By definition, governance is a control mechanism that involves intervention. Governors have the ability to propose ideas and implement them on the platform, whether it's adding features, troubleshooting, or voting on someone else's ideas. Governments are present in society and also in companies, which is called the Board of Directors.
So how does governance work in crypto? It's a complex question.
Because you can integrate crypto without participating in the blockchain. There are exchanges like CoinBase, payment providers like VISA, and even locals like Starbucks accepting crypto payments. And while you can buy a lot of shares to gain voting power, the governance consists mostly of insiders and founders. Crypto or not, all centralized organizations follow this traditional, hierarchical structure. Clients and users have no governance.
But cryptocurrencies are public, decentralized blockchains. They are democratic, flat structures where anyone can participate in decisions. These are typically technical communities of developers who review the code and suggest revisions.
At the same time, the applications built in a blockchain can have their own governance. For example:
Just like there are many consensus mechanisms, there are different ways to govern crypto platforms. Sometimes it's better to have more than one governance type, and sometimes none. Governance can be on-chain or off-chain:
In on-chain governance, smart contracts determine decisions based on the community's approval. Smart contracts are autonomous functions of code that implement proposals once there are enough votes. The way of voting is similar to staking, except the votes are called governance tokens.
Platforms based on on-chain governance are called Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). Joining a DAO is available to everyone, but to have governance influence, you need governance tokens:
Even then, no proposal is final. Users can suggest anything, like removing previously added features if the community agrees.
What about off-chain governance? The most obvious benefits are:
Because it's so accessible, there are more proposals that could compromise the blockchain's security. That's why there are dozens of development experts moderating these proposals. Here's Ethereum's off-chain governance as an example:
Thus, the core dev teams have the final say on what to change. It's not enough to make proposals secure and error-free. They have to align with the Ethereum vision and efficiency goals.
Which doesn't sound very decentralized. After +5,000 EIPs published in ten years, less than 10% were approved (if not replaced).
Even decentralized governance has its limits when changing the rules. The developers of a protocol can design what can or shouldn't be changed (in case the community proposes it). But what if your improvement proposal is outside of that scope?
In 2016, a barrage of DoS attacks was threatening Ethereum. They could have played by the rules and left the network at high risk (which created Ethereum Classic). Instead, they stopped those threats with the DAO fork. A (hard) fork is an alternative blockchain that inherits the original blocks but follows new rules to continue the chain.
Blockchains are immutable and unique, a bit like collectibles. While you can "copy" the Mona Lisa or create a modified painting, people still recognize the original. When the blockchain doesn't allow a certain change, the governance creates a new chain division.
Today's Ethereum is the result of almost 20 forks (technically called Ethereum "Paris" fork). Why is the newest version the official one and not the original Ethereum (Frontier) from 2015? Because it's the most adopted by the community.
Decentralized governance cannot impose software updates on nodes. Each of the 400,000+ peers has to manually update, and once there are enough to guarantee security (e.g., 75%+), the fork is considered the main chain.
So if someone manipulated the governance, people simply wouldn't want to update to that version.
Decentralized governance isn't any easier than traditional governance. How do you make a fair, rewarding system where people want to participate? How do you avoid concentrating power on the biggest contributors? How do you deal with those who disagree on decisions?
The first iteration was MakerDAO in 2014, so you would think that we'd have these answers by now. But like the blockchain trilemma, governance choices are subjective. At least three problems lead to its manipulation:
At first, these choices may speed up development and bring more investors. But you're not building a community, only attracting traders. Eventually, governance loses participation as members switch to more competitive, welcoming platforms.
Few platforms have succeeded in decentralized governance. While there are hundreds of DAOs, most have below 100 active users and a dozen votes per proposal. The most popular have been Uniswap, Aave, ENS, Curve, and PancakeSwap.
Here's what the top 5 have in common:
These also happen to be competitive platforms with high utility, which isn't a coincidence. Why participate in an inactive project that's mediocre or a copy of a better one? After all, the governance incentive isn't to get free money but a better platform you already like
Governance will make blockchains and protocols more flexible. It encourages continuous improvement and allows us to immediately correct vulnerabilities. But even in crypto, governance is not 100% decentralized.
As we've seen, off-chain governance has centralizing elements. The network overseers have the final say on how to run the platform. On-chain might seem decentralized until you realize how governance tends to concentrate on the richest few. It takes thousands to create proposals and just a few million dollars to achieve the voting majority.
If a protocol is a final product that runs smoothly without incidents, governance can be a burden. Self-governing code really is the essence of decentralized finance. LiquidLoans is governance-free, which creates a predictable environment for stability pools, borrowing, and lending.
Not exactly. Governance can be on or off-chain. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations have either on-chain governance or both.
Both platforms and blockchains can have governance systems. The difference is that DAOs are dApps used for platforms, not blockchains. There's no such thing as the "Ethereum DAO."
When it comes to ERC-20 dApps, the most successful DAOs are Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Aave. But not all platforms have DAOs, as the design can be governance-free.
Ethereum has off-chain governance in the way of Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) and informal forum discussions. Developers can suggest new code features and send them for reviews based on an EIP template. The proposal goes through multiple statuses for weeks, from revisions to the approval of core teams.
While anyone can submit EIPs, only these teams can include them in upcoming forks. They consist of a few members from the Ethereum Foundation and Community. When accepting EIPs, they can be deferred (reserved for future consideration) or final (intended for the next upgrade). Still, the community can sometimes remove old EIPs after a closer review.
Not only has Bitcoin governance, but it's similar to Ethereum's. It consists of over a hundred core developers from different organizations. Users can suggest improvements via Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), which these teams then review.
Unlike Ethereum, Bitcoin's updates are only backward compatible (soft forks). The most important upgrades were SegWit in 2017 and Taproot in 2021.
They might seem the same as they both involve locking a token amount. The more you stake, the more governance or liquidity tokens you get. While they have different utilities, they're both based on proof of ownership.
Governance tokens grant voting power, and they're proportional to what you've staked. Liquidity tokens are a receipt of the coins you provided to a liquidity pool. While you can sell these tokens for profits, you can't redeem your initial deposit without them. But you can yield-farm with liquidity tokens while earning interest from the staked amount.
Join The Leading Crypto ChannelJOIN
Disclaimer:Please note that nothing on this website constitutes financial advice. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided on this website is accurate, individuals must not rely on this information to make a financial or investment decision. Before making any decision, we strongly recommend you consult a qualified professional who should take into account your specific investment objectives, financial situation and individual needs.
Connor is a US-based digital marketer and writer. He has a diverse military and academic background, but developed a passion over the years for blockchain and DeFi because of their potential to provide censorship resistance and financial freedom. Connor is dedicated to educating and inspiring others in the space, and is an active member and investor in the Ethereum, Hex, and PulseChain communities.