On-chain governance is a blockchain-based system where token holders directly propose, discuss, and vote on decisions. Unlike traditional governance, this process is transparent, automated, and recorded on the blockchain. Key benefits include community participation, scalability for large projects, and trust through transparency.
Key Takeaways:
How it works: Token holders vote on proposals, and smart contracts execute decisions automatically.
Why it's needed: Decentralized projects require collective decision-making without central authority.
On-chain vs. off-chain: On-chain ensures transparency and automation, while off-chain allows flexibility and discussion.
Setting up governance: Define stakeholder roles, choose voting methods (e.g., one-token-one-vote, quadratic voting), and secure the system with audits and Sybil resistance.
Platform options: Ethereum, Polkadot, Tezos, Cosmos, and Solana are popular choices for governance systems.
Challenges: Avoid dominance by large token holders and ensure gas fees don’t discourage participation.
A solid governance framework empowers communities to make decisions efficiently and transparently while addressing potential risks like manipulation or concentration of power.
How to build an on-chain DAO | Typescript & Solidity (Python version in description)
Building Your Governance Framework
Establishing a governance system that ensures transparency and supports decentralized decision-making is key to the success of any on-chain system. A well-thought-out framework determines who gets a say, how decisions are implemented, and what happens after the votes are in. Starting with a solid plan can save you from significant complications later on.
Identifying Stakeholders and Their Roles
To build a governance framework, the first step is identifying all relevant stakeholders. These typically include token holders, core developers, active community members, validators, and partner protocols.
Core developers bring technical expertise to the table. They play a critical role in evaluating protocol updates and addressing security concerns - areas where their deep knowledge of the codebase is indispensable.
Community members contribute by engaging in forums, Discord discussions, and social media. Their feedback often reflects the user experience and helps drive adoption.
Validators or node operators are essential for maintaining the network's operations. They also offer unique perspectives on infrastructure requirements.
Partner protocols that integrate with your system have a vested interest in governance decisions that could affect their operations.
Once stakeholders are identified, assign clear roles. For example:
Token holders might vote based on the number of tokens they hold.
Developers may be granted privileges like submitting proposals or vetoing decisions.
Community members could earn tokens through active participation.
Validators and partner protocols might have customized voting weights to reflect their contributions.
To ensure informed decision-making, consider creating delegation systems. This allows stakeholders to pass their voting power to representatives they trust, ensuring technical proposals are properly reviewed without compromising democratic principles. Many projects also form committees - such as technical advisory groups or treasury management teams - to handle specialized proposals.
With roles and responsibilities defined, focus on designing a voting method that balances influence across stakeholders.
Setting Up Voting Methods
Choosing the right voting method is crucial for fair decision-making. Here are some common approaches:
One-token-one-vote: This straightforward method ties voting power to token ownership but risks dominance by large holders.
Quadratic voting: A more balanced option where the cost of votes increases quadratically. For instance, your first vote costs one token, but your second costs four, and your third costs nine.
Delegated voting: This system lets token holders transfer their voting power to trusted representatives who have the expertise and time to evaluate proposals.
Time-weighted voting: This method rewards long-term token holders by giving their votes more weight than those of short-term participants.
Conviction voting: Instead of a one-time vote, this approach allows token holders to signal their support for proposals over time, favoring ideas with sustained community backing.
To prevent a small group from making decisions when most of the community is disengaged, implement minimum participation thresholds. For instance, you could require at least 10% of circulating tokens to participate in a vote for it to be considered valid.
Smart contracts can automate these voting methods, making the governance process efficient and tamper-proof.
Using Smart Contracts for Governance
Smart contracts are the backbone of an automated governance system, ensuring decisions are executed exactly as intended without human interference.
Governance and proposal contracts manage the core voting process. They track proposals, enforce voting rules, tally results, and ensure compliance with requirements like minimum token holdings for proposal creation or mandatory waiting periods.
Timelock contracts add an extra layer of security. By delaying the execution of approved proposals, they give the community time to react if any issues arise.
Treasury contracts handle community funds. When spending proposals are approved, these contracts automatically disburse funds to the designated recipients, eliminating the need for intermediaries.
Execution contracts directly implement approved changes. For example, if a vote passes to adjust a protocol parameter, the execution contract updates it immediately after the voting period and any timelock expires.
For high-stakes decisions, consider adding multi-signature requirements. Even after a vote passes, requiring multiple trusted parties to sign off before execution ensures a balance between automation and oversight.
Planning for future improvements is also vital. No governance system is perfect from the start, so include upgrade mechanisms in your contracts. This allows the framework to evolve based on community feedback and changing needs, avoiding the challenges of retrofitting updates later.
Lastly, as your governance system grows, gas optimization becomes critical. Inefficient contracts can make voting prohibitively expensive, especially for smaller token holders. To address this, explore options like meta-transactions or layer-2 solutions to reduce costs and maintain broad participation across the community.
Selecting Your Blockchain Platform
Picking the right blockchain platform is a crucial step when designing a governance system. The platform you choose directly impacts aspects like transaction costs, smart contract capabilities, and system security. It's worth taking the time to carefully weigh your options based on specific criteria.
Platform Selection Criteria
When deciding on a blockchain platform for governance, focus on these key areas:
Transaction efficiency: Look for platforms with reasonable transaction fees, quick processing speeds, and robust smart contract functionality to ensure smooth operations.
Governance features: Advanced tools like complex voting systems, time locks, and upgradeable contracts can make governance more effective and adaptable.
Security and trust: A platform with a strong track record, regular audits, and a widely distributed validator network can foster confidence within your community.
Developer support: Platforms with well-established ecosystems, comprehensive documentation, testing tools, and active developer communities make building and maintaining your project much easier.
Interoperability and network effects: Platforms that integrate well with other protocols and have thriving ecosystems can help expand your project's reach and encourage user adoption.
Top Platforms for On-Chain Governance
Here are some blockchain platforms known for their governance capabilities:
Ethereum: With a vast developer ecosystem and extensive tooling, Ethereum supports a variety of governance frameworks. However, high transaction costs on its main network have led many projects to explore scaling solutions.
Polkadot: This platform offers built-in governance tools, including referenda and council participation. Its unique design allows protocol upgrades without requiring disruptive forks, making it ideal for projects expecting continuous growth and change.
Tezos: Known for its self-amending governance, Tezos allows upgrades through community-driven processes. Its liquid proof-of-stake system lets token holders delegate voting power while still being able to actively participate in specific decisions.
Cosmos: Using modular SDK components, Cosmos provides flexible governance options. Its interoperability protocols enable governance decisions to affect multiple connected chains, broadening the scope of decentralized decision-making.
Solana: Offering fast and low-cost transactions, Solana is well-suited for projects requiring frequent participation in governance activities.
Considerations for Future Flexibility
It's also important to think about how your platform choice might affect future scalability or migration. Moving a governance system to a new blockchain can be a technically demanding and community-intensive process. Aim to select a platform that not only meets your current requirements but also aligns with your long-term objectives.
Setting Up Token-Based Voting
Once your governance framework is in place, token-based voting becomes the engine that powers community decision-making. This approach allows token holders to actively participate in shaping the direction of your project. To make this work, you’ll need to design governance tokens, establish a voting system, and ensure the process is secure.
Creating and Distributing Governance Tokens
The first step is designing governance tokens that represent voting power within your ecosystem. Their distribution plays a huge role in determining how democratic your governance structure will be. Many projects rely on ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum or similar standards on other blockchains, with each token typically counting as one vote.
Token supply and allocation need careful planning. Decide whether your token supply will be fixed or inflationary. Successful projects often distribute tokens across different groups, such as early contributors, the community treasury, and future incentives for ecosystem growth.
Distribution methods should align with your goals. Airdrops can quickly spread tokens among existing community members, while liquidity mining rewards users for engaging with your protocol. Some projects also use retroactive distributions to recognize early supporters. Broad distribution is essential to prevent any single entity from dominating the voting process.
Vesting schedules are another key consideration. To ensure long-term commitment, tokens allocated to team members or early investors are often locked into multi-year vesting schedules. On the other hand, community tokens might have shorter or no vesting periods to encourage immediate participation.
Once your tokens are distributed and vesting plans are in place, the next step is to design a voting process that works for your community.
Building the Voting Process
A well-thought-out voting system is crucial for smooth governance. Here’s how to structure it:
Proposal creation: To prevent spam, require users to hold a minimum number of tokens or receive delegations from other holders before submitting proposals.
Voting periods: Strike a balance between giving the community enough time to discuss proposals and ensuring decisions are made promptly. For emergencies, shorter voting windows may be appropriate, while major changes might need extended deliberation.
Vote delegation: Let token holders assign their voting power to trusted community members without handing over their tokens. This encourages participation from passive holders while maintaining flexibility to revoke delegation at any time.
Quorum requirements: Set minimum participation thresholds to ensure that only proposals with sufficient community engagement are approved. Some projects use dynamic quorum systems that adjust based on recent activity.
Execution mechanisms: Use smart contracts to automatically implement approved proposals. Adding a time delay between approval and execution gives the community a chance to react if a proposal turns out to be harmful.
Securing the Voting System
Once your voting process is set up, protecting it against manipulation is critical to maintaining trust.
Smart contract audits: Have professional security firms review all contracts related to voting, tokens, and proposal execution. Given the complexity of these systems, allocate enough resources for thorough audits.
Sybil resistance: Prevent individuals from creating multiple accounts to manipulate voting power. Token-based systems already provide some protection since acquiring tokens has a cost, but additional measures like snapshot voting can help block last-minute token purchases aimed at swaying votes.
Transparent vote tracking: Make all votes publicly verifiable on-chain. Governance dashboards displaying real-time voting stats and historical outcomes can help build trust within your community.
Emergency procedures: Prepare for unforeseen issues with tools like guardian multisigs to pause the system or built-in delays to address emergencies. Some projects also offer rage quit mechanisms, letting users exit with their share of treasury assets if they strongly disagree with a decision.
Vote buying prevention: While it’s hard to eliminate vote buying entirely, techniques like commit-reveal schemes - where votes remain hidden until the voting period ends - can deter this behavior. Community monitoring and social accountability also play a role in maintaining integrity.
Securing your voting system is essential for building trust and ensuring the longevity of your project. Regular security reviews, bug bounty programs, and open communication about governance processes will help create a system that your community can rely on.
Solving Common Governance Problems
One of the biggest hurdles in on-chain governance is making sure no single group of stakeholders can dominate decision-making. Maintaining a fair and balanced voting process is key to upholding decentralization. To address this, systems like quadratic voting can help distribute voting power more evenly.
Preventing Voting Power Concentration
Quadratic voting works by increasing the cost of casting additional votes, which helps limit the sway of any one entity. This system discourages voters from focusing all their influence on a single issue unless they are deeply invested in it. By doing so, it helps reduce the outsized influence of large token holders (often referred to as "whales") and founding teams, promoting a more equitable governance structure.
Next Steps for Your Governance System
Key Points to Remember
To refine and secure your governance model, start by building on the framework and voting systems discussed earlier. A well-thought-out plan and an engaged community are the backbone of successful on-chain governance. Decentralized decision-making not only fosters accountability but also gives users a stronger sense of ownership - both of which are essential for scaling effectively. Aligning token incentives with the community’s collective goals ensures decisions are transparent and responsible, surpassing the limitations of traditional governance models.
Incorporating input from diverse stakeholders strengthens your system significantly. Developers, users, and investors each bring distinct perspectives, helping to crowdsource solutions and address challenges more efficiently. This approach not only encourages innovation but also enables the community to identify risks early. Additionally, designing a governance system where every member feels heard and valued builds advocacy and creates the network effects that set successful decentralized projects apart.
These principles lay the groundwork for actionable strategies that can take your governance model to the next level.
Getting Professional Help
Crafting an effective governance system is a complex process that involves balancing token economics, voting mechanisms, and community incentives. As mentioned earlier, continuous improvement is critical to building a robust and adaptive system. This is where Tokenomics.net can provide valuable support, offering consulting and simulation services to fine-tune your governance framework.
Dynamic simulations allow you to test your token economy under different scenarios before launch. These simulations can uncover potential issues, such as voting power imbalances or reduced participation rates, and provide detailed visualizations and reports to help you understand how your system might evolve as your community grows.
The consulting services go beyond the technical aspects. Tony Drummond and the team at Tokenomics.net have worked on over 40 projects, helping clients collectively raise more than $50 million. Their expertise spans various sectors, including gaming, DeFi, DePIN, and utility tokens, offering tailored insights for a wide range of use cases and community dynamics.
Professional guidance can simplify the complexities of token distribution, voting system design, and scalability planning. To explore how they can help, you can schedule a free 30-minute strategy call. This no-commitment session provides personalized recommendations tailored to your specific governance needs.
FAQs
How do on-chain governance systems ensure fair decision-making without letting large token holders dominate?
On-chain governance systems aim to level the playing field by incorporating mechanisms like quadratic voting. This approach makes it progressively more expensive for individuals with large token holdings to cast additional votes, effectively curbing their influence. Another widely used method is delegated voting, where token holders can pass their voting power to trusted representatives, making it easier for more people to participate without direct involvement.
These systems often include features like low voting thresholds or weighted voting models, which encourage smaller stakeholders to take part in the process. By thoughtfully structuring these governance frameworks, projects can create a more balanced decision-making environment, minimizing the dominance of a select few.
What are the advantages and challenges of using smart contracts to automate governance in decentralized systems?
Smart contracts bring several important benefits to automating governance processes. They streamline operations by eliminating intermediaries, which not only cuts down costs but also boosts efficiency. Plus, their self-executing nature ensures governance rules are applied consistently and without bias, promoting transparency. These features make them a powerful asset for decentralized decision-making.
That said, there are some hurdles to address. Coding errors can create security vulnerabilities that bad actors might exploit. Additionally, smart contracts often rely on external data sources (oracles), which can introduce risks. Privacy issues and legal uncertainties surrounding their use further complicate widespread adoption. Tackling these challenges requires a strong focus on security, regular and thorough audits, and designing systems that comply with both technical requirements and legal frameworks.
How do voting methods like quadratic voting and delegated voting affect fairness and efficiency in on-chain governance?
Quadratic voting offers a way for participants to convey the intensity of their preferences, potentially leading to decisions that better reflect the group's collective will. However, its cost structure - where casting additional votes becomes increasingly expensive - can unintentionally give an edge to wealthier participants. As a result, ensuring fairness with this method hinges on thoughtful design and careful implementation.
Delegated voting, on the other hand, emphasizes efficiency by allowing participants to transfer their voting power to trusted representatives. This approach can help boost voter participation and alleviate decision fatigue. However, it comes with a downside: the possibility of power becoming overly concentrated if too much influence rests with a small number of delegates.
Each method brings its own set of advantages and challenges. Ultimately, their effectiveness in promoting fairness and efficiency depends on how they are integrated into a governance system.
