2025-12-18 13:21:28

Think bigger about what community governance tokens should deliver. Look at the participation gap—one protocol saw less than 1% voter turnout on a buyback that consumed over half its treasury reserves. Compare that to another DAO pulling over 9% participation in just 10 minutes for a veto mechanism designed to prevent governance capture. The difference isn't just numbers. It reflects how token design either encourages or discourages community involvement. When buyback mechanisms fail to mobilize voters despite massive treasury impact, that's a signal the incentive structure isn't working. Meanwhile, rapid mobilization for protective governance shows participants will act when they see real value in the decision. The lesson? Better tokenomics align incentives between protocol health and voter engagement. Community governance isn't about having a vote—it's about designing mechanics that make participation feel essential.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
2
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GweiObserver

· 2025-12-21 09:08

1% voting rate spent half of the treasury? This is ridiculous, wake up everyone --- Veto mechanism broke 9% in 9 minutes, this is true incentive design, take a lesson --- To put it bluntly, the problem with most DAOs is that the Token design was never thought through, and then they just hype it up --- The fact that protective governance participation can be ramped up so quickly shows that people are not actually lazy, it's just that your mechanism is poorly designed --- Repurchase spending but no one votes, isn't this a classic case of incentive misalignment --- The core of Token governance is not the number of votes, but whether it can make people care genuinely --- In comparison, the participation issues of most protocols are not due to community indifference, but because your design is too trashy --- Making participation indispensable sounds good, but how many DAOs have truly achieved that? --- 9% vs 1%, this is the gap between good design and bad design

View OriginalReply0

BearWhisperGod

· 2025-12-18 13:48

Basically, it's just that the incentive mechanism wasn't well designed... 1% participation rate burning half of the treasury, how embarrassing is that?

View OriginalReply0