DAO Governance Analysis
When to use this skill
Use when the user asks about:
- Evaluating a DAO's governance structure
- Analyzing a specific governance proposal
- Understanding voting power distribution
- Assessing governance health and participation
- Comparing governance models across protocols
Governance Analysis Framework
1. Governance Structure Overview
Document the governance architecture:
- Governance type: Token-weighted, quadratic, conviction, optimistic, or hybrid
- Governance token: Which token grants voting power? Is it the same as the protocol token?
- Voting mechanism: On-chain (Compound Governor, OpenZeppelin Governor) or off-chain (Snapshot) or hybrid
- Proposal lifecycle: Discussion (forum) -> formal proposal -> voting -> execution
- Quorum requirements: Minimum participation threshold for a vote to be valid
- Approval threshold: What percentage of votes must be "for" to pass?
- Timelock: How long between vote passing and execution?
- Delegation: Can token holders delegate votes? What percentage is delegated?
2. Proposal Analysis
For a specific governance proposal, evaluate:
- Proposal summary: What is being proposed in plain language?
- Author: Who submitted it? Track record of previous proposals?
- Impact scope: Does this change protocol parameters, treasury allocation, or governance itself?
- Technical implementation: Is there executable code attached? Has it been reviewed/audited?
- Community discussion: What is the forum sentiment? Key arguments for and against?
- Financial impact: Does this proposal have treasury implications? How much?
- Risk assessment: What could go wrong if this proposal passes?
- Reversibility: Can this change be undone if it causes problems?
3. Voting Power Distribution
Analyze the concentration of governance power:
| Metric | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Top 10 voters' share | What % of voting power do the top 10 addresses hold? |
| Nakamoto coefficient | How many voters needed to reach 51% of voting power? |
| Delegation patterns | Are votes concentrated in a few delegates? |
| Team/Investor voting | Do team/investor wallets actively vote? Which way? |
| Voter participation rate | What % of token supply actually votes? |
| Unique voter count | How many distinct addresses vote on average? |
Red flags:
- Top 5 addresses controlling > 50% of voting power
- Voter participation below 5% of circulating supply
- Team/investors consistently controlling outcomes
- Single delegate accumulating > 20% of delegated power
4. Governance Health Metrics
Assess overall governance quality:
- Proposal frequency: How many proposals per month? (Too few = inactive, too many = chaotic)
- Passage rate: What percentage of proposals pass? (Very high = rubber stamping, very low = dysfunction)
- Voter turnout trend: Is participation growing, stable, or declining?
- Discussion quality: Are forum discussions substantive or superficial?
- Execution reliability: Are passed proposals actually executed on time?
- Delegate diversity: Is there a diverse set of active delegates with different viewpoints?
- Governance attacks: Any history of flash loan governance attacks or hostile proposals?
5. Governance Model Comparison
When comparing across DAOs:
| Dimension | DAO A | DAO B | DAO C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governance type | |||
| Quorum | |||
| Approval threshold | |||
| Avg. voter turnout | |||
| Nakamoto coefficient | |||
| Timelock period | |||
| Delegate count | |||
| Proposals/month |
6. Governance Risk Assessment
Identify specific governance risks:
- Plutocracy risk: Wealthy token holders dominating all outcomes
- Apathy risk: Insufficient participation to meet quorum or represent community
- Capture risk: Special interest groups (VCs, large holders) controlling governance for their benefit
- Execution risk: Proposals passing but not being implemented
- Speed risk: Governance too slow to respond to emergencies (exploits, market events)
- Complexity risk: Governance process too complicated for average token holders to participate
7. Output Format
- DAO: Name and governance token
- Governance model: Type and key parameters
- Health score: Healthy / Functional / Concerning / Dysfunctional
- Power distribution: Decentralized / Moderately concentrated / Highly concentrated
- Participation: Strong / Adequate / Low / Critical
- Key strengths: Top 2-3 governance positives
- Key risks: Top 2-3 governance concerns
- Proposal assessment (if analyzing a specific proposal): Support / Oppose / Abstain with reasoning
- Recommendations: Specific improvements to governance health