🌍 Real-World Impact: Governance Attacks
Learn from hostile takeovers and governance exploits
Understand how voting power is calculated
Your Progress
0 / 5 completed🌍 Real-World Impact: Case Studies in Token Weighting
Theory meets reality: how do token-weighted systems actually perform in major DAOs? We'll examine three case studies: Uniswap (linear weighting, high concentration), Compound (linear weighting, founder control), and Gitcoin (quadratic funding, experimental success). Each reveals different trade-offs between efficiency, fairness, and decentralization.
📚 Interactive: Case Study Explorer
Explore three real DAOs and how their voting systems shape outcomes. Each chose different approaches with measurably different results.
Uniswap
Linear Token Weighting
📖 The Story
Uniswap launched with $400M airdrop to users (community-first narrative). But token distribution heavily favored VCs and team: 40% locked for insiders vs 15% to community. In practice, a16z alone can swing close votes with their 7% stake.
2021 proposal to fund "DeFi Education Fund" with $20M UNI passed despite community opposition. Large holders voted yes, small holders voted no but were outvoted. Fund immediately sold $10M UNI, crashing price 40%. Community furious but powerless.
Result: Despite democratic theater, Uniswap governance is controlled by ~20 large token holders and delegates. Most users never vote. The DAO functions as intended (efficient decision-making) but not as marketed (community control).
Token distribution determines real power. Narrative of decentralization doesn't match reality of concentration.
📊 Comparative Analysis
| Metric | Uniswap | Compound | Gitcoin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voting System | Linear (1:1) | Linear (1:1) | Quadratic (√) |
| Power Concentration | Very High | Very High | Low |
| Participation Rate | 2.5% | 5% | ~15% (funding rounds) |
| Decision Speed | Fast | Fast | Moderate |
| Attack Cost | $2B+ (high liquidity) | $780M (less liquid) | Sybil vulnerable |
| Community Satisfaction | Mixed | Moderate | High |
🎯 What Actually Works?
Uniswap and Compound make technical decisions efficiently. Low participation is fine—protocol works regardless. Concentration is feature, not bug: aligned stakeholders decide.
Uniswap DeFi Ed Fund fiasco: whales voted for self-serving proposal against community wishes. Token voting isn't good at allocating funds fairly—benefits flow to connected insiders.
Gitcoin's $50M+ in grants funded projects whales would ignore (documentation, education, accessibility). Proves alternative systems work for specific use cases.
Many DAOs use token voting for protocol changes, quadratic/conviction for grants, reputation for operational decisions. Different systems for different contexts.
💡 Key Insight
Token-weighted voting is not inherently good or bad—it depends on what you're using it for. For technical protocol decisions (change fee parameter, upgrade contract), it works well: efficient, Sybil-resistant, aligns incentives. For treasury allocation and public goods, it performs poorly: whales extract value, community ignored. Gitcoin proves quadratic systems work at scale for certain use cases. The future likely isn't one system but multiple systems layered appropriately: token voting for protocol, quadratic for grants, reputation for operations. Most DAOs haven't figured this out yet—they use token voting for everything because it's simple. The successful ones will specialize their governance tools.