DAO Governance Is Mostly Theater
Decentralization loves a good costume. Multisig masks. Snapshot ballots. Carefully worded forum posts. But behind the curtain, most “decentralized” governance votes are already decided before you ever click Vote For.
Let’s talk about the uncomfortable truth: in many DAOs, governance isn’t power—it’s PR.
The Illusion of the Open Vote
Snapshot votes are framed as the purest form of decentralized decision-making. No gas fees. One token, one voice. Clean UI. Democratic vibes.
In practice?
By the time a proposal hits Snapshot, the outcome is usually locked.
Why?
Because the real vote happened earlier—in Telegram chats, Discord backchannels, delegate group DMs, and private calls. Snapshot is just the receipt.
If you’ve ever watched a controversial proposal pass with 85–95% approval while “discussion” was allegedly ongoing, congratulations: you’ve seen legitimacy theater in action.
Off-Chain Is Where Power Actually Lives
Here’s how it usually works:
- Core contributors or large delegates float an idea privately
- Key stakeholders align behind closed doors
- Concerns are resolved off-chain
- Numbers are counted before the proposal is public
- Snapshot opens
- Everyone pretends the vote is still undecided
This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s coordination.
And coordination, ironically, is what decentralization struggles with—so DAOs recreate it informally, then pretend they didn’t.
Delegates: Representatives or Power Brokers?
Delegates are sold as a scaling solution for governance. Most token holders don’t have time to read proposals, so they “delegate” their vote to someone more informed.
Reasonable idea. Messy execution.
In reality, a small cluster of highly active delegates often controls a disproportionate share of voting power. These delegates:
- Talk to each other constantly
- Signal support or opposition long before voting opens
- Shape proposals before the public sees them
- Align incentives early
By the time regular token holders notice a proposal, the decision has already cleared the real hurdle: delegate consensus.
Your vote still counts—just not enough to matter.
Why DAOs Prefer It This Way
Here’s the part people don’t like admitting:
Pre-decided governance is safer.
Open-ended voting introduces risk:
- Governance attacks
- Market panic
- Last-minute whale interference
- Narrative chaos on Crypto Twitter
From a DAO’s perspective, uncertainty is expensive. Treasury management, roadmap execution, and legal exposure don’t pair well with surprise outcomes.
So DAOs optimize for predictability, then wrap it in the language of participation.
The vote isn’t there to decide.
It’s there to legitimize.
Governance as Marketing
Public governance serves three main functions:
- Optics – “Look how decentralized we are.”
- Engagement – Token holders feel involved.
- Cover – “The community approved this.”
This doesn’t mean outcomes are bad. Many proposals are rational, well-researched, and genuinely beneficial.
But let’s be honest about the process.
Governance votes are often less about choice and more about consent.
You’re not steering the ship.
You’re being asked to clap from the deck.
The Real Question DAOs Avoid
The problem isn’t that decisions are coordinated early.
The problem is pretending they aren’t.
If DAOs were honest, they’d say:
- “This proposal already has delegate consensus.”
- “Voting is a formality unless something unexpected happens.”
- “If you want influence, join the pre-vote discussions.”
That would be transparent.
That would be decentralized in spirit, even if not perfectly democratic.
Instead, we get rituals.
Final Thought: PR Isn’t Always Bad—But Call It What It Is
DAO governance today is closer to corporate board alignment than digital democracy. And that’s fine—as long as we stop lying about it.
Decentralization isn’t about everyone voting.
It’s about knowing where power actually sits.
Until DAOs admit that, governance will remain what it mostly is today:
A well-designed interface for decisions already made.
