（©Chinnapong -Stock.adobe.com）

维也纳 - 加密革命承诺将消除中间人并将财务民主化，但研究人员发现，分散的自治组织（DAOS）有一个肮脏的秘密。

In a nutshell

简而言之

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.

维也纳 - 加密革命承诺将消除中间人并使财务民主化，但研究人员发现了关于分散的自治组织（DAOS）的肮脏秘密。研究人员说，内部人士保持了足够的控制权，可以在很大程度上决定决策。

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.

一项新的国际研究表明，内部人士（例如开发商，管理人员和项目所有者）拥有足够的投票权，可以在大约8％的Daos中自行决定提案的结果。更糟糕的是，这些内部人员单手决定了20％以上的组织中至少一项提案的结果。

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.

即使这些组织被销售为民主，但许多组织的功能更像是由少数拥有大量权力的内部人员控制的群体。

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.

对于任何不熟悉加密货币世界的人来说，道斯应该是民主社区，成员使用特殊的“治理令牌”对决定进行投票。您持有的代币越多，您拥有的投票权就越多，类似于公司中的股票，但是由代币持有人而不是董事会直接做出的决定。

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.

研究小组检查了872个道路的近100万选民并分析了超过500万票的选民，甚至还发现，即使是uniswap等主要的财务平台，该平台处理了数十亿美元的交易量，也显示出有关内部捐款水平的水平。

How Insiders Maintain Control

内部人员如何保持控制

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.

该研究发表在《金融密码学和数据安全》上，强调了尽管民主立面但内部人士保持控制的三种主要方式。首先，贡献者（该研究的内部人士术语）在投票网络中占据了中心位置。从本质上讲，他们是坐在凉爽桌子上的受欢迎的孩子。由于他们的位置，它们的影响力进一步传播。

“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.”

“在我们的研究中，我们发现了许多DAO中'内部圈子'的迹象，因为贡献者倾向于将其位于DAO治理生态系统中，并且通常具有不成比例的高影响力。”

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

其次，这些内部人士倾向于以可疑的模式共同投票，就像协调的投票集团一样。

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.

最后，在重要的投票之前，谁拥有治理令牌突然发生了变化。在近15％的提案中，投票权的重大变化发生在投票前几天。这可能是一个巧合，但这也可能是一种战略操纵策略。

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.

我们没有根据所有人最适合的人做出决定，而是在重要的决策前看到了战略投票权。研究人员发现，贡献者参与了这些多数转变的60％的提案，这表明他们可能参与了这些战略令牌运动。

Major Crypto Platforms Aren’t Immune

主要加密平台无法免疫

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

您可能会认为这个问题只会影响小的，未知的Daos，但研究发现，即使是加密大联盟也无法免疫。

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，人们在加密货币上进行了数十亿美元的交易，显示了将近30％的贡献者参与投票。主要的贷款平台Aave并没有落后28％。即使在这些庞大的组织中，内部人员仍然保持巨大的影响。

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.

研究团队建立了什么相当于投票行为的社交网络图，表明谁倾向于投票给谁。这些地图表明，内部人通常占据中心位置，并倾向于将其聚集在投票社区中。

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

这意味着内部人士团结在一起并保持影响力的立场，形成了这些所谓的民主组织中的内心圈子。

The Regulatory Reckoning

监管估算

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?

这些发现在很大程度上否定了道斯代表传统治理的分散和民主替代方案的叙述。如果一小群内部人员可以有效地控制建议的结果并保持巨大的影响力，那么这些组织与具有民主贴面的传统公司真的有什么不同吗？

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.

财务监管机构越来越专注于确定谁控制这些所谓的分散协议。在像龙卷风现金制裁这样的事件之后，据称开发商操纵治理以避免使用反货币冲突的控制，了解谁真正拉起了琴弦，这对监管机构至关重要。

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.

对于任何认为Daos代表数字时代民主组织的革命性新模式的人来说，本研究都会进行清醒的现实检查。权力下放的希望似乎受到了很大的损害，提出了关于真正民主数字组织是否可能或仅仅是一个聪明的营销策略的基本问题。

Paper Summary

论文摘要

Methodology

方法论

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.

研究人员从Snapshot（一个离链治理平台），以太坊区块链，以太坊名称服务和图表中收集了数据。他们确定了872个Daos的986,557名选民，并有7,478名公认的贡献者。为了确保准确性，他们从8,116项针对区块链记录的提案中进行了438,668票，发现了97.48％的一致性。他们通过计算跨建议的投票能力，分析决策参与并建立共同投票网络以绘制投票模式来衡量贡献者的影响。他们还追踪了代币的平衡变化，然后才能发现战略行为。

Results

结果

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

该研究表明，在7.54％的Daos中，贡献者拥有足够的投票权来平均决定治理。在20.41％的道斯（Daos）中，贡献者的投票仅