How To Balance Power in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations

HodlX Guest Post  Submit Your Post

In recent years, the idea of DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) has been gaining noticeable attention within the blockchain and cryptocurrency space.

DAOs are organizations that operate on a set of rules encoded in computer software rather than being run by a central authority or traditional hierarchical structure.

DAOs aim to promote a more democratized and decentralized approach to governance and decision-making, ensuring even power distribution among members. But as with any organization, balancing power within a DAO could be challenging.

In this blog post, we will uncover various methods for balancing power within DAOs and examine their benefits and weak points.

The importance of balancing power in DAOs

One of the core objectives of DAOs is to ensure an even distribution of power among members, giving everyone an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.

This approach aims to provide a more democratic and decentralized structure contrary to the traditional hierarchical structure where power lives in the domains of a few individuals.

However, without the necessary checks and balances, power can still be domiciled among a few members within a DAO, which could result in significant problems.

For instance, during the early days of DAOs, there were numerous instances of bad actors exploiting loopholes in the software code to gain control of the organization.

This occurrence signaled the need to balance power within DAOs and ensure proper implementation of governance mechanisms to prevent attacks like that in the future.

Methods of balancing power in DAOs

In this section, we will explore a couple of the most common approaches with their pros and cons.

Token-based voting

Token-based voting is one of the most common methods for decision-making in DAOs. Members of the DAO need to hold tokens that will represent their stake in the organization.

The volume of tokens held by each member determines the number of votes they can cast.

This approach helps to incorporate a more democratic and decentralized decision-making process where every member can contribute to the organization’s growth.

Token holders can submit proposals, which are then voted on by the community. The voting power of each token holder is dependent on the number of tokens they hold.

Benefits of token-based voting

• It creates a more democratic environment for a collective decision-making process where every member can contribute to the organization’s growth.
• It also tends to align the incentives of token holders with the success of the organization since they have a direct stake in the organization’s success.

Demerits of token-based voting

• Regarding token-based voting being dependent on the number of tokens in the possession of the members, power can still be concentrated in the hands of a few token holders – especially if a significant volume of the tokens are held by a few members. This can birth an environment where decisions are made by a small group of individuals rather than a wider membership.
• Token-based voting is susceptible to manipulation or buying of votes where the big bag holders can override the outcome of the vote.

Reputation-based voting

Reputation-based voting is another form of decision-making in DAOs. This method involves assigning a reputation score to members based on their contributions to the organization.

So many factors affect this score, such as the quality of their proposals, their participation in the organizational activities and their ability to bring in more members.

Members with good reputation scores are given preferences during the decision-making process, allowing them to have a higher say in the organization.

Benefits of reputation-based voting

• It can motivate members to actively contribute to the organization and connect decision-making power with the most active and valuable members.
• It can also help to promote a more merit-based system where members with relatively higher contributions to the organization have a higher say in its growth and direction.

Disadvantages of reputation-based voting

Just like token-based voting, reputation-based voting isn’t free from having drawbacks.

• One potential issue is that it can be too difficult to accurately track and quantify contributions, resulting in potential disputes over reputation scores.
• It can also foster the marginalization of newer or not-too-active members who may not have been opportune to build up a good reputation score.

Liquid democracy

Liquid Democracy is a coalition approach that merges both token-based and reputation-based voting. In this system, each member can either vote on proposals directly or assign their vote to members they trust.

The delegated votes can be retracted at any time, allowing members the opportunity to change their vote if they sense their representative is not adequately representing their interests.

Benefits of liquid democracy

• It creates a more flexible and easy flow decision-making process, where members can have varied options to either vote directly or delegate their vote to trusted representatives.
• It also provides an avenue for a more even distribution of power where members can elect representatives they assume to have the necessary expertise and grounded knowledge to make informed decisions.

Demerits of liquid democracy

Liquid democracy is not void of drawbacks.

• Just like token-based voting, it could result in uneven distribution of power here by giving room for power to be concentrated among a few trusted representatives – especially if there are a limited number of knowledgeable and active members.
• It can also suffer implementation challenges as members may be unfamiliar with the delegation process or may not have a good level of trust in other members to delegate their vote.

Multi-stakeholder decision-making

Multi-stakeholder decision-making tends to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process that includes members, customers, suppliers and the wider community.

This approach aims to create a more enabling environment for an inclusive and representative decision-making process where all stakeholders can contribute to the organization’s direction.

Benefits of multi-stakeholder decision-making

• It creates an enabling environment for an inclusive and representative decision-making process where every stakeholder has a voice in the organization’s direction.
• It also ensures that decisions will be based on the broader community interests rather than just the interest of a selected few.

Demerits of multi-stakeholder decision-making

Like other decision-making methods, this method still has its share of flaws.

• One major flaw with this method is the difficulty of effectively involving all stakeholders, especially in a large and diverse community.
• It can also result in a clash of interests where different stakeholders may have conflicting objectives and priorities.

Conclusion

The balancing of powers in DAOs is paramount to ensure the effective functioning of an organization and the achievement of its objectives.

Token-based voting, reputation-based voting, liquid democracy and multi-stakeholder decision-making are all methods that can be utilized to distribute power within a DAO.

Each of these methods has its fair share of merits and demerits, and the choice of method to be used is a function of the specific needs and objectives of the organization.

In all, the success of a DAO greatly depends on finding a suitable balance between decentralization and effective decision-making, which can be realized through careful planning, implementation and progressive evaluation.

Guy Sheetrit is the CEO of Over The Top SEO and provides customized marketing solutions for Fortune 50 to Fortune 500 companies.

Featured Image: Shutterstock/2Be Graphics/INelson