Let's take a look at an interesting challenge faced by the APRO project.

Imagine you are a community member, and the project team asks you to vote on an important policy: should voter identities be kept secret (anonymous voting), or should both the voting records and voters be made public? It seems like a simple technical choice, but in reality, it involves the entire community's power structure and trust foundation.

This is similar to the traditional parliament's choice between secret ballots and open voting—appearing simple but with far-reaching implications. In Web3 DAO governance, this presents a binary choice: one side prioritizes privacy, the other transparency. Both options have their reasons and costs.

**Logic of Anonymous Voting**

If voter identities are hidden, it can prevent targeted pressure. Some holders might face pressure because of their voting choices—coming from large stakeholders, community opinion, or even the project team. Anonymous voting provides them with a shield. Technically, this is achieved through zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP)—allowing a person to prove they have voting rights without revealing who they are.

The benefits are clear: voting becomes freer and harder to manipulate. But there are downsides too: the community cannot see who supports what, making it difficult to track interests, and it can also breed conspiracy theories.

**Another Logic of Transparent Voting**

If all votes are recorded openly, the community can see how large holders voted, how project-related accounts voted, or whether certain address groups coordinated their votes. This transparency builds accountability, making every vote traceable.

What are the downsides? Small retail investors might be targeted or scrutinized based on their voting choices, and the influence of large stakeholders becomes more apparent.

**What Does APRO's Choice Mean**

This is not just a technical adjustment; it’s about defining the governance culture of this DAO. Choosing anonymity emphasizes protecting individual rights; choosing transparency emphasizes community oversight. Both paths can lead to the Web3 future, but their directions are entirely different.

Now it’s 2025, and DAO governance has moved from early experiments to more complex, realistic scenarios. APRO’s decision will not only affect internal operations but also shape how other projects view and interact with it. In the global Web3 ecosystem, every DAO’s governance choice is answering the same question: what kind of decentralization do we really want?