Week 11 of the DAO Governance Index, and a pattern keeps showing up in the data that deserves its own name: the Participation Illusion.

Across the 53 DAOs ChainSights tracks, we find a recurring combination — Human Participation Rate at or near 10.0, Delegate Engagement Index below 2.0. On paper, these DAOs look healthy. Voters show up. Proposals pass. The scoreboard looks fine.

But the DEI tells a different story. A low DEI means a small group of delegates controls the outcome regardless of how many wallets vote. High voter turnout with extreme delegate concentration isn't democracy — it's the appearance of democracy. The voters participate, but the result was already decided.

This week, 24 of 53 tracked DAOs show HPR above 9.5 combined with DEI below 2.0. SushiSwap is the most extreme case: HPR 10.0, DEI 0.15. Every voter shows up, one entity effectively decides. Index Coop is similar: HPR 10.0, DEI 0.40.

This matters because governance dashboards — and most governance participants — optimize for participation rates. Quorum requirements are set against participation. Governance health reporting leads with "X% of token holders voted." But participation is an input, not an outcome. You can have perfect participation and zero meaningful distribution of power.

This week's movers:

GnosisDAO was the biggest gainer, +1.08 to 6.84 — the largest single-week improvement in the current dataset. Morpho was the biggest decliner, -0.85 to 5.58, following a drop in delegate engagement after a concentrated voting period.

Infrastructure remains the weakest category at 5.57 — fourth consecutive week below DeFi. The gap between DeFi (6.02) and Infrastructure (5.57) is 0.45 points and has been stable for a month.

DGI Composite: 5.91 — stable, no significant movement at the index level. The ecosystem average masks the distribution: 23 of 53 DAOs below 6.0, 6 below 5.0.

Wallets lie. The data doesn't.

The Collapse: SushiSwap (-0.39)

SushiSwap recorded the steepest weekly GVS drop in our index this week — down 0.39 points to 5.2. The DEI score sits at 0.1, meaning delegate engagement is near-zero. When delegates stop showing up, governance doesn't freeze — it concentrates. A handful of remaining active addresses gain outsized influence by default. This isn't unique to Sushi, but the speed of the drop is worth watching.

The Comeback: ShapeShift (+0.32)

ShapeShift moved in the opposite direction, posting the week's strongest gain at +0.32. ShapeShiftDAO has had a turbulent governance history — it shut down its token program, restructured multiple times, and rebuilt its contributor base from scratch. The uptick in GVS suggests renewed delegate activity. Whether this is sustained or a one-week spike will be visible in next week's data.

The Pattern: DeFi vs Infrastructure

For the third consecutive week, DeFi DAOs outperform Infrastructure DAOs in governance health. This week: DeFi 5.95 vs Infrastructure 5.55. The gap isn't random. DeFi protocols face immediate market consequences for governance failures — bad decisions get priced in within hours. Infrastructure DAOs operate more like public utilities: lower urgency, more political dynamics, slower feedback loops. The data reflects the incentive structure.

Worth Watching: Arbitrum Security Council Election

Arbitrum (#17, GVS 6.4, ↑+0.14) is heading into its Security Council election — one of the most consequential governance moments for any infrastructure DAO. The Security Council holds emergency powers over the protocol. Who controls those seats matters. Arbitrum's DEI sits at 1.7 — delegate engagement is low despite high follower count (9.9 HPR). That gap between token holders and active participants is exactly the environment where concentrated voting determines outcomes.

New Entries

Four DAOs joined the index this week with initial scores (Mantle, Across DAO, AladdinDAO, TallyDAO). All show HPR 0.0 pending sufficient proposal history. Watch for first real scores in 2–3 weeks.

Bottom of the Index

Bent Finance holds last place at GVS 2.1 — the only DAO below 3.0. HPR 0.0, DEI 0.5. Effectively inactive governance.

DGI tracks 53 DAOs across DeFi, Infrastructure, Public Goods, and Social categories. Scores updated hourly. Full matrix: chainsights.one/matrix

Identity-first analytics. Wallets lie. We don't.

This paper describes the methodology behind ChainSights' Governance Vitality Score (GVS) and the DAO Governance Index (DGI). GVS is a composite score (0–10) measuring the governance health of a single DAO across four dimensions: participation quality, delegate engagement, power distribution, and community breadth. DGI aggregates GVS scores into an ecosystem-wide benchmark, analogous to the S&P 500 for DAO governance health. We cover all scoring components, their formulas, data sources, confidence thresholds, data quality measures, the Vote Quality Score (VQS) for individual delegates, and known limitations. As of March 2026, 47 DAOs are tracked and 4,279 individual voters analyzed.

1. Introduction

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) present a novel governance challenge: decision-making power is formally distributed across token holders, but the on-chain record rarely reflects genuine decentralization. Voting is dominated by a small number of wallets, many proposals pass with single-digit participation, and "community consensus" frequently means three whales agreed.

Existing governance analytics focus on raw participation numbers — total voters, total proposals, total voting power — without distinguishing who is voting, how thoughtfully, or how concentrated power has become.

ChainSights takes a different approach: measure governance health through signals that correlate with genuine decentralization and meaningful participation, not vanity metrics.

GVS (Governance Vitality Score) is that measure for a single DAO.
DGI (DAO Governance Index) is the ecosystem benchmark derived from GVS scores.

2. Data Sources

All scoring is based on publicly available on-chain and off-chain governance data:

All scores are computed from raw data with no reliance on third-party governance ratings or curator judgment.

Update frequency: All GVS scores are recalculated daily via an automated pipeline. DGI benchmarks are recalculated immediately after individual DAO scores complete.

3. Data Quality: Wallet Filtering

Governance data contains noise. Treasury wallets, exchange cold wallets, and bridge contracts technically "vote" on-chain but do not represent human community participation. Including them inflates voter counts and distorts participation rates.

ChainSights applies a classification filter before computing any participation-based metric:

3.1 Filtered (excluded from human-focused metrics)

• Treasury wallets — DAO treasuries holding protocol funds

• Exchange wallets — CEX hot/cold wallets (Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, etc.)

• Bridge contracts — Cross-chain bridge addresses (Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum, Wormhole, etc.)

• Protocol contracts — Routers, factories, token contracts, and other smart contracts

3.2 Retained

• Individual wallets — All personal EOAs participate fully

• Fund/VC wallets — Venture capital and investment funds are legitimate governance participants

• Multisig wallets — Flagged for transparency, but retained in calculations

3.3 Implementation

Wallet labels are sourced from the eth-labels dataset (115,000+ labeled Ethereum addresses) supplemented by a manually curated override file for major wallets not in the dataset. Labels are cached in a wallet_labels database table and refreshed periodically.

The filter is applied in: HPR voter counts, DEI delegate identification, PDI voter-power distributions, and GPI small-holder participation.

4. The Governance Vitality Score (GVS)

4.1 Overview

GVS is a composite score on a 0–10 scale representing the governance health of a single DAO. It is composed of four component scores, each measuring a distinct dimension of governance quality:

GVS formula:

GVS = (HPR × 0.35) + (DEI × 0.25) + (PDI × 0.20) + (GPI × 0.20)

Each component is normalized to the 0–10 scale before composition.

4.2 Component 1: HPR — Human Participation Rate (Sybil Resistance)

Weight: 35%

HPR measures what proportion of a DAO's voters are genuine human participants, as opposed to bots, treasury wallets, or coordinated sybil clusters.

Formula:

HPR = (Likely Human Voters / Total Unique Voters) × 10

Where Likely Human Voters = total unique voters minus those identified as bots, protocol contracts, exchange wallets, or treasury addresses (see Section 3).

Important distinction: HPR measures voter quality (are voters human?), not voter quantity (what % of followers voted). A DAO can have 10/10 HPR but only 0.5% absolute participation rate. Both metrics matter — participation rate data is provided separately in the Deep Dive Report.

Why 35% weight: Sybil resistance is the foundation of meaningful governance. A vote where half the "voters" are controlled addresses is not a legitimate vote, regardless of the outcome.

4.3 Component 2: DEI — Delegate Engagement Index

Weight: 25%

DEI measures how actively top delegates participate in governance proposals using a Weighted Participation Rate.

Delegate identification: Top 20% of voters by voting power (minimum 3 delegates, maximum 50)

Lookback window:

• Standard: last 90 days (up to 30 proposals)

• Adaptive: if fewer than 5 proposals in 90 days, the window extends to 180 days and recency weighting is disabled

Recency weights:

Formula:

DEI_raw = Σ (delegate_i_participationRate × recencyWeight) / Σ recencyWeight
DEI = DEI_raw × 10

Why it matters: Delegation is only effective when delegates are active stewards. A delegate holding large voting power who votes on 20% of proposals is less valuable than one who votes on 80%. The Weighted Participation Rate penalizes both inactivity and stale participation.

4.4 Component 3: PDI — Power Dynamics Index

Weight: 20%

PDI measures voting power concentration and governance decentralization.

Sub-signals:

1. Gini Coefficient (40% of PDI) — Measures inequality in voting power distribution. Gini = 0 means perfectly equal, Gini = 1 means one address holds all power.

2. Nakamoto Coefficient (30% of PDI) — Minimum number of addresses needed to control >50% of total voting power. Higher = more decentralized.

3. Concentration Score (30% of PDI) — Percentage of total voting power held by the top 5 voters.

PDI formula:

PDI = (giniScore × 0.4) + (nakamotoScore × 0.3) + (concentrationScore × 0.3)

All sub-signals are normalized to the 0–10 scale (higher = more decentralized) before composition.

Why it matters: High power concentration means a small number of whales can override community consensus. True decentralization requires broadly distributed voting power.

4.5 Component 4: GPI — Grassroots Participation Index

Weight: 20%

GPI measures the participation rate of smaller token holders — the "bottom 80%" of the token distribution by holdings.

Formula:

GPI = (Active Small Holders / Total Small Holders) × 10

Where Small Holders = all token holders outside the top 20% by holdings.

Why it matters: Governance that only involves large token holders is not community governance. High GPI indicates the DAO's rank-and-file members are engaged, not just the wealthy.

5. Confidence Scoring

Each GVS score is accompanied by a confidence level indicating data completeness and reliability:

Low confidence does not mean a DAO is performing poorly — it means there is less data to analyze. New DAOs naturally start with lower confidence until they build governance history.

Historical scoring: DAOs with no recent Snapshot activity retain their most recent GVS score, labeled as "historical." Historical scores are excluded from DGI benchmark calculations.

6. Vote Quality Score (VQS)

6.1 Overview

While GVS measures a DAO's overall governance health, the Vote Quality Score (VQS) measures individual delegate behavior. It answers: "How thoughtful is this voter's participation?"

Each delegate receives a VQS from 0 to 10, composed of up to four signals.

Current coverage: 24 of 47 tracked DAOs (~51%), covering 4,279 analyzed voters.

6.2 Signal 1: Deliberation

Measures how long a voter waits before casting their vote after a proposal opens. Voters who consistently vote within minutes may not be reading the full proposal. Higher deliberation time suggests more thoughtful engagement.

Normalization: Median deliberation time across all of the voter's votes, scaled to 0–10 based on ecosystem distribution.

6.3 Signal 2: Independence

Measures diversity of a voter's choices across proposals. Voters who always select the same option (e.g., always "For") demonstrate less independent judgment than voters who evaluate each proposal on its merits.

Normalization: Entropy of the voter's choice distribution across their votes, scaled to 0–10.

Note on ranked-choice DAOs: In DAOs using ranked-choice or weighted voting (Aavegotchi, Balancer, Frax, StakeDAO, CVX), single-choice votes do not exist. Independence cannot be meaningfully calculated and is shown as N/A. The VQS composite is recalculated using only available signals (see Section 6.6).

6.4 Signal 3: Focus

Measures whether a voter engages across diverse proposal categories (treasury, governance, technical) rather than only voting on one type. Broader categorical engagement indicates deeper governance involvement.

Normalization: Number of distinct proposal categories voted on, scaled to 0–10.

6.5 Signal 4: Originality

Measures how independently a voter decides compared to the largest token holders (whales). Voters whose choices closely mirror whale voting patterns may be following rather than forming independent opinions.

Normalization: Divergence from top-5-voter consensus, scaled to 0–10.

Note: Same N/A handling as Independence for ranked-choice DAO voters.

6.6 VQS Composite Calculation

When all four signals are available, each contributes 25% to the VQS:

VQS = (Deliberation + Independence + Focus + Originality) / 4

When some signals are unavailable (N/A), the weight is redistributed equally among remaining signals:

VQS = Σ(available signals) / N_available

Example: For a ranked-choice DAO voter where Independence and Originality are both N/A:

VQS = (Deliberation + Focus) / 2

This ensures no signal inflates the score via a placeholder value.

6.7 VQS Ecosystem Benchmarks (as of March 2026)

Score distribution: Red (<2): 3.5% · Orange (2–4.9): 73.5% · Yellow (5–7.9): 18.5% · Green (≥8): 4.4%

6.8 DAO Governance Archetypes

Across 24 DAOs, three distinct voter quality patterns emerge:

Pluralistic (Median VQS ≥ 6)
Delegates vote independently across diverse proposal types. High deliberation, varied choices, strong originality.
Examples: CVX (7.8) · Aavegotchi (7.1) · Frax (6.7)

Mixed (Median VQS 4–6)
A broad middle ground — some engaged, deliberate voters alongside more routine participants.
Examples: Arbitrum (4.2) · Balancer (4.4)

Consensus (Median VQS < 4)
Delegates tend to vote in alignment with each other and with large token holders. Common in mature protocols with strong community convergence.
Examples: ENS (3.2) · Uniswap (3.6) · Lido (1.8)

These archetypes reflect governance culture, not quality rankings. A Consensus DAO is not worse than a Pluralistic one — the context and protocol type matter.

7. The DAO Governance Index (DGI)

7.1 What is the DGI?

The DAO Governance Index (DGI) is an ecosystem-wide benchmark that aggregates GVS scores across all qualifying DAOs. Where GVS answers "how healthy is this DAO's governance?", DGI answers "how does this DAO compare to the ecosystem?"

Analogy: GVS = individual company score. DGI = the S&P 500.

7.2 Calculation

The DGI uses an equal-weighted average of all qualifying DAOs' GVS scores:

DGI = (1/n) × Σ GVS_i    for all qualifying DAOs i = 1..n

Why equal-weighted?

• Philosophically consistent — no single DAO dominates the benchmark

• No dependency on treasury size or token market cap

• Avoids circular bias (large DAOs should not get more weight and score higher)

• Transparent and reproducible by anyone with the data

7.3 The DGI Index Family

DGI is a family of 9 indices:

Composite: DGI Composite — Average GVS across all qualifying DAOs. The headline number.

Category indices: DGI DeFi · DGI Infrastructure · DGI Public Goods · DGI Social

Component indices: DGI-HPR · DGI-DEI · DGI-PDI · DGI-GPI

7.4 Inclusion Criteria

DAOs that fail these criteria are tracked but excluded from DGI calculations until they meet the threshold. A grace period applies before exclusion to avoid penalizing brief data gaps.

8. Methodology Versioning

9. Limitations

Snapshot-only coverage. VQS currently analyzes Snapshot data. DAOs using on-chain governance via Tally or Governor contracts are not covered for VQS.

Quantitative signals only. Proposal quality, forum discussion depth, constitutional design, and off-chain coordination are not captured.

High score ≠ perfect DAO; Low score ≠ bad DAO. A Consensus DAO may be making excellent decisions with high alignment.

Wallet classification is imperfect. eth-labels and manual overrides do not cover all protocol-controlled wallets.

Historical scores. DAOs with no recent Snapshot activity are scored based on their last available data.

This is a tool for improvement, not a verdict. Use GVS and DGI as a starting point for governance review, not as a substitute for deeper analysis.

10. Legal Disclaimers

No financial advice. GVS and DGI scores are governance health indicators only. Nothing in this paper or on chainsights.one constitutes financial, investment, or legal advice.

No endorsement. Inclusion in ChainSights rankings does not constitute endorsement of any DAO, protocol, or token by ChainSights or its affiliates.

GDPR compliance. ChainSights processes publicly available on-chain data in accordance with GDPR Art. 6(1)(f) (legitimate interests). DAOs may request removal: hello@chainsights.one.

Opt-out. Any DAO may request removal from all ChainSights rankings by contacting hello@chainsights.one. Removal is processed within 24 hours.

11. References

• ChainSights GVS Methodology: https://chainsights.one/rankings/methodology

• ChainSights DGI Methodology: https://chainsights.one/methodology/dgi

• Snapshot.org API: https://docs.snapshot.org/graphql-api

• eth-labels dataset: https://github.com/dawsbot/eth-labels

• Introducing the DGI (blog): https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/introducing-the-dgi

• Delegate Vote Quality (blog): https://paragraph.com/@chainsights/delegate-vote-quality-75-percent

© 2026 ChainSights. Published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0).
For questions or corrections: hello@chainsights.one

The ecosystem benchmark dropped from 6.38 to 5.98 this week. After the big reshuffling from the historical backfill two weeks ago, things are settling.

This week was quiet. Out of 44 DAOs, only 3 moved — the rest held steady.

Category Indices:

• Social: 6.42 (leads the ecosystem)

• Infrastructure: 6.34

• DeFi: 5.86

• Public Goods: 5.83

Social DAOs now lead all categories. Aavegotchi (7.8), Botto (6.3), and Treasure DAO (6.2) carry this category. Worth noting: Public Goods dropped from last week's 7.03 to 5.83 — the sharpest category decline.

This Week's Movers

Only three DAOs changed scores this week:

PancakeSwap's gain came from improved participation — a sign that even large DeFi protocols can move the needle with consistent governance activity.

41 of 44 DAOs held their scores. Stability after a volatile period isn't a bad thing — it means the scoring methodology is catching real governance patterns, not noise.

The Leaderboard

Top 5 unchanged: Frax Finance (8.4), StakeDAO (8.3), Rocket Pool (7.9), Balancer (7.8), Aavegotchi (7.8).

Bottom 5 also unchanged: Euler (2.9), Wormhole (3.2), AladdinDAO (3.2), TallyDAO (3.3), Bancor (3.4). All five still show HPR of 0.0 — no governance activity in the scoring window.

The gap between #1 and #44 remains 5.5 points. We're watching whether the bottom 5 reactivate or stay dormant.

30-Day Perspective

Looking at the broader trend, the biggest movers over the last 30 days tell a different story than this quiet week:

Gainers: Optimism (+3.87 → 7.1), Wormhole (+3.15 → 6.9), ApeCoin (+2.81 → 6.1)

Decliners: GnosisDAO (-1.69 → 5.3), Superfluid (-1.46 → 6.5), Convex Finance (-1.37 → 5.7)

Optimism's +3.87 over 30 days makes it the standout Infrastructure DAO. Superfluid's decline from the top 3 to #7 is the trend to watch — still healthy at 6.5, but momentum has reversed.

What to Watch Next Week

• Will PancakeSwap's momentum continue? At 6.4, it's mid-table but climbing.

• The bottom 5 dormancy is becoming a pattern. At what point do inactive DAOs get flagged differently?

• Social DAOs leading the ecosystem is a new dynamic. If it holds, it challenges the assumption that protocol-level governance is more mature.

44 DAOs tracked. Updated weekly. Full data: DAO Matrix | Governance Index

Wallets lie. We don't.

The ecosystem-wide Decentralized Governance Index sits at 6.38 — a healthy B grade across 44 tracked DAOs. But this week's story isn't the composite. It's what's underneath.

This Week's Biggest Movers

We completed a major data infrastructure upgrade this week: historical proposal backfill. For 19 DAOs that previously showed placeholder scores due to governance inactivity, we now calculate scores based on their last active governance period. The result: the most accurate ranking we've ever published.

Biggest risers:

• Optimism +3.87 → 7.1 — Jumped from the bottom half to #13. Historical data reveals strong delegate engagement (DEI 6.4) that was invisible when only looking at a 90-day window.

• Stargate / LayerZero +3.58 → 6.8 — Similar story. Active governance in its peak period scores solidly in the B range.

• dYdX +3.54 → 6.8 — Another Infrastructure DAO showing real governance health when measured against its active period.

• KlimaDAO +2.95 → 6.2 — Strong grassroots participation (GPI 6.0) lifts this Public Goods DAO out of the basement.

• StakeDAO +2.35 → 8.3 — Now #2 overall, with perfect scores on HPR and DEI.

Notable declines:

• Wormhole -3.69 → 3.2

• Euler Finance -2.82 → 2.9

• Bancor -2.62 → 3.4

These three DAOs still show limited governance data. We're working on completing their historical backfill.

Category Snapshot

The surprise: Public Goods DAOs lead the ecosystem. The category that exists to serve the community also governs the best. Gitcoin, Giveth, Octan, and KlimaDAO all score above 6.0.

One Insight: The DEI Gap

The most revealing metric this week is Delegate Engagement (DEI). The spread is enormous:

• Top: Frax (10.0), StakeDAO (10.0), Gitcoin (9.1) — delegates who actually show up

• Bottom: Hop Protocol (0.8), Yearn (0.8), BanklessDAO (1.2) — delegates holding power but barely voting

A DAO can have perfect human participation (HPR 10.0) and still have governance problems if its delegates aren't engaging. 15 of 44 DAOs score below 3.0 on DEI — meaning their delegate layer is essentially decorative.

From the Community

This week we had a substantive discussion in the Lido governance forum about delegate structure. BCV (an ENS and Lido delegate) argued that Lido needs a decentralized delegate set functioning as an oversight layer — not just a rubber-stamp committee under Labs. The question of whether delegates should be generalists or specialists is one our Focus metric in the Vote Quality Score tries to address. The debate continues.

All data is free and open at chainsights.one/matrix. No login, no paywall.

Wallets lie. We don't.

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.

"DAO passes proposal with 99% approval." Sounds democratic, right? Look closer. That 99% came from 12 wallets. Three of them are controlled by the same person. The "community vote" was decided before it started.

We have the infrastructure for decentralized decision-making, but almost no way to measure if it's actually working. Until now.

The Decentralized Governance Index (DGI)

The DGI is the first curated governance health index for the Snapshot ecosystem. We analyze 46 DAOs across 4 categories, producing a single score from 0–10 that measures how healthy a DAO's governance really is.

Not how many tokens voted. Not how many wallets participated. How many humans are actually governing.

Why "Wallets Lie"

Traditional metrics count wallets. But wallets are cheap — one person can create hundreds. Whales split holdings across dozens of addresses to simulate "broad participation."

The DGI cuts through this with four identity-first signals:

Human Participation Rate (35%) — What percentage of unique humans (not wallets) are actively voting?

Delegate Engagement (25%) — Are delegates actually participating, or just holding tokens?

Power Dynamics (20%) — How concentrated is voting power among top holders? (Modified Gini coefficient)

Grassroots Participation (20%) — Is governance driven by the community or dominated by insiders?

What We Found

After analyzing 46 major DAOs:

The uncomfortable truth: only 3 of 46 DAOs score in the "Vital" range (8.0+). Public Goods DAOs — those built to serve the community — have the weakest governance structures, averaging barely above "Critical."

Current Top 3 (February 2026): Radiant Capital (8.6), Alchemix (8.4), Aavegotchi (8.3).

What the DGI Is Not

Let's be clear: a high DGI doesn't mean a DAO makes good decisions — just that its decision-making process is decentralized and participatory. We analyze Snapshot governance only. Identity detection has confidence intervals, and we're transparent about uncertainty.

Explore the Index

The full DGI rankings are live and free at chainsights.one/governance-index.

Every DAO profile includes overall score, component breakdown, 7-day trends, and category benchmarking. No login. No paywall.

Want deeper analysis? Our Governance Reports provide detailed insights, competitive benchmarks, and actionable recommendations.

ChainSights is built by Mario Semper, founder of masemIT e.U. 3% of all revenue is donated to hoki.help, supporting families with seriously ill children.

Wallets lie. We don't.