（©Chinnapong -Stock.adobe.com）

維也納 - 加密革命承諾將消除中間人並將財務民主化，但研究人員發現，分散的自治組織（DAOS）有一個骯髒的秘密。

In a nutshell

簡而言之

VIENNA — The crypto revolution promised to eliminate middlemen and democratize finance, but researchers have uncovered a dirty secret about Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). Insiders have maintained enough control to largely dictate decisions, researchers said.

維也納 - 加密革命承諾將消除中間人並使財務民主化，但研究人員發現了關於分散的自治組織（DAOS）的骯髒秘密。研究人員說，內部人士保持了足夠的控制權，可以在很大程度上決定決策。

A new international study has revealed that the insiders — such as developers, administrators, and project owners — held enough voting power to decide the outcome of proposals by themselves in about 8% of DAOs. Even worse, these insiders single-handedly determined the outcome of at least one proposal in more than 20% of the organizations studied.

一項新的國際研究表明，內部人士（例如開發商，管理人員和項目所有者）擁有足夠的投票權，可以在大約8％的Daos中自行決定提案的結果。更糟糕的是，這些內部人員單手決定了20％以上的組織中至少一項提案的結果。

Even though these organizations are marketed as democratic, many function more like groups controlled by a small number of insiders who have a lot of power.

即使這些組織被銷售為民主，但許多組織的功能更像是由少數擁有大量權力的內部人員控制的群體。

For anyone unfamiliar with the crypto world, DAOs are supposed to be democratic communities where members vote on decisions using special “governance tokens.” The more tokens you hold, the more voting power you have, similar to owning shares in a company, but with decisions made directly by token holders instead of a board of directors.

對於任何不熟悉加密貨幣世界的人來說，道斯應該是民主社區，成員使用特殊的“治理令牌”對決定進行投票。您持有的代幣越多，您擁有的投票權就越多，類似於公司中的股票，但是由代幣持有人而不是董事會直接做出的決定。

Examining nearly a million voters across 872 DAOs and analyzing over five million votes, the research team discovered that even major financial platforms like Uniswap, which handles billions in trading volume, showed concerning levels of insider contribution.

研究小組檢查了872個道路的近100萬選民並分析了超過500萬票的選民，甚至還發現，即使是uniswap等主要的財務平台，該平台處理了數十億美元的交易量，也顯示出有關內部捐款水平的水平。

How Insiders Maintain Control

內部人員如何保持控制

The study, published in Financial Cryptography and Data Security, highlighted three major ways insiders maintain control despite the democratic facade. First, contributors — the study’s term for insiders — occupy central positions in voting networks. Essentially, they’re the popular kids sitting at the cool table. Their influence spreads further due to their position.

該研究發表在《金融密碼學和數據安全》上，強調了儘管民主立面但內部人士保持控制的三種主要方式。首先，貢獻者（該研究的內部人士術語）在投票網絡中佔據了中心位置。從本質上講，他們是坐在涼爽桌子上的受歡迎的孩子。由於他們的位置，它們的影響力進一步傳播。

“In our study, we found signs of ‘inner circles' forming in many DAOs, as contributors tend to be centrally positioned within the DAO governance ecosystem and often hold disproportionately high influence.”

“在我們的研究中，我們發現了許多DAO中'內部圈子'的跡象，因為貢獻者傾向於將其位於DAO治理生態系統中，並且通常具有不成比例的高影響力。”

Second, these insiders tend to vote together in patterns that look suspiciously like coordinated voting blocs.

其次，這些內部人士傾向於以可疑的模式共同投票，就像協調的投票集團一樣。

Lastly, right before important votes, there are sudden shifts in who owns governance tokens. In nearly 15% of proposals studied, significant changes in voting power occurred days before the vote. This could be a coincidence, but it also could be a strategic manipulation tactic.

最後，在重要的投票之前，誰擁有治理令牌突然發生了變化。在近15％的提案中，投票權的重大變化發生在投票前幾天。這可能是一個巧合，但這也可能是一種戰略操縱策略。

Instead of long-term community members making decisions based on what’s best for everyone, we’re seeing what looks like strategic voting power grabs right before important decisions. The researchers found that contributors participated in over 60% of proposals where these majority shifts occurred, suggesting they may be involved in these strategic token movements.

我們沒有根據所有人最適合的人做出決定，而是在重要的決策前看到了戰略投票權。研究人員發現，貢獻者參與了這些多數轉變的60％的提案，這表明他們可能參與了這些戰略令牌運動。

Major Crypto Platforms Aren’t Immune

主要加密平台無法免疫

You might assume this problem only affects small, unknown DAOs, but the study found even the crypto big leagues aren’t immune.

您可能會認為這個問題只會影響小的，未知的Daos，但研究發現，即使是加密大聯盟也無法免疫。

Uniswap, one of the largest decentralized exchanges where people trade billions in crypto, showed nearly 30% contributor involvement in voting. Aave, a major lending platform, wasn’t far behind at 28%. Even in these massive organizations, insiders still maintain outsized influence.

Uniswap是最大的分散交易所之一，人們在加密貨幣上進行了數十億美元的交易，顯示了將近30％的貢獻者參與投票。主要的貸款平台Aave並沒有落後28％。即使在這些龐大的組織中，內部人員仍然保持巨大的影響。

The research team built what amounts to a social network map of voting behaviors, showing who tends to vote with whom. These maps revealed that insiders typically occupy central positions and tend to cluster together in voting communities.

研究團隊建立了什麼相當於投票行為的社交網絡圖，表明誰傾向於投票給誰。這些地圖表明，內部人通常佔據中心位置，並傾向於將其聚集在投票社區中。

This means insiders stick together and maintain positions of influence, forming what looks like inner circles within these supposedly democratic organizations.

這意味著內部人士團結在一起並保持影響力的立場，形成了這些所謂的民主組織中的內心圈子。

The Regulatory Reckoning

監管估算

These findings largely negate the narrative that DAOs represent a decentralized and democratic alternative to traditional governance. If a small group of insiders can effectively control the outcome of proposals and maintain outsized influence, are these organizations really any different from traditional companies with a democratic veneer?

這些發現在很大程度上否定了道斯代表傳統治理的分散和民主替代方案的敘述。如果一小群內部人員可以有效地控制建議的結果並保持巨大的影響力，那麼這些組織與具有民主貼面的傳統公司真的有什麼不同嗎？

Financial regulators are increasingly focused on identifying who controls these supposedly decentralized protocols. After incidents like the Tornado Cash sanctions, where developers allegedly manipulated governance to avoid anti-money laundering controls, understanding who really pulls the strings has become crucial for regulators.

財務監管機構越來越專注於確定誰控制這些所謂的分散協議。在像龍捲風現金制裁這樣的事件之後，據稱開發商操縱治理以避免使用反貨幣衝突的控制，了解誰真正拉起了琴弦，這對監管機構至關重要。

For anyone who thought DAOs represented a revolutionary new model for democratic organizations in the digital age, this study delivers a sobering reality check. The promise of decentralization appears significantly compromised, raising fundamental questions about whether truly democratic digital organizations are possible or merely a clever marketing ploy.

對於任何認為Daos代表數字時代民主組織的革命性新模式的人來說，本研究都會進行清醒的現實檢查。權力下放的希望似乎受到了很大的損害，提出了關於真正民主數字組織是否可能或僅僅是一個聰明的營銷策略的基本問題。

Paper Summary

論文摘要

Methodology

方法論

The researchers collected data from Snapshot (an off-chain governance platform), the Ethereum blockchain, Ethereum Name Service, and The Graph. They identified 986,557 voters across 872 DAOs with 7,478 recognized contributors. To ensure accuracy, they cross-verified 438,668 votes from 8,116 proposals against blockchain records, finding 97.48% consistency. They measured contributor influence by calculating voting power across proposals, analyzing decision-making involvement, and building co-voting networks to map voting patterns. They also tracked token balance changes before votes to spot strategic behavior.

研究人員從Snapshot（一個離鏈治理平台），以太坊區塊鏈，以太坊名稱服務和圖表中收集了數據。他們確定了872個Daos的986,557名選民，並有7,478名公認的貢獻者。為了確保准確性，他們從8,116項針對區塊鏈記錄的提案中進行了438,668票，發現了97.48％的一致性。他們通過計算跨建議的投票能力，分析決策參與並建立共同投票網絡以繪製投票模式來衡量貢獻者的影響。他們還追踪了代幣的平衡變化，然後才能發現戰略行為。

Results

結果

The study revealed that in 7.54% of DAOs, contributors held enough voting power to decide governance on average. In 20.41% of DAOs, contributors’ votes alone

該研究表明，在7.54％的Daos中，貢獻者擁有足夠的投票權來平均決定治理。在20.41％的道斯（Daos）中，貢獻者的投票僅