分散自治組織（DAOS）面臨的挑戰

Daos曾經被譽為治理的未來，可以在沒有集中控制的情況下運作的結構，這純粹是由代碼和社區共識的指導。

As Web3 continues to gain traction, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional governance structures. These organizations are designed to operate without centralized control, with governance decisions made collectively by members through code-based mechanisms.

隨著Web3繼續獲得吸引力，分散的自治組織（DAOS）已成為傳統治理結構的有前途的替代方案。這些組織旨在在沒有集中控制的情況下運作，並通過基於代碼的機制進行了治理決策。

However, as DAOs grow beyond theoretical governance experiments, they encounter significant hurdles that hinder effective leadership. BeInCrypto spoke with Danny Cooper, Venus Protocol’s Vanguard Team Lead, to understand how low voter turnout, large token holders, and decision paralysis can pose challenges in these organizations.

但是，隨著道斯超越理論治理實驗，他們遇到了巨大的障礙，阻礙了有效的領導。 Beincrypto與Venus協議的Vanguard Team的負責人Danny Cooper進行了交談，以了解選民投票率低，大型標記持有人和決策癱瘓如何在這些組織中構成挑戰。

A New Governance Model

新的治理模型

DAOs were once hailed as the future of governance, promising to revolutionize the way organizations are structured and operated. These entities would function autonomously, guided solely by code and community consensus, without the need for centralized authority.

道斯曾經被譽為治理的未來，並承諾徹底改變組織的結構和運作方式。這些實體將僅由代碼和社區共識的指導，而無需集中權力。

The vision was simple: a transparent, democratic system where every participant has a voice and decisions are made collectively through token-based voting. These organizations typically leverage a blockchain to facilitate self-enforcing rules or protocols, with smart contracts on the blockchain storing the rules and the network’s tokens used to incentivize users to safeguard the network and vote on regulations.

願景很簡單：一個透明的民主制度，每個參與者都有聲音，決策是通過基於代幣的投票而共同做出的。這些組織通常會利用區塊鏈來促進自我強制規則或協議，並在整個區塊鏈上簽訂了存儲規則的智能合約，而網絡的代幣用於激勵用戶來維護網絡並對法規進行投票。

Since the first DAO was launched on Ethereum in 2016, these organizations have entered the realms of venture capital, social initiatives, and public goods funding. But with their philosophy now implemented, their flaws have begun to surface.

自從2016年在以太坊上推出第一個DAO以來，這些組織就進入了風險投資，社會計劃和公共物品資金領域。但是，隨著他們現在實施的哲學，它們的缺陷開始浮出水面。

DAOs often struggle to balance decentralization and the need for effective leadership, raising questions about whether they are genuinely the ideal governance model or simply a stepping stone toward something more refined.

道斯經常努力平衡權力下放和有效領導的需求，提出問題，即他們是真正的理想治理模式，還是只是對更精緻的東西的墊腳石。

Lowered Voter Turnout

降低了選民的投票率

Unlike traditional organizations with hierarchical structures and centralized decision-making, DAOs distribute governance decisions among their members through code-based mechanisms. This decentralized approach aims to empower members to participate actively in decision-making processes through token voting mechanisms.

與具有分層結構和集中決策的傳統組織不同，Daos通過基於代碼的機制在其成員之間進行治理決策。這種分散的方法旨在通過代幣投票機制積極參與決策過程。

However, there have been many instances where equally distributed voting power did not yield the expected results. Frequent voting on every issue can discourage participation.

但是，在許多情況下，同等分佈的投票能力並未產生預期的結果。在每個問題上頻繁投票都會阻止參與。

“As DAOs grow, decision-making can indeed become cumbersome,” said Cooper.

庫珀說：“隨著道斯的成長，決策確實會變得麻煩。”

Since many DAOs use referendum-style voting, they assume members will thoroughly research proposals. However, time constraints, lack of information, or simple disinterest can lead to low voter turnout or uninformed voting decisions.

由於許多DAO都使用全民投票式投票，因此他們認為成員將徹底研究建議。但是，時間限制，缺乏信息或簡單的私人興趣可能會導致選民投票率較低或投票決定。

Waiting for every DAO member to vote on a proposal can also slow the decision-making process, especially when an urgent solution is needed.

等待每個DAO成員對提案進行投票也可以減慢決策過程，尤其是在需要緊急解決方案的情況下。

Segmenting voting matters by priority and topic and assigning them to specific delegates can solve this issue.

通過優先和主題對投票問題進行細分，並將其分配給特定的代表可以解決此問題。

“Decentralized decision-making can scale with the implementation of sub-DAOs and layered governance systems, which delegate decision-making to smaller, focused groups. This approach reduces operational complexity while empowering specialized teams to act autonomously within defined boundaries. Advanced governance tooling and clear, codified processes ensure efficiency and coherence across a growing, decentralized community,” Cooper added.

“分散的決策可以通過實施子DAO和分層治理系統的實施來擴展，該系統將決策委派給了較小的，集中的群體。這種方法降低了運營的複雜性，同時授權專業團隊在定義的邊界內自主行動。先進的治理工具和清晰的編纂過程確保了成長中的分散社區的效率和連貫性。”庫珀補充說。

Other options can remedy decreased participation, though they also come with risks.

其他選擇可以彌補參與的減少，儘管它們也帶有風險。

Increased Centralization Among Major Players

主要參與者的集中化增加

To address low voter turnout, some DAOs allow less active participants to entrust their voting power to more informed members to increase overall engagement.

為了解決選民投票率較低的人，一些DAO允許較少的活躍參與者將其投票權委託給更多知情成員，以增加整體參與度。

However, this system does not eliminate the risk of influence by the original owners. They could still acquire a majority of transferable voting tokens, allowing them to manipulate decisions that may not align with the DAO’s best interests.

但是，該系統並不能消除原始所有者的影響風險。他們仍然可以獲得大多數可轉讓的投票令牌，從而使他們能夠操縱可能與DAO的最大利益不符的決策。

Consequently, centralization risks also rise. In December 2024, the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, a research institute based at the University of Cambridge, published a study examining the centralization level among decentralized finance (DeFi) projects.

因此，集中化風險也在上升。 2024年12月，位於劍橋大學的研究所劍橋替代金融中心發表了一項研究，研究了分散融資（DEFI）項目中的集中化水平。

The analysis focused on the following DAOs: AAVE, Compound Finance, Convex Finance, Curve Finance, Frax Finance, Instadapp, Lido, MakerDao, Rocket Pool, and Uniswap.

分析的重點是以下DAO：AAVE，複合金融，凸金，曲線融資，Frax Finance，Instadapp，Lido，Makerdao，Makerdao，Rocket Pool和Uniswap。

The study revealed that power within several leading DeFi DAOs is highly concentrated, with governance often dominated by a few influential players.

該研究表明，幾個領先的Defi Daos中的權力高度集中，治理通常由一些有影響力的參與者主導。

Researchers used the Gini coefficient to measure the DAOs’ governance token distribution and voting. This coefficient measures the inequality of governance token distribution within these protocols, with 1 representing maximum inequality and 0 representing perfect equality.

研究人員使用Gini係數來衡量DAOS的治理令牌分佈和投票。該係數衡量了這些協議中治理令牌分佈的不平等，其中1個代表最大不平等，0代表完美的平等。

The Cambridge study found that these 10 DAOs had Gini coefficients ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 as of October 2024. For comparison, South Africa, the most income-unequal country in the world, had a Gini coefficient of 0.63 in 2024, according to Statista data.

劍橋研究發現，這10個DAO的GINI係數範圍從0.97到2024年10月。截至2024年10月。根據Statista Data的數據，南非是全球收入最高的Unequal國家的南非，是全球收入最高的Unequal係數，其GINI係數為0.63。 。

MakerDAO had the highest coefficient of 0.99, while Rocket Pool had a coefficient of 0.97.

Makerdao的係數最高為0.99，而火箭池的係數為0.97。

Whale Activity Compromises DAO GovernanceThe concentration of voting power among high-net-worth individuals can also marginalize smaller token holders, potentially leading to a situation in which a small group of influential actors effectively controls governance decisions.

鯨魚活動損害了高淨值個人之間的投票能力集中，也可以使較小的令牌持有人邊緣化，這有可能導致一小群有影響力的參與者有效地控制治理決策的情況。

“Whale influence in DAOs can skew governance outcomes,” said Cooper.

庫珀說：“鯨魚對道斯的影響會偏向治理結果。”

The concentration of power within some DAOs also raises concerns about potential rent-seeking behavior

某些道斯內部的力量集中也引起了人們對潛在尋租行為的擔憂