Vitalik discusses DAO advancement: How to solve the inefficiency of voting and the governance gamification dilemma

LiquidityWitch · 2026-01-19T07:10:10+00:00

Ethereum founder Vitalik believes that the current DAOs are not ideal. The key to expanding Ethereum to the application layer lies in building high-quality DAOs. He pointed out that token voting mechanisms are inefficient and easily influenced by capital, and introduced the main application scenarios of DAOs and the different governance designs needed. Vitalik emphasizes that privacy protection and alleviating decision fatigue are two major challenges for DAO democratization. Addressing these two issues is essential to achieve effective decentralized governance.

LiquidityWitch

2026-01-19 07:10:10

Abstract generation in progress

【Blockchain Rhythm】Ethereum founder Vitalik recently shared a thought-provoking view — current DAOs are not good enough. He believes that to truly expand Ethereum from the base layer to the application layer, the key is not in the technology itself, but in building more and higher-quality DAO organizations.

Why? Because the current token voting mechanism suffers from inefficiency and is easily captured by capital. Vitalik detailed the core application scenarios of DAOs: oracle selection, on-chain dispute resolution, list maintenance, project initiation and maintenance, etc. He also introduced the concepts of “convex” and “concave” problems to distinguish different decision-making scenarios — different types of issues require different governance design approaches.

However, there are two major obstacles. Vitalik admits: “Without privacy protection, governance becomes a social game; without reducing decision fatigue, participants will keep dropping out.” In other words, privacy and decision burden have become the two main pain points hindering DAO democratization. Solving these two issues is essential to truly enable decentralized governance.

ETH-3,49%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FloorSweeper

· 9h ago

lol vitalik finally admitting daos are mostly theater... yeah no shit, been saying this since 2021 when every randos' governance token was just a pump & dump scheme. privacy in voting? that's cute, the whales already know what everyone's voting for anyway. decision fatigue is real tho, most people just hit approve on whatever proposal the largest bag holder pushes through 💀

Reply0

DataBartender

· 9h ago

DAO sounds nice in theory, but in reality, it's just big players calling the shots. Most people don't have the energy to participate at all, and in the end, they're just being exploited. Vitalik's idealism? Privacy? Gamified governance? None of it can be truly achieved. Token voting has been a false proposition from the start—money and power dominate. So, in the end, it still comes down to a combination of technology and incentive mechanisms. When will DAO truly become decentralized? It's still a one-man show.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretter

· 9h ago

To be honest, this set of theories sounds so reasonable yet so heartbreaking... The statement that DAO voting is just a social game really hits the nerve.

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroHero

· 9h ago

DAO voting is essentially a game of human nature; privacy is indeed a pain point. Otherwise, it would just be celebrities lining up to show off.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 9h ago

Oh no, it's that same theory again. The words sound nice, but in practice... most DAOs are just easily manipulated by big players. Privacy + decision fatigue are really tough hurdles. Voting is like stock trading; whoever gets the most votes makes the call. The convex-concave problem sounds profound, but it just seems like another governance framework. In the end, it's still capital that decides. I feel that instead of optimizing governance mechanisms, aligning participant interests should be the real key. In the realm of DAO, it seems like we're always working on governance improvements but never solving the fundamental issues. Privacy can't be guaranteed, so it naturally becomes a social game.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeBarbecue