2 posts tagged with "DAO"

When the Curve DAO rejected a $17 million CRV grant request from its own founder in December 2025, it wasn't just another governance vote. It was a declaration that the era of founder-controlled DAOs is ending—replaced by something neither idealists nor critics fully anticipated: governance capitalism, where concentrated capital, not community sentiment or founding teams, holds decisive power.

The vote split 54.46% against and 45.54% in favor. On-chain data revealed the uncomfortable truth: addresses associated with Convex Finance and Yearn Finance accounted for nearly 90% of the votes cast against the grant. Two protocols, acting in their own economic interests, overruled the founder of a $2.5 billion TVL platform.

The Anatomy of a $17 Million Rejection​

The proposal seemed straightforward. Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov requested 17.4 million CRV tokens—valued at approximately $6.2 million—to fund Swiss Stake AG, a team that has maintained Curve's core codebase since 2020. The roadmap included advancing LlamaLend, expanding support for PT and LP tokens, developing on-chain forex markets, and continuing crvUSD development.

Just sixteen months earlier, in August 2024, a similar request for 21 million CRV tokens ($6.3 million at the time) had passed with nearly 91% support. What changed?

The answer lies in how governance power shifted during that period. Convex Finance now controls approximately 53% of all veCRV—the vote-escrowed tokens that determine governance outcomes. Combined with Yearn Finance and StakeDAO, three liquid locker protocols dominate Curve's decision-making apparatus. Their votes are influenced by self-interest: supporting proposals that might dilute their holdings or redirect emissions away from their preferred pools serves no economic purpose.

The rejection wasn't about whether Swiss Stake deserved funding. It was about who gets to decide—and what incentives drive those decisions.

The Vote-Escrow Paradox​

Curve's governance model relies on vote-escrowed tokens (veCRV), a mechanism designed to solve two fundamental problems: liquidity and engagement. Users lock CRV for up to four years, receiving veCRV proportional to both token amount and lock duration. The theory was elegant: long-term lockups would filter for stakeholders with genuine protocol alignment.

Reality diverged from theory. Liquid lockers like Convex emerged, pooling CRV from thousands of users and permanently locking it to maximize governance influence. Users receive liquid tokens (cvxCRV) representing their stake, gaining exposure to Curve rewards without the four-year commitment. Convex keeps the governance power.

The result is a concentration pattern that research now confirms across the broader DAO ecosystem. Analysis shows that less than 0.1% of governance token holders possess 90% of voting power in major DAOs. Compound's top 10 voters control 57.86% of voting power. Uniswap's top 10 control 44.72%. These aren't anomalies—they're the predictable outcome of tokenomics designed without adequate safeguards against concentration.

The Curve rejection crystallized what academics call "governance capitalism": voting rights bound to long-term lockup filter for large capital holders and long-term speculators. Over time, governance shifts from ordinary users to capital groups whose interests may diverge significantly from the protocol's broader community.

The $40 Billion Accountability Question​

The stakes extend far beyond Curve. Total DAO treasury assets have grown from $8.8 billion in early 2023 to over $40 billion today, with more than 13,000 active DAOs and 5.1 million governance token holders. Optimism Collective commands $5.5 billion, Arbitrum DAO manages $4.4 billion, and Uniswap controls $2.5 billion—figures rivaling many traditional corporations.

Yet accountability mechanisms haven't kept pace with asset growth. The Curve rejection exposed a pattern: tokenholders demanded transparency about how previous allocations were used before approving new funding. Some suggested future grants be distributed in installments to reduce market impact on CRV. These are basic corporate governance practices that DAOs have largely failed to adopt.

The data is sobering. Over 60% of DAO proposals lack consistent audit documentation. Voter participation averages 17%, with participation concentrated among the top 10% of token holders who control 76.2% of voting power. This isn't decentralized governance—it's minority rule with extra steps.

Only 12% of DAOs now employ on-chain identity mechanisms to improve accountability. More than 70% of DAOs with treasuries above $50 million require layered audits, including flash-loan protection and delayed execution tools. The infrastructure exists; adoption lags.

Solutions That Might Actually Work​

The DAO ecosystem isn't blind to these problems. Quadratic voting, which makes additional votes exponentially more expensive, has been adopted by over 100 DAOs including Gitcoin and Optimism-based projects. Adoption rose 30% in 2025, helping balance influence and reduce whale dominance.

Research proposes integrating quadratic voting with vote-escrow mechanisms, demonstrating mitigation of whale problems while maintaining resistance to collusion. Ethereum Layer-2s like Optimism, Arbitrum, and Base have cut DAO gas fees by up to 90%, making participation more accessible for smaller holders.

Legal frameworks are emerging to provide accountability structures. Wyoming's DUNA framework and the Harmony Framework introduced in February 2025 offer pathways for DAOs to establish legal identity while maintaining decentralized operations. States like Vermont, Wyoming, and Tennessee have introduced legislation recognizing DAOs as legal entities.

Milestone-based disbursement models are gaining traction for treasury allocation. Recipients receive funding in stages upon meeting predefined goals, mitigating misallocation risk while ensuring accountability—exactly what Curve's tokenholders demanded but the proposal lacked.

What the Curve Drama Reveals About DAO Maturity​

The rejection of Egorov's proposal wasn't a failure of governance. It was governance working as designed—just not as intended. When protocols like Convex accumulate 53% of voting power by design, their ability to override founder proposals isn't a bug. It's the logical outcome of a system that equates capital commitment with governance authority.

The question facing mature DAOs isn't whether concentrated power exists—it does, and it's measurable. The question is whether current mechanisms adequately align whale incentives with protocol health, or whether they create structural conflicts where large holders benefit from blocking productive development.

Curve remains a prominent DeFi player with over $2.5 billion in total value locked. The protocol won't collapse because one funding proposal failed. But the precedent matters. When liquid lockers control sufficient veCRV to override any founder proposal, the power dynamic has fundamentally shifted. DAOs built on vote-escrow models face a choice: accept governance by capital concentration, or redesign mechanisms to distribute power more broadly.

On May 6th, 2025, Curve lifted its whitelist restriction on veCRV locking, allowing any address to participate. The change democratized access but didn't address the concentration already locked into the system. Existing power imbalances persist even as entry barriers fall.

The Road Ahead​

The $40 billion in DAO treasuries won't manage itself. The 10,000+ active DAOs won't govern themselves. And the 3.3 million voters won't spontaneously develop accountability mechanisms that protect minority stakeholders.

What the Curve rejection demonstrated is that DAOs have entered an era where governance outcomes depend less on community deliberation and more on the strategic positioning of large capital holders. This isn't inherently bad—institutional investors often bring stability and long-term thinking. But it contradicts the founding mythology of decentralized governance as democratized control.

For builders, the lesson is clear: governance design determines governance outcomes. Vote-escrow models concentrate power by design. Liquid lockers accelerate that concentration. Without explicit mechanisms to counteract these dynamics—quadratic voting, delegation caps, milestone-based funding, identity-verified participation—DAOs trend toward oligarchy regardless of their stated values.

The Curve drama wasn't the end of DAO governance evolution. It was a checkpoint revealing where we actually stand: somewhere between the decentralized ideal and the plutocratic reality, searching for mechanisms that might bridge the gap.

---

Building on decentralized infrastructure requires understanding the governance dynamics that shape protocol evolution. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API services across 20+ blockchains, helping developers build applications that can navigate the complex landscape of DAO-governed protocols. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure powering the next generation of decentralized applications.

Launching a protocol or scaling an on-chain product is no longer just a technical exercise. Regulators are scrutinizing everything from token launches to wallet privacy, while users expect consumer-grade protections. To keep shipping with confidence, every founding team needs a structured way to translate dense legal memos into product decisions. Drawing from 50 of the most common questions web3 lawyers hear, this playbook breaks the conversation into builder-ready moves.

1. Formation & Governance: Separate the Devco, the Foundation, and the Community​

• Pick the right wrapper. Standard C-corps or LLCs still handle payroll, IP, and investor diligence best. If you plan to steward a protocol or grant program, a separate non-profit or foundation keeps incentives clean and governance transparent.
• Paper every relationship. Use IP assignments, confidentiality agreements, and vesting schedules with clear cliffs, lockups, and bad-actor clawbacks. Document board approvals and keep token cap tables as tight as your equity ledgers.
• Draw bright lines between entities. A development company can build under license, but budget, treasury policy, and decision rights should sit with a foundation or DAO that has its own charter and constitution. Where a DAO needs legal personality, wrap it in an LLC or equivalent.

2. Tokens & Securities: Design for Utility, Document the Rationale​

• Assume regulators look past labels. “Governance” or “utility” tags only matter if users actually interact with a live network, buy for consumption, and are not pitched profit upside. Lockups can reduce speculation but should be justified as stability or anti-sybil safeguards.
• Differentiate access from investment. Access tokens should read like product passes—pricing, docs, and marketing must reinforce entitlement to services, not future profits. Stablecoins trigger their own payments or e-money regimes depending on reserves and redemption rights.
• Treat staking and yields like financial products. Any promise of APRs, pooling, or reliance on the team’s efforts raises securities risk. Keep marketing plain, share risk factors, and map a compliant SAFT-to-mainnet plan if you raise with future tokens.
• Remember NFTs can be securities. Fractionalized ownership, revenue shares, or profit language tips them into investment territory. Lean, consumptive NFTs with explicit licenses are safer.

3. Fundraising & Sales: Market the Network, Not the Moonshot​

• Disclose like a grown-up. Purpose, functionality, vesting, allocations, transfer limits, dependencies, and use of proceeds belong in every sale memo. Keep marketing copy aligned with those docs—no “guaranteed yield” tweets.
• Respect jurisdictional lines. If you cannot comply with U.S. or other high-friction regimes, layer geofencing with eligibility checks, contractual restrictions, and post-sale monitoring. KYC/AML is standard for sales and increasingly for airdrops.
• Manage promotion risk. Influencer campaigns need clear sponsorship disclosures and compliant scripts. Exchange listings or market-making deals demand written agreements, conflict checks, and honest communications to venues.

4. AML, Tax, and IP: Build Controls Into the Product​

• Know your regulatory role. Non-custodial software faces lighter AML obligations, but once you touch fiat ramps, custody, or intermediated exchange, money-transmitter or VASP rules apply. Prepare sanctions screening, escalation paths, and travel-rule readiness where relevant.
• Treat tokens like cash for accounting. Token inflows are typically income at fair market value; sales later trigger gains or losses. Compensation grants often create taxable income at vesting—use written grants, track basis, and prepare for volatility.
• Respect IP boundaries. Pair NFTs and on-chain content with explicit licenses, honor third-party open-source terms, and register trademarks. If you are training AI models, confirm dataset rights and scrub sensitive data.

5. Privacy & Data: Limit Collection, Plan for Deletion​

• Assume wallet addresses are personal data. Combine them with IPs, device IDs, or emails and you have personal identifiable information. Collect only what you need, store off-chain when possible, and hash or tokenize identifiers.
• Engineer for erasure. Immutable ledgers do not excuse you from privacy laws—keep PII off-chain, remove references when users request deletion, and sever links that could re-identify hashed data.
• Be transparent about telemetry. Cookie banners, analytics disclosures, and opt-outs are table stakes. Document an incident response plan that covers severity levels, notification timelines, and contact points.

6. Operations & Risk: Audit Early, Communicate Often​

• Audit and disclose. Independent smart-contract audits, formal verification where warranted, and an ongoing bug bounty signal maturity. Publish reports and explain residual risks plainly.
• Set clear Terms of Service. Spell out custody status, eligibility, prohibited uses, dispute resolution, and how you handle forks. Align ToS, privacy policy, and in-product behavior.
• Plan for forks, insurance, and cross-border growth. Reserve rights to choose supported chains, snapshot dates, and migration paths. Explore cyber, crime, D&O, and tech E&O coverage. When operating globally, localize terms, vet export controls, and use EOR/PEO partners to avoid misclassification.
• Prepare for disputes. Decide in advance whether arbitration or class-action waivers fit your user base. Log law-enforcement requests, verify legal process, and explain technical limits like the absence of key custody.

7. The Builder’s Action Checklist​

• Map your operational role: software vendor, custodian, broker-like service, or payments intermediary.
• Keep marketing factual and functionality-focused; avoid language that implies speculative returns.
• Minimize custody and personal data collection; document any unavoidable touchpoints.
• Maintain living docs for token allocation, governance design, audit status, and risk decisions.
• Budget for legal counsel, compliance tooling, audits, bug bounties, and tax expertise from day one.

8. Turning Legal Advice Into Product Velocity​

Regulation will not slow down for builders. What changes outcomes is embedding legal considerations into backlog grooming, treasury management, and user communications. Make counsel part of sprint reviews, rehearse incident response, and iterate on disclosures the same way you iterate on UX. Do that, and the 50 FAQs above stop being a blocker and start becoming a competitive moat for your protocol.