# 75% of DAO Delegates Score Below 5 Out of 10 — Here's What That Means

> Originally published on chainsights.one/blog

**Published by:** [ChainSights](https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/)
**Published on:** 2026-02-12
**Categories:** governance, daos, delegates, analytics, vote-quality
**URL:** https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/delegate-vote-quality-75-percent

## Content

DAO governance promises decentralized decision-making. Thousands of token holders, hundreds of delegates, collective intelligence in action. We just analyzed every vote cast by 4,279 delegates across 24 DAOs. The headline: more than 75% score below 5 out of 10 on vote quality. They're voting. That's the problem — participation isn't governance. Participation Rate Answers the Wrong Question Every DAO dashboard tracks who showed up. It doesn't track how well they governed. A delegate who reads every proposal and votes after careful deliberation gets the same participation score as someone who opens Snapshot, clicks "For" on everything in 30 seconds, and closes the tab. The speed-clicker often scores higher — they never miss a vote. Four Signals That Measure What Matters We built four signals to distinguish informed voting from checkbox behavior: Deliberation — Time between consecutive votes. Five proposals in two minutes = speed-clicking, not deliberating. Independence — Vote diversity. Voting "For" on 95% of proposals isn't independent judgment — it's rubber-stamping. Focus — Category concentration. Domain experts who vote within their competence make better decisions than generalists who vote on everything. Originality — Comparison against the largest token holders. Consistently matching whale voting patterns suggests following, not leading. Each delegate gets a composite Vote Quality Score (VQS) from 0 to 10. The Numbers Across 4,279 delegates and 24 DAOs: Median VQS: 3.9 — the typical delegate scores below 4 75th percentile: 4.9 — even "above average" barely cracks 5 Only 4.4% score 8+ — truly high-quality governance is rare Three DAO Archetypes The variation between DAOs is striking: Consensus DAOs — Uniswap (median 3.6), ENS (3.2), Lido (1.8). Low independence across almost all delegates. At Uniswap, not a single delegate out of 94 scored above 5.0. Mixed DAOs — Arbitrum (4.2), Balancer (4.4), Superfluid (4.4). Broader spread — some delegates think independently, others follow the crowd. Pluralistic DAOs — CVX (7.8), Aavegotchi (7.1), Giveth (5.2). Communities genuinely disagree, and delegates exercise independent judgment. Healthiest governance — not because everyone agrees, but because disagreement is normalized. Why This Matters DAOs collectively manage billions in treasury funds. If 75% of delegates are rubber-stamping, the checks and balances don't exist in practice. Governance capture becomes easier when most delegates vote predictably. Delegation fails its purpose when experts aren't actually deliberating. Participation metrics mislead — "85% delegate participation" sounds healthy, but if most is checkbox voting, real governance engagement might be closer to 15%. What DAOs Can Do Delegate accountability frameworks — require vote reasoning, especially for "No" votes Voting power decay — low vote quality = gradual redistribution to more engaged delegates Discussion requirements — no forum participation, less vote weight Quadratic voting — reduces whale influence, incentivizes thoughtful participation See Your DAO's Scores Every data point is live and free. Pick any of the 47 tracked DAOs, see how individual delegates score across all four signals. No login. No paywall. No email required. chainsights.one/matrix ChainSights provides identity-first governance analytics for DAOs. All data is free and open. Wallets lie. We don't.

## Publication Information

- [ChainSights](https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/): Publication homepage
- [All Posts](https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/): More posts from this publication
- [RSS Feed](https://api.paragraph.com/blogs/rss/@chainsights): Subscribe to updates