DAO should not just be about "token governance"; what it truly needs to do is combine a sense of participation, belonging, and motivation into a sustainable community collaboration mechanism. Therefore, for a project to survive, it must solidify governance, integrate tools, and foster an ecosystem. Only in this way can DAO genuinely extract "management power" from the organizational center and transform into a new organizational form where everyone participates, rules are transparent, and value is shared.
Having discussed Infra, let's look at DAO projects.
What is DAO for?
DAO, short for Decentralized Autonomous Organization, simply put, transforms the "company meeting decision-making" into "on-chain voting execution." There are no bosses, no boards of directors; everyone relies on code to set rules and votes to make decisions. It sounds very decentralized, but in reality: DAO projects are either too scattered or too fake. Where is the problem?
1. Governance looks democratic, but is actually centralized:
Many DAOs claim "the community is in charge," but core proposals only consider how the votes from major holders, teams, and VCs are cast. Voting thresholds are high, participation rates are low, and it ultimately becomes "10 people voting, thousands watching." In 2024, a statistic showed that over 65% of DAO proposals were decided by the top 5 addresses.
2. Tools are very "on-chain," but operations are very "Web2":
On the surface, voting is done on Snapshot, and processes are on-chain, but in reality, operations rely on Discord to gather people, Google Forms to collect opinions, and Notion to write proposals, leading to low decision-making efficiency and fragmented processes, becoming "using Web2 tools to dress up Web3."
3. Contribution mechanisms are chaotic, and incentives lack feedback:
DAOs say they want "community co-construction," but what constitutes a contribution? Who measures it? If producing graphics, writing documents, and coding count as contributions, does sending memes to lighten the mood count too? The problem is: incentive distribution lacks standards, and feedback mechanisms are not transparent, resulting in "active people feeling disappointed, while slackers win by doing nothing." Many DAOs ultimately turn into "bounty platforms," failing to form a true autonomous ecosystem.
Now, looking at this DAO project, what problems does it solve?
You say you are community governance, so what is your voting mechanism? Have you avoided "whale domination"? Is decision-making effectively implemented?
You say you are an autonomous organization, so who breaks down the work content? How is incentive distribution calculated? Is there a long-term collaboration mechanism?
You say you are truly co-constructing; co-construction is not just a slogan, but whether there are people who can "participate, stay, and contribute."
Ultimately, we need to return to three points:
Is your governance mechanism truly democratic, or just a "re-skinned board of directors"? Have you transformed "voting rights" into "action power"?
Is your collaboration mechanism truly open, or "high participation threshold + low sense of belonging"? Have you created an environment for people to stay and co-build?
Is your tool system truly on-chain, or "on-chain voting + Web2 group chat"? Have you formed a complete autonomous closed loop?
DAO should not just be about "token governance"; what it truly needs to do is combine a sense of participation, belonging, and motivation into a sustainable community collaboration mechanism. Therefore, for a project to survive, it must solidify governance, integrate tools, and foster an ecosystem. Only in this way can DAO genuinely extract "management power" from the organizational center and transform into a new organizational form where everyone participates, rules are transparent, and value is shared.
Welcome to join the community
Welcome to join the community WeChat: BQ221858
Welcome to follow Weibo: @QuarkMing202
Welcome to follow Twitter: @xian202766693