Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights on the current developments at SEBA and stay ahead of the curve with our well-founded in house research papers.
First name
Last name
Email address
Continue
“Code is law”ForksUtility and Governance TokensThe Rise of Decentralised Autonomous OrganisationLimitations of DAOs and the FutureConclusion
Thursday, 15 April, 2021
The Bridge

Governance Tokens: Coordinating the human element

Abstract

The Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAOs) run by the holders of the governance tokens performs the role similar to the upper management of an organisation. They vote on strategic decisions, democratically altering the protocol to perform and grow in a fast-developing ecosystem. Blockchain systems are constantly changing with new users, needs and applications, and code needs human intervention to keep up. DAOs and governance tokens transparently coordinate this human effort and align the interests of all stakeholders.

In this edition of the Bridge, we cover how governance in blockchain has evolved from its nascent disorganised beginnings with the ideal of perfect sanctity of code to multibillion-dollar DAOs that coordinate and incentivise the human elements needed for success. We cover how governance tokens confer certain rights and responsibilities on their holders. We discuss the mechanics of a DAO and the process of proposing and implementing change. Finally, we cover how governance models may be improved in the future to represent the broader community better.

“Code is law”

The ideal case for blockchains is that “code is law”, that is, the rules of the open-source code of the blockchain or smart contract solely define the scope of what is possible, and everything done within it is fair play. This is derived from the trustless ethos of blockchain, where any interested individual can read and verify the source code themselves, requiring no middle party or mediator to transact. In the early days of crypto, this philosophy worked well when the primary use of crypto assets was as a medium of exchange and there were a smaller number of users to support. “User-beware” and “not your key, not your coin” worked well as the simple rules of the game.

Governance and discussions on improvement happened in an unorganised fashion on online forums and chats. Iterative upgrades to the protocols were suggested by contributing developers and implemented by the miners. The space was small enough to allow early developers and users to voice their opinions and move the protocol in the direction they wished.

Forks

However, as the crypto ecosystem grew with more diverse use-cases and more significant sums of money became involved, differing factions with differing interests and priorities came to be. Any irreconcilable difference among these factions would result in the splitting up of the protocol through a fork. Two of the most prominent examples of this is the Ethereum fork of 2016 and the Bitcoin fork of 2017.<br<
In 2016, the very first DAO, which was simply called “The DAO”, ran a very successful initial coin offering (ICO) of about USD 150 mn. It was later exploited and lost USD ~60 mn worth of ether. Vitalik Buterin and the Ethereum developers proceeded with a very contentious fork to refund the investors when Ethereum was only a year old. The fork created two chains that we now call Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC).

In 2017, the discussion on how to scale Bitcoin to support the growing user base also led to a fork. Bitcoin Core (BTC) chose to scale with layer-2 solutions like Lightning, and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) increased the block size to support more transactions, sacrificing decentralisation for scalability (see our report on the blockchain trilemmablockchain trilemmalink1).

The dilemmas and the subsequent forks were very contentious solutions and adversely affected the BTC and ETH brand, even though there were the eventual winners. However, at the time, there were doubts on who among the developers, miners or users were really in charge.

Currently, the Ethereum Foundation, a non-profit, coordinates the efforts of the developers with miners signal their intent to accept or reject the proposal. EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) 1559 is an improvement to make gas fees on Ethereum more predictable and was accepted in the "All Core Developer Meeting", but there is a growing movement among the miners to fork it as their revenues will be affected.

Utility and Governance Tokens

As decentralised applications (dapps) became popular during the Ethereum ICO boom of 2017, utility tokens first gained prominence. These tokens are used as currency within a protocol in exchange for the service the protocol provides. For example, for every data request to the ChainLink Oracle, a fee in LINK has to be paid. Utility tokens provide no other rights or risks and therefore suffer from the problem of value accrual. A protocol's success does not mean that the utility token will have any share in the value generated. Protocols have tried to solve this by burning the tokens earned, decreasing the overall supply, and indirectly increasing the value of remaining tokens. While the problem of value accrual may be partially addressed, utility tokens still do not give the holders any control over the protocol or its direction. Investors remain dependent on the development team, who may not be as motivated to maximise the value of utility tokens as much as the company's equity shares.

The decentralised finance (DeFi) boom in 2020 saw the popularisation of governance tokens where holders have certain rights over the protocol, its treasury and direction but also underwrite certain risks. Like equity shareholders of a company, governance token holders of a protocol take the opposite side of its users. Whenever the users incur a cost on the protocol, the protocol’s treasury accumulates it. Similarly, the token holders underwrite protocol risk for users through either reimbursement from the treasury or dilution of tokens.

The developer organisation is usually incorporated in the form of a trust, with a certain amount of governance tokens vested to them, ensuring that the goal of value maximisation of the token is shared between the investors and developers. As the protocol matures, an inflation rate rewards active contributors and participants, and the governance is expected to become more decentralised. The trust can then play a minor role, leaving the governance holders to decide the direction of the protocol.

One of the most prominent examples of a governance token is Maker DAO’s MKR. MakerDAO is a lending platform and the issuer of the largest decentralised stable coin, DAI. It was initially founded in 2014 before Ethereum went live and has been in its current form since 2017. To receive DAI, users can lock crypto assets in over-collateralised vaults, effectively leveraging their position. When users repay their loan, they pay a stability fee which is accumulated in the protocol treasury. In case there is under-collateralised DAI, MKR holders have to pay through dilution and new MKR is auctioned to meet the shortfall. This happened once in March 2020 happened once in March 2020 link1when the crypto markets crashed and caused a shortfall of collateral for 5.4 mn DAI.

The Rise of Decentralised Autonomous Organisation

DAOs have come up to coordinate the efforts of governance token holders and manage the protocol to be more effective in tackling the changing needs of the ecosystem. A DAO enable its governance token holders to participate in a voting mechanism to make decisions when the underlying code is silent or itself needs to be changed. The rules of the DAO define the scope, rights and responsibilities of governance token holders. It also establishes the process by which changes can be implemented. For protocols that earn revenue like some DeFi applications or retained some tokens during distribution, the DAO also controls how the treasury is utilised.

Figure 1 - The treasury size of various protocols

Source: open-orgs.info, zapper.fi

Instead of raising funds through an ICO, governance tokens are usually distributed to users and contributors of the protocol to incentivise protocol adoption and decentralise the governance among the most interested participants. During the fair launch of YFI tokens, Andre Cronje, the founder of Yearn Finance, famously called it to have "no financial value" as no payment had to be made to acquire YFI. However, control over the direction of a multibillion-dollar protocol and its treasury is desirable, and therefore the tokens are valuable.

Figure 2 - The price of the governance token of Yearn Finance – YFI that has “no financial value” according to its founder Andre Cronje

Source: Coingecko

In effect, DAOs perform the role of the upper management of an organisation. Governance token holders vote on strategic decisions, democratically altering the protocol to perform and grow in a fast-developing ecosystem. Blockchain systems are constantly changing with growing users and needs, and code needs human intervention to keep up. DAOs and governance tokens transparently coordinate this human effort and align the interests of all stakeholders.

Let us see some DAO proposals to understand better the scope of their powers and when human intervention is required –

YFI dilution – Yearn Finance’s token YFI had a fixed supply that was already fully distributed. As a result, it did not have a good mechanism to reward contributors and was lacking innovation. To overcome this, the DAO voted to mintvoted to mintlink1 an additional 22% tokens to reward contributors and fund future growth. The original code, in this case, had a fixed supply, but the DAO increased the limit to meet the shared objective.

Uniswap governance thresholds – Currently, Uniswap DAO needs 10 mn UNI tokens or USD ~300 mn to propose a vote and 40 mn UNI tokens or about USD ~1.2 bn to pass a vote. This proposal was to reduce the limits proposal was to reduce the limits link1to propose a vote to 3 mn UNI tokens and achieve a quorum to 30 mn UNI tokens. This proposal was defeated as it was short by 400k UNI votes at 39.6 mn UNI votes in favour. While it would have perhaps allowed for more decentralised governance, there was a concern among UNI holders that lower thresholds might mean lower demand for the tokens and consequently lower price.

Fei Protocol refund – FEI token is supposed to function as an algorithmic stable coin pegged to USD. However, due to code and design issues, the peg is not established, and FEI currently trades at USD ~0.8. There is an ongoing voteongoing votelink1 to decide whether to refund FEI at USD 1, USD 0.9 or not at all from the protocol treasury.

DAO governance process

The DAO defines a process that must be followed for changes to proposed and implemented. We will use the example of Uniswap governance. All token holders get one vote for each UNI token held. This has a dual purpose – large token holders are more invested in the success of the protocol and therefore should have a higher say, and attacking the governance process through acquisition of majority tokens becomes expensive. To propose a change, the individual typically posts it first on the discussion forumdiscussion forumlink1 to get feedback and gauge whether there is enough interest. Then they must collect the support of holders of 10 mn UNI or 1% of total supply to propose a vote officially. Once the vote is proposed along with the new code, it will pass if it has both a majority and at least holders of 4 mn UNI tokens voting in favour. If it passes, there is a minimum of two-day time lock to ensure the code is safe to deploy, after which it is deployed to the contract. Some DAOs have a non-binding signalling vote before the actual vote to gauge whether there is interest in a proposed change and towards which direction it is leaning.

Figure 3 – Flow chart of a UNI governance proposal

Source: Uniswap

Limitations of DAOs and the Future

DAOs function well when the tokens are evenly distributed. However, in most cases, a few large wallets control a significant part of the tokens. For example, for Compound, just six addresses control more than 52% of the voting powerjust six addresses control more than 52% of the voting powerlink1. These six addresses can out vote more than 150,000 total addresses that have a positive balance. While it makes sense as they are the ones most invested in the protocol, adequate representation of minority investors is also a must-have for good governance and to achieve the blockchain ethos of decentralisation. Quadratic votingQuadratic votinglink1, where the number of votes granted per unit of token held decreases exponentially, may be a solution. This gives small voters more meaningful participation in a proposal, and the cost to a single large entity to control the majority of votes becomes much higher. However, this requires proof-of-humanity to be successful, as without it the system can be gamed by breaking up large wallets into multiple smaller wallets to gain disproportionate voting power.

As described above, governance through DAOs is a slow process. Therefore, the founding developer team usually has a multi-sig backdoor wallet that can bypass the need for a proposal in case of emergencies. Such a system is needed while the ecosystem is still evolving, and with real values at stake, speed is sometimes necessary to tackle urgent threats. However, this goes against the blockchain ethos of trustless systems and should be phased out as the protocols mature.<br
While it may seem that the present solutions are imperfect and require a great degree of trust, the users still have some protection as they always have the last resort option of forking the protocol and going in their own direction. The side with a higher claim to legitimacylegitimacylink1 should be the winner, and in previous cases, the side with the users has won, whether it is BTC or ETH.

Conclusion

Governance tokens provide a way to coordinate the human effort required in running a multibillion-dollar decentralised autonomous organisation. The token holders underwrite the protocol risk, and the token accrues value based on the revenue earned by the protocol. Governance tokens have been able to align the interest of all stakeholders, but their distribution and control often lie with a few large players. We look forward to a future where these problems are programmatically solved, and governance tokens and DAOs become the fair controllers of the largest value-creating protocols in the world.

Download pdf
Share:
Subscribe to the research newsletter and get weekly updates about the latest articles of SEBAresearch
Subscribe to newsletter

Authors


Yves Longchamp
Head of Research SEBA Bank AG
in
Kunal Goel
Research Analyst B&B Analytics Private Limited
in
Saurabh Deshpande
Research Analyst B&B Analytics Private Limited
in
research@seba.swiss | Disclaimer

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared by SEBA Bank AG (“SEBA”) in Switzerland. SEBA is a Swiss bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This document is published solely for information purposes; it is not an advertisement nor is it a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for distribution only under such circumstances as may be permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.

No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning SEBA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the financial investments, markets or developments referred to in the document. SEBA does not undertake to update or keep current the information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent SEBA's interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party.

Any prices stated in this document are for information purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been effected at those prices, and any prices do not necessarily reflect SEBA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by SEBA or any other source may yield substantially different results.

Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications. SEBA and any of its directors or employees may be entitled at any time to hold long or short positions in investments, carry out transactions involving relevant investments in the capacity of principal or agent, or provide any other services or have officers, who serve as directors, either to/for the issuer, the investment itself or to/for any company commercially or financially affiliated to such investment.

At any time, investment decisions (including whether to buy, sell or hold investments) made by SEBA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in SEBA research publications.

Some investments may not be readily realizable since the market is illiquid and therefore valuing the investment and identifying the risk to which you are exposed may be difficult to quantify. Investing in digital assets including cryptocurrencies as well as in futures and options is not suitable for every investor as there is a substantial risk of loss, and losses in excess of an initial investment may under certain circumstances occur. The value of any investment or income may go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Past performance of an investment is no guarantee for its future performance. Additional information will be made available upon request. Some investments may be subject to sudden and large falls in value and on realization you may receive back less than you invested or may be required to pay more. Changes in foreign exchange rates may have an adverse effect on the price, value or income of an investment. Tax treatment depends on the individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future.

SEBA does not provide legal or tax advice and makes no representations as to the tax treatment of assets or the investment returns thereon both in general or with reference to specific investor’s circumstances and needs. We are of necessity unable to take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situation and needs of individual investors and we would recommend that you take financial and/or tax advice as to the implications (including tax) prior to investing. Neither SEBA nor any of its directors, employees or agents accepts any liability for any loss (including investment loss) or damage arising out of the use of all or any of the Information provided in the document.

This document may not be reproduced or copies circulated without prior authority of SEBA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing SEBA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. SEBA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document.

Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of SEBA. The information contained in this document is based on numerous assumptions. Different assumptions could result in materially different results. SEBA may use research input provided by analysts employed by its affiliate B&B Analytics Private Limited, Mumbai. The analyst(s) responsible for the preparation of this document may interact with trading desk personnel, sales personnel and other parties for the purpose of gathering, applying and interpreting market information The compensation of the analyst who prepared this document is determined exclusively by SEBA.

Austria: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Austria nor is SEBA supervised by the Austrian Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. France: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in France nor is SEBA supervised by French banking and financial authorities. Italy: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Italy nor is SEBA supervised by the Bank of Italy (Banca d’Italia) and the Italian Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (CONSOB - Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. Germany: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Germany nor is SEBA supervised by the German Federal Financial Services Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), to which this document has not been submitted for approval. Hong-Kong: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Hong-Kong nor is SEBA supervised by banking and financial authorities in Hong-Kong, to which this document has not been submitted for approval. This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in Hong-Kong where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. This document is under no circumstances directed to, or intended for distribution, publication to or use by, persons who are not “professional investors” within the meaning of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and any rules made thereunder (the “SFO”). Netherlands: This publication has been produced by SEBA, which is not authorised to provide regulated services in the Netherlands. Portugal: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in Portugal nor is SEBA supervised by the Portuguese regulators Bank of Portugal “Banco de Portugal” and Portuguese Securities Exchange Commission “Comissao do Mercado de Valores Mobiliarios”. Singapore: SEBA is not licensed to conduct banking and financial activities in SIngapore nor is SEBA supervised by banking and financial authorities in Singapore, to which this document has not been submitted for approval. This document was provided to you as a result of a request received by SEBA from you and/or persons entitled to make the request on your behalf. Should you have received the document erroneously, SEBA asks that you kindly destroy/delete it and inform SEBA immediately. This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in Singapore where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject SEBA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. This document is under no circumstances directed to, or intended for distribution, publication to or use by, persons who are not accredited investors, expert investors or institutional investors as defined in section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap. 289 of Singapore) (“SFA”). UK: This document has been prepared by SEBA Bank AG (“SEBA”) in Switzerland. SEBA is a Swiss bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). This document is for your information only and is not intended as an offer, or a solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any investment or other specific product.

SEBA is not an authorised person for purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), and accordingly, any information if deemed a financial promotion is provided only to persons in the UK reasonably believed to be of a kind to whom promotions may be communicated by an unauthorised person pursuant to an exemption under the FSMA (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “FPO”). Such persons include: (a) persons having professional experience in matters relating to investments (“Investment Professionals”) and (b) high net worth bodies corporate, partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts, etc. falling within Article 49 of the FPO (“High Net Worth Businesses”). High Net Worth Businesses include: (i) a corporation which has called-up share capital or net assets of at least £5 million or is a member of a group in which includes a company with called-up share capital or net assets of at least £5 million (but where the corporation has more than 20 shareholders or it is a subsidiary of a company with more than 20 shareholders, the £5 million share capital / net assets requirement is reduced to £500,000); (ii) a partnership or unincorporated association with net assets of at least £5 million and (iii) a trustee of a trust which has had gross assets (i.e. total assets held before deduction of any liabilities) of at least £10 million at any time within the year preceding the promotion. Any financial promotion information is available only to such persons, and persons of any other description in the UK may not rely on the information in it. Most of the protections provided by the UK regulatory system, and compensation under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme, will not be available.

© SEBA / Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug, Switzerland

Research

more
Cryptocurrency Markets and Regulators - What to expect
The US regulators are contemplating action in the wake of recent market developments. A regulatory upgrade is required to promote institutional-grade cryptofinance.
Read more
Yearn Finance – Decentralised Asset Management
In this edition of Digital Investor, we cover the largest decentralised asset management protocol, Yearn Finance. We cover its fair launch, the value drivers for the token, its moat and significant pr...
Read more
NFT: A New Fancy Technology
We uncover the latest trend in the cryptoverse, Non-Fungible Tokens or NFTs. NFTs are often mistaken to be digital art, however, they are not the art or asset itself but the deed or proof-of-ownership...
Read more

Join us as we

redefine finance.

Contact us
SEBA logo

SEBA Bank AG
Kolinplatz 15
6300 Zug
Switzerland

CompanyResearchCareersContact
Receive the newest insights, research and news from SEBA Bank directly to your inbox
Newsletter subscription
© 2021 SEBA Bank AG