分散自治组织（DAOS）面临的挑战

Daos曾经被誉为治理的未来，可以在没有集中控制的情况下运作的结构，这纯粹是由代码和社区共识的指导。

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.

随着Web3继续获得吸引力，分散的自治组织（DAOS）已成为传统治理结构的有前途的替代方案。这些组织旨在在没有集中控制的情况下运作，并通过基于代码的机制进行了治理决策。

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，随着道斯超越理论治理实验，他们遇到了巨大的障碍，阻碍了有效的领导。 Beincrypto与Venus协议的Vanguard Team的负责人Danny Cooper进行了交谈，以了解选民投票率低，大型标记持有人和决策瘫痪如何在这些组织中构成挑战。

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.

道斯曾经被誉为治理的未来，并承诺彻底改变组织的结构和运作方式。这些实体将仅由代码和社区共识的指导，而无需集中权力。

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.

愿景很简单：一个透明的民主制度，每个参与者都有声音，决策是通过基于代币的投票而共同做出的。这些组织通常会利用区块链来促进自我强制规则或协议，并在整个区块链上签订了存储规则的智能合约，而网络的代币用于激励用户来维护网络并对法规进行投票。

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.

自从2016年在以太坊上推出第一个DAO以来，这些组织就进入了风险投资，社会计划和公共物品资金领域。但是，随着他们现在实施的哲学，它们的缺陷开始浮出水面。

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.

道斯经常努力平衡权力下放和有效领导的需求，提出问题，即他们是真正的理想治理模式，还是只是对更精致的东西的垫脚石。

Lowered Voter Turnout

降低了选民的投票率

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.

与具有层次结构和集中决策的传统组织不同，Daos通过基于代码的机制在其成员之间进行治理决策。这种分散的方法旨在通过代币投票机制积极参与决策过程。

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，在许多情况下，同等分布的投票能力并未产生预期的结果。在每个问题上频繁投票都会阻止参与。

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

库珀说：“随着道斯的成长，决策确实会变得麻烦。”

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.

由于许多DAO都使用全民投票式投票，因此他们认为成员将彻底研究建议。但是，时间限制，缺乏信息或简单的私人兴趣可能会导致选民投票率较低或投票决定。

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

等待每个DAO成员对提案进行投票也可以减慢决策过程，尤其是在需要紧急解决方案的情况下。

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

通过优先和主题对投票问题进行细分，并将其分配给特定的代表可以解决此问题。

“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.

“分散的决策可以通过实施子DAO和分层治理系统的实施来扩展，该系统将决策委派给了较小的，集中的群体。这种方法降低了运营的复杂性，同时授权专业团队在定义的边界内自主行动。先进的治理工具和清晰的编纂过程确保了成长中的分散社区的效率和连贯性。”库珀补充说。

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

其他选择可以弥补参与的减少，尽管它们也带有风险。

Increased Centralization Among Major Players

主要参与者的集中化增加

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

为了解决选民投票率较低的人，一些DAO允许较少的活跃参与者将其投票权委托给更多知情成员，以增加整体参与度。

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，该系统并不能消除原始所有者的影响风险。他们仍然可以获得大多数可转让的投票令牌，从而使他们能够操纵可能与DAO的最大利益不符的决策。

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，集中化风险也在上升。 2024年12月，位于剑桥大学的研究所剑桥替代金融中心发表了一项研究，研究了分散融资（DEFI）项目中的集中化水平。

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

分析的重点是以下DAO：AAVE，复合金融，凸金，曲线融资，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.

该研究表明，几个领先的Defi Daos中的权力高度集中，治理通常由一些有影响力的参与者主导。

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.

研究人员使用Gini系数来衡量DAOS的治理令牌分布和投票。该系数衡量了这些协议中治理令牌分布的不平等，其中1个代表最大不平等，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.

剑桥研究发现，这10个DAO的GINI系数范围从0.97到2024年10月。截至2024年10月。根据Statista Data的数据，南非是全球收入最高的Unequal国家的南非，是全球收入最高的Unequal系数，其GINI系数为0.63。 。

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

Makerdao的系数最高为0.99，而火箭池的系数为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.

鲸鱼活动损害了高净值个人之间的投票能力集中，也可以使较小的令牌持有人边缘化，这有可能导致一小群有影响力的参与者有效地控制治理决策的情况。

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

库珀说：“鲸鱼对道斯的影响会偏向治理结果。”

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

某些道斯内部的力量集中也引起了人们对潜在寻租行为的担忧