groups. It's the same pressure cooker that undermines direct democracy offline.

Maybe the lesson is that both systems need mechanisms beyond pure vote counts—delegation, expertise recognition, staged decision-making. Otherwise, you're just trading one set of problems for another.