2025-12-29 19:21:11

DAOs have been highly anticipated, seen as a digital utopia—transparent, democratic, community-governed. But reality is always harsh.

The original intention was good. Decentralization, community ownership, on-chain transparency... sounds perfect. But once they are actually operational, old human issues surface. Voter turnout is embarrassingly low, most token holders are too lazy to vote, and a small number of whales hold disproportionate influence. Information overload is also a nightmare—proposals come one after another, and no one can keep up. Not to mention managing digital assets worth tens of millions or even hundreds of millions, and constantly upgrading protocols... these challenges are no easier than traditional companies.

DAOs are not the problem, but what about human factors? Greed, indifference, cognitive limitations. These issues exist in centralized organizations and still persist on the chain. Transparency improves information asymmetry but cannot fix human nature.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SerLiquidated

· 4h ago

Whales veto other people's painstaking proposals, this is web3 democracy haha Moving chains can't change the essence of scum That DAO voting rate... hilarious, it's no different from having none It's another story of idealism clashing with reality, the old routine In the end, it's still controlled by a few big players, transparency my ass

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 4h ago

Ha, you're so right. DAO is just bringing human greed onto the chain. Whale dictatorship, retail investors just fishing around—this game of changing skins is still the same. Transparency is useless; if people are bad, they're bad, and that can't be changed by putting it on the chain. This is probably where the Web3 dream shatters. System design ultimately can't defeat human nature. With such low voter turnout, how can they still call it democracy? That's hilarious.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 5h ago

In simple terms, a DAO is about bringing human nature onto the blockchain. Transparency alone cannot change the fundamental nature of whales harvesting retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

NftBankruptcyClub

· 5h ago

It's too heartbreaking. DAO is just exposing human nature on the chain; transparency can't save greed. I really get annoyed when whales stick to their word. Small retail investors' voting rights are essentially meaningless. The ideal of DAO is beautiful, but the governance costs are as high as a company’s, and it needs to be watched 24/7. Why bother? Participation in voting is so low; might as well let whales take control directly, at least it's simpler. With information overload, who can read it all? I've already given up on understanding proposals. Just hodl. Honestly, it's still a human problem. Change the system, and people will still be the same.

View OriginalReply0

CantAffordPancake

· 5h ago

It's quite a harsh truth; decentralization can't save human nature either.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 5h ago

It's a harsh statement, but it really hits home. Whale dictatorship is even called decentralization, it's hilarious. There are so many vivid examples, voting weight is just a joke. The fundamental problem with DAOs is actually—bringing human nature onto the chain, but the chain can't change anything. That thing called voting turnout is like a shareholders' meeting, always the silent majority. Human nature really can't be governed on the chain. To put it simply, the chain changes the way transactions are done but can't change greed. What’s more, can we really expect a bunch of stakeholders to cast good votes?

View OriginalReply0