It's 2026 Already, DAOs Should Have Matured by Now

比推Published on 2026-01-29Last updated on 2026-01-29

Abstract

By 2026, DAO governance is maturing beyond idealistic experiments. In 2025, major protocols shifted from pure community governance to hybrid models with clearer operational control, as seen with Arbitrum’s OpCo and Uniswap’s DUNI framework. Voting participation declined but became more concentrated among professional delegates, while token value accumulation gained prominence through buybacks, fee switches, and staking mechanisms. Key conflicts, like Gnosis terminating Karpatkey and Aave’s revenue dispute with Aave Labs, highlighted accountability gaps. Looking ahead, DAOs will formalize legal structures, prioritize risk management, and leverage AI for decision-making. Governance tokens must capture economic value to sustain engagement. The evolution reflects a balance between decentralized oversight and operational efficiency, signaling DAO’s maturation into more effective, accountable organizations.

Author: Pink Brains

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Original title: It's 2026 Already, DAOs Should Have Matured by Now

Deep Tide Guide: 2025 was a critical inflection point for decentralized governance (DAO). After years of idealistic experimentation, mainstream protocols began to seriously address core pain points such as power distribution, accountability mechanisms, and sustainability. This article is written by veteran DAO delegate Pink Brains, based on their practical experience of casting 725 votes in top protocols like Aave, Lido, and Gnosis. It provides an in-depth analysis of the shift in DAOs from "community autonomy" to a "hybrid operation" model.

The author points out that governance tokens alone are no longer sustainable. In the future, DAOs will evolve towards economic alignment, legal entity formation, and AI-assisted decision-making. This is not just a review of governance; it's a prophecy book for the evolution of Web3 organizational structures in 2026.

Full text below:

2025 marked a turning point for decentralized governance.

After years of experimentation, major protocols began confronting fundamental questions about power distribution, accountability, and sustainability.

The answers weren't always pleasant, but they were necessary.

What We Achieved in 2025

2025 was also the first year of our operation as an active DAO Delegate.

Casted 725 votes across 18 protocols
Held over 8 million in voting power
Top 10 delegate in Aave and Lido
Top 3 delegate in Velodrome
Top 6 delegate in Gnosis

This perspective, grounded in actual governance work, gave us clear insight into the patterns reshaping DAOs in 2025 and defined their trajectory entering 2026.

Changes in DAOs in 2025

Shift in Operational Model: From Pure Community Governance to Hybrid Control

The most notable change in 2025 was the shift from purely community-based governance towards hybrid models with clearer operational control.

@arbitrum introduced an Operating Company (OpCo), channeling all DAO operations through a unified structure.
@JupiterExchange completely paused governance for nearly six months to reassess its approach.
@Uniswap launched the DUNI framework, centralizing operational authority.
@Gnosis's DAO executed a hard fork amidst reduced community engagement. Scroll transitioned to a CEO-led structure.
@Scroll_ZKP suspended its DAO, shifting focus to centralized governance.
Recently, the Celo Foundation merged with @cLabs into a unified core contributor organization.

The motivation for this shift was DAOs hitting scaling limits. Execution became the bottleneck. Full-community votes were often too slow for operations, too noisy for technical nuances, and too vulnerable for security-sensitive actions.

Consequently, governance power concentrated towards smaller, high-context groups, while the broader community shifted towards oversight functions, as seen in the next section.

Fewer Voters, But More Concentrated Power

In 2025, the number of proposals and participating voters dropped significantly across major DAOs. However, the voting power behind each proposal remained strong.

Lido saw an increase in participation after adopting a dual governance framework.
Arbitrum and Uniswap still had the highest overall participation, but both saw a decrease in the number of voters.

Caption: From DeFiLlama's State of DeFi 2025 Report

This does not signal the failure of governance. Instead, governance became more bundled, more operationally abstract, and less frequent.

Governance influence migrated to a small number of highly active Delegates and heavily capitalized participants.

Value Accrual for Token Holders

"Token buyback," "buyback and burn," and "fee switch" became central themes in 2025.

For years, token utility revolved around voting rights and incentive distribution, but offered minimal economic value to token holders. 2025 changed this equation.

Lido adopted a buyback framework.
Uniswap DAO activated the long-awaited fee switch, pledging to burn nearly $600 million worth of UNI tokens.
Aave implemented a token buyback mechanism. Optimism launched a buyback program.
CoW Protocol increased solver profitability in a way that benefits token holders.

This trend addresses a key challenge in tokenomics. Buybacks and burns reduce circulating supply, making the token more scarce. If demand holds steady, the price strengthens. When token holders can actually benefit from the protocol's success, they are more incentivized to buy, hold, and participate in governance decisions long-term.

Who Really Owns the DAO?

Two major controversies forced DAOs to confront structural flaws.

Gnosis voted to terminate Karpatkey's treasury mandate due to fee disputes, underperformance, and a ~$700k loss related to a liquidity issue.
Tensions between Aave DAO and Aave Labs escalated when it was discovered that ~$10 million annually in swap fees from the CoW Swap integration were flowing to Aave Labs instead of the DAO. A vote on brand ownership failed, and the controversy left a harder question: what does "DAO-owned" really mean when the core team controls development and distribution?

These conflicts forced protocols to fill the gaps in accountability and governance structures.

Legal Infrastructure is Adapting to DAOs

Despite DeFi's growth, most DAOs still lack clear legal structures, creating liability and regulatory risks as protocols scale.

While jurisdictions like Wyoming have introduced DAO LLC frameworks, and Switzerland offers mature legal pathways, most DAOs remain in a legal gray area.

2026 Trend Predictions

Centralized DAOs as a New Practice

Protocols will develop clear frameworks to delineate "community decisions" from "operational decisions," moving beyond the false binary of "fully decentralized" or "fully centralized."

Operational Execution: Will be handled by Labs teams, not foundations.
Community Oversight: DAO delegates and the community will be responsible for treasury strategy, long-term direction, and major structural decisions.

Governance Shifts Towards Risk Management Infrastructure

The DAO of the future will be less like a forum full of chatter. More teams will bifurcate decisions into concave decisions and convex decisions.

Concave problems require:

Pre-approved guardrails and automated execution.
Professional oversight (risk services, auditors, security teams).
Rapid response frameworks for emergencies and market shocks.
Fewer proposals, but each decision carries higher economic impact.

Convex problems (like product direction) require decisive leadership, where the DAO acts as a "brake" or "checkpoint," not a "steering wheel."

By 2026, this will be standard for lending, stablecoins, perps, and any protocol where financial risk can compound quickly.

The End of Governance Tokens? Value Capture is a Must

Continuing into 2026, tokens with only governance functions will struggle to maintain long-term engagement.

Delegates, whales, and strategic holders won't consistently provide protection for the system without seeing a return profile. Protocols will increasingly adopt at least one value accrual path:

Token buyback frameworks.
Fee diversion or revenue sharing.
Staking tied to protocol cash flows.
Treasury strategies aimed at supporting token value.

When holders gain economically from the protocol's success, they are incentivized to stay attentive, participate, and protect the system.

Legal Structures Shift from Optional to Necessary

Regulatory pressure and real-world legal challenges will push DAOs towards formal entity formation, seeking a balance between decentralized governance and legal clarity.

Professional Delegation

As governance complexity increases, token holders will increasingly delegate to full-time professional delegates. While this concentrates voting power, it may improve decision quality. Meanwhile, weaker delegate institutions that cannot financially sustain themselves will fold, as governance work becomes more professional, political, and costly.

Privacy, AI & Futarchy

Public governance is a social game. When every vote is publicly visible, decisions are influenced by reputation, pressure, and alliances, rather than purely the protocol's best interest. Therefore, governance privacy will become more important in the future.

AI will address decision fatigue. It can assist in analyzing proposals and auto-voting on routine upgrades based on user-defined preferences, requiring human intervention only for disputes or high-impact matters.

Futarchy markets will also play a larger role in DAOs. They let market signals predict which option might create value. Gnosis is testing this model, using retail prediction markets to reflect sentiment on proposals.

Crypto is Maturing, and So Are DAOs

The shifts we see in DAO operations, economic alignment, accountability conflicts, and professionalization represent maturation, not the end of DAOs.

DAOs are evolving from ideological experiment to organizational architecture that balances "decentralized oversight" with "proven operational efficiency." We believe DAO governance becomes meaningful if teams can align with community interests: moving fast when action is needed, letting growth benefit token holders, and holding all participants—core teams and delegates alike—accountable.

As Vitalik said: We need more DAOs, but different and better DAOs.

If you believe in the value of DAOs, we can be your voice.

Effective delegation is more than just casting a vote; it means doing the actual work: reading proposals, being active on forums, understanding risks, and voting against bad decisions, even when it's not the popular choice.

This is how we operate as delegates: through clear communication and educational content, helping the protocol grow while staying aligned with community incentives.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

BitPush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

BitPush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7607064

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit4h ago

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit4h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手4h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手4h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit6h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit6h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手7h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手7h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit8h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit8h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures