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