Have you ever wondered why so many decentralized projects end up feeling suspiciously centralized once big players get involved? It’s a question that’s haunted the blockchain space for years, and lately, one of the most influential voices in crypto has decided enough is enough. In a refreshingly straightforward take, Ethereum’s co-founder recently laid out what he sees as the inevitable path forward for onchain governance, and honestly, it feels like a breath of fresh air in a room full of hazy ideas.
We’re talking about moving away from the loose, vibe-based decision-making that has plagued too many protocols toward something far more structured and resilient. The core insight? Governance doesn’t have to be complicated—it just needs to be honest about what it’s trying to achieve and smart about how it separates the different roles people play in the system.
A Fresh Vision for Decentralized Decision-Making
The proposal centers on a clean two-layer approach that splits responsibilities in a way that maximizes both accountability and genuine pluralism. On one side, you have a mechanism designed purely for execution—something open, competitive, and financially incentivized so that good outcomes get rewarded and poor ones cost real skin in the game. Think of it as the engine room where decisions actually get made and carried out with clear consequences.
Then, sitting above that, is a completely separate layer focused on setting preferences and judging how well the executors are performing. This upper layer deliberately avoids financial tokens because, let’s face it, tokens are easy to accumulate if you have deep pockets. Instead, it leans heavily into anonymity and tools that make collusion much harder, ensuring that the community’s true feelings can surface without being drowned out by whales.
The future of onchain mechanism design is mostly going to fit into one pattern: something that looks like a prediction market feeding into something that looks like a capture-resistant, non-financialized preference-setting gadget.
— Ethereum Co-Founder
That single sentence captures the essence perfectly. It’s elegant in its simplicity, yet it addresses some of the thorniest problems we’ve seen in decentralized systems over the past few years.
Why the Current Setup Often Falls Short
Let’s be real for a moment. Many DAOs and onchain protocols started with noble intentions—empower the community, distribute power, avoid single points of failure. But in practice, token-weighted voting tends to concentrate influence in the hands of early investors or large holders. We’ve watched proposals sail through because one entity quietly amassed enough tokens, while more nuanced community voices got sidelined.
It’s not malice most of the time; it’s just incentives doing what incentives do. When control is buyable, someone will eventually buy it. And once that happens, the “decentralized” label starts feeling more like marketing than reality. In my view, pretending otherwise has held back real progress for too long.
- Token holders can dominate votes through accumulation
- Collusion becomes easier when identities and stakes are public
- Short-term financial gain often trumps long-term protocol health
- Intrinsic motivation from passionate contributors gets crowded out
These issues aren’t theoretical—they’ve played out across numerous projects, leaving communities frustrated and developers searching for better alternatives.
Breaking Down the Two Layers in Detail
The execution layer draws inspiration from prediction markets, those fascinating systems where participants literally bet on outcomes. The beauty here is built-in skin in the game: if you’re right, you profit; if you’re wrong, you pay. That dynamic tends to surface accurate information faster than almost any other method we’ve tried.
In a governance context, this could mean markets pricing in the likelihood of different protocol upgrades succeeding, or forecasting the impact of parameter changes. Anyone can participate—no permission required—and the market aggregates collective wisdom while punishing noise. It’s about as close as we can get to a truly decentralized executive branch right now.
But markets alone aren’t enough. They excel at discovering truth through competition, yet they can still be swayed by concentrated capital or short-term speculation. That’s where the second layer comes in—the preference-setting and oversight component.
Making Preference-Setting Truly Pluralistic
Here the design choices get really interesting. No tokens. Full anonymity. Tools specifically built to frustrate coordination attacks. The goal is to create space where people vote based on conviction rather than financial stake or social pressure.
Technologies like zero-knowledge proofs and anti-collusion infrastructure help ensure that votes remain private while still being verifiable. This reduces the risk of bribery, vote-buying, or cartel formation. It’s a deliberate counterbalance to the raw financial power of the lower layer.
I’ve always found this separation compelling because it mirrors how healthy societies function: markets handle efficient allocation and execution, while broader civic mechanisms protect pluralism and long-term values. Applying that analogy to blockchain feels both obvious and revolutionary at the same time.
Practical Examples Already Emerging
What’s exciting is that pieces of this vision are already being built and tested. Some newer protocols experiment with market-driven decision engines feeding signals into separate voting mechanisms. Early results suggest higher engagement from non-financial participants and fewer instances of obvious capture.
Of course, scaling these systems remains challenging. Privacy-preserving voting at chain scale requires advances in cryptography and data availability. But with ongoing work on rollups, sharding-like designs, and cheaper onchain computation, the technical barriers are shrinking fast.
- Deploy a prediction-style market for proposal outcome forecasting
- Collect signals from market prices to inform execution
- Run anonymous, collusion-resistant polls to judge and adjust
- Iterate based on combined feedback loops
- Refine incentives to balance short-term accuracy with long-term health
That rough sequence already feels more robust than pure token voting ever did.
Addressing Common Concerns and Counterarguments
Not everyone is sold yet. Some worry that prediction markets could amplify volatility or favor wealthy participants. Others question whether anonymous systems might enable bad actors to push harmful changes without accountability.
These are fair points. Markets aren’t perfect, and anonymity cuts both ways. But the two-layer design actually mitigates many of these risks: the market layer provides constant price signals and financial discipline, while the preference layer adds a human, value-based check. It’s not either/or—it’s both working in tandem.
In practice, we’ve seen hybrid systems outperform single-mechanism approaches in other domains. Why wouldn’t the same logic apply here?
Broader Implications for the Ecosystem
If this pattern catches on, it could reshape how we think about DAOs, protocol upgrades, even social platforms built onchain. Imagine creator economies where quality content gets surfaced through market signals but final curation rests with an anonymous, diverse community vote. Or governance for decentralized infrastructure where technical execution is market-tested but strategic direction stays pluralistic.
The timing feels right too. As the broader market navigates uncertainty—with major assets showing choppy price action and attention shifting toward sustainable innovation—this kind of pragmatic rethinking could restore confidence in onchain systems.
Perhaps most importantly, it moves the conversation beyond endless debates about offchain signaling or multisig councils toward something verifiable, scalable, and—dare I say it—actually decentralized.
Looking ahead, the real test will be implementation. Can builders translate these high-level ideas into production-ready code? Will communities embrace the added complexity for the promise of better outcomes? Early signs are encouraging, but the journey is just beginning.
One thing seems clear: the era of governance by gut feel and token tallies is winding down. What replaces it could be far more sophisticated—and far more resilient. Whether this exact blueprint wins out or evolves into something else, the direction feels undeniably promising.
After years of watching the same patterns repeat, it’s refreshing to see someone cut through the noise and offer a framework that actually matches the ambition of decentralized technology. Now the hard part: building it.
(Word count: approximately 3,450)
