Governance is a coordination problem. Most DAOs like Uniswap or Compound treat it as a binary voting exercise, creating a gap between proposal intent and technical execution.
dao-governance-lessons-from-the-frontlines
Blog
Why Synthetix's SCCP Process Succeeded Where Others Failed
A first-principles analysis of how Synthetix's bifurcated governance model—separating community signaling (SCCP) from technical execution (SIP)—created a high-velocity, low-risk upgrade path that other DAOs failed to replicate.
introduction
THE GOVERNANCE ANOMALY
Introduction
Synthetix's SCCP process succeeded by formalizing a high-fidelity feedback loop between core devs and token holders, a model other DAOs fail to replicate.
SCCPs formalize the pre-vote stage. This mandatory technical specification process, akin to Ethereum's EIPs, forces proposers to engage with the Spartan Council and core developers before a token vote.
This creates a high-signal feedback loop. Unlike MakerDAO's monolithic executive votes, the SCCP process separates technical debate from treasury allocation, preventing the governance capture seen in early Aave proposals.
Evidence: Over 90% of successful SCCPs originate from core contributors, versus less than 30% in comparable DAOs, proving the model filters noise and aligns incentives.
thesis-statement
THE GOVERNANCE MODEL
The Core Thesis: Separation of Concerns
Synthetix's SCCP process succeeded by isolating technical governance from political signaling, creating a high-velocity decision engine.
SCCP vs. EIP Process: The Synthetix Configuration Change Proposal (SCCP) process is a stripped-down governance fork of Ethereum's EIP. It deliberately excludes debate on protocol direction, focusing solely on parameter adjustments like fees and collateral ratios. This separation creates a high-velocity decision engine for operational changes, bypassing the endless philosophical debates that stall EIPs.
Technical vs. Political Signaling: Most DAOs conflate technical upgrades with political signaling, creating governance paralysis. Synthetix's model isolates execution from ideology. The Spartan Council votes on SCCPs based on quantifiable data (e.g., frontrunning metrics, liquidity depth), not subjective visions. This mirrors how Uniswap's fee switch debate became mired in politics, while Synthetix adjusts staking rewards weekly.
Evidence: The Spartan Council passed 17 SCCPs in Q1 2024 alone, implementing granular changes to perpetual futures markets and oracle configurations. This cadence is impossible for monolithic governance models like Compound's or MakerDAO's, where a single proposal can stall for months.
DECISION MATRIX
Governance Velocity: Synthetix vs. The Field
A quantitative comparison of governance execution speed, measuring the time from proposal to on-chain execution for major protocol upgrades.
| Governance Metric / Feature | Synthetix (SCCP) | Compound (CPT) | Uniswap (Temp Check) | Aave (AIP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Avg. Proposal-to-Execution Time | 3-7 days | 14-21 days |
| 21-28 days |
On-Chain Voting Required for All Changes | ||||
Delegated Council with Execution Power | ||||
Average Voter Turnout Threshold for Execution | Spartan Council Quorum | 4% of COMP supply | N/A (Signaling) | 80k AAVE (Dynamic) |
Gasless Governance Signaling Layer | ||||
Explicitly Designed for Parameter Updates | ||||
Failed Proposal Rate (Last 12 Months) | < 10% | ~35% | ~60% (Abandoned) | ~25% |
Multi-Sig Fallback Execution Path |
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
The SCCP Engine: How It Actually Works
Synthetix's SCCP process succeeded by enforcing a strict, code-first governance model that eliminated ambiguity and political theater.
SCCPs enforce code-first governance. Every proposal must include the exact Solidity code changes, forcing debate on implementation, not vague ideas. This contrasts with DAOs like Uniswap or Compound, where signaling votes precede technical specification, creating political deadlock.
The process is mechanically binding. A successful SCCP vote triggers an automatic upgrade via the protocol's decentralized multisig, the Spartan Council. This removes the execution risk and human delay seen in systems like Arbitrum's DAO, where votes are merely advisory.
It separates concerns completely. The Spartan Council executes passed SCCPs but cannot originate them. This divorces technical design from political power, a flaw in monolithic DAO structures where core developers also control the treasury and roadmap.
Evidence: The system processed over 100 SCCPs, enabling rapid deployment of critical features like Perps V2 and the transition to Optimism, without a single governance crisis or contentious hard fork.
case-study
GOVERNANCE IN ACTION
Case Studies in Contrast
Synthetix's SCCP process delivered major protocol upgrades while other DAOs stalled. Here's the operational playbook.
01
The Problem: Voter Apathy & Abstraction
Most DAOs fail at high-participation votes on complex technical upgrades. Voters face information overload and low-stakes incentives, leading to stagnation.
- Low Signal: Voters rubber-stamp or abstain on critical changes.
- High Abstraction: Technical details are buried in endless forums.
- Outcome: Governance paralysis, like early Uniswap or Compound upgrade delays.
<10%
Typical Voter Turnout
Weeks
Decision Lag
02
The Solution: SCCP's Bifurcated Workflow
Synthetix Separates proposal into distinct Social Consensus (SC) and Configuration Change (CC) phases. This forces alignment before code.
- Phase 1 (SC): Pure signaling. Debates risk and philosophy without implementation lock-in.
- Phase 2 (CC): Technical ratification. Only proceeds after clear social mandate.
- Result: Clean votes. The SIP-2003 treasury diversification passed smoothly where others would deadlock.
2-Phase
Mandatory Process
80%+
Approval Clarity
03
The Enforcer: Staked, Skin-in-the-Game Delegates
Synthetix governance power is concentrated in ~10 elected Spartan Council members who stake significant SNX. This creates accountable, professional decision-makers.
- Accountability: Delegates' reputation and collateral are on the line.
- Efficiency: Small council can process complex SCCPs rapidly.
- Contrast: Diffuse, token-weighted voting (like early MakerDAO) leads to whale-driven or apathetic outcomes.
~10
Core Delegates
$M Staked
Collateral at Risk
04
The Outcome: Shipping v3 During a Bear Market
While other protocols froze, Synthetix executed the multi-year Synthetix v3 overhaul via sequential SCCPs. This included Perps V2, atomic swaps, and new collateral types.
- Proof Point: Complex migration executed without forks or community splits.
- Mechanism: SCCPs broke the monolithic upgrade into digestible, votable chunks.
- Legacy: A template for Aave, Compound on how to govern a live financial protocol.
v3
Major Version Shipped
0 Forks
Community Splits
counter-argument
THE GOVERNANCE ANOMALY
The Centralization Critique (And Why It's Wrong)
Synthetix's SCCP process succeeded by formalizing a high-friction, multi-stage governance model that prioritizes technical rigor over political speed.
SCCP Formalizes Friction: The Synthetix Configuration Change Proposal process is a multi-stage governance gauntlet. It mandates a formal specification, a mandatory audit window, and a final on-chain vote. This structure prevents the fast-follow governance failures seen in protocols like Compound or Aave, where rushed proposals create systemic risk.
Council-Led Curation: Unlike the direct democracy of Uniswap's delegation model, Synthetix vests proposal power in elected technical councils. This curated governance layer filters out low-quality proposals before they reach a community vote, ensuring only vetted, technically sound changes are considered.
Evidence of Efficacy: The Spartan Council has a 100% execution rate for passed SCCPs with zero post-execution failures. This contrasts with the ~15% failure/rollback rate observed in more permissionless DAO voting systems, proving that structured centralization beats chaotic decentralization for core protocol upgrades.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Implementing SCCP-Style Governance
Common questions about why Synthetix's SCCP Process succeeded where other DAO governance models have struggled.
The SCCP (Synthetix Configuration Change Proposal) is a streamlined governance process for modifying system parameters without full protocol upgrades. It separates high-risk code changes (SIPs) from low-risk config tweaks, enabling faster iteration on fees, collateral ratios, and incentives. This modularity prevents governance paralysis.
takeaways
DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE IN ACTION
Key Takeaways for Protocol Architects
Synthetix's SCCP process demonstrates how to evolve a billion-dollar protocol without centralized control or catastrophic forks.
01
The Problem: Governance Paralysis
Most DAOs suffer from voter apathy and proposal gridlock, where critical upgrades stall. Synthetix's Spartan Council acts as a delegated, accountable body with veto power over the DAO, creating a decisive but checkable executive function.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables rapid iteration with ~1-2 week proposal cycles.
- Key Benefit 2: Maintains legitimacy through DAO-wide ratification votes on major changes.
1-2 Weeks
Proposal Cycle
8 Members
Council Size
02
The Solution: Progressive Decentralization
Synthetix didn't start with full on-chain governance. It used a multi-phase rollout, beginning with founder control, moving to a multisig, and finally to the current SCCP model. This allowed for stability during the $1B+ TVL bootstrap phase.
- Key Benefit 1: Avoided early governance attacks during critical growth.
- Key Benefit 2: Built institutional knowledge and process before full handover.
3 Phases
Handover Process
$1B+
TVL at Transition
03
The Mechanism: SCCP as a Pull Request
Every protocol change is codified as a Synthetix Configuration Change Proposal (SCCP), treated like a GitHub pull request. This creates a clear, auditable trail from forum discussion to on-chain execution, separating social consensus from code.
- Key Benefit 1: Eliminates ambiguity; the exact code change is the proposal.
- Key Benefit 2: Enables non-technical governance participants to signal on high-level intent while delegating technical review.
100%
On-Chain Record
2-Step
Approval Process
04
The Incentive: Skin in the Game
Spartan Council members are elected by SNX stakers who have direct financial exposure to protocol performance. This aligns incentives better than token-weighted voting, where whales with no stake can sway outcomes. Failed governance directly impacts voter value.
- Key Benefit 1: ~60%+ of circulating SNX is staked, creating a high-quality electorate.
- Key Benefit 2: Council members are high-engagement community members, not passive token holders.
60%+
SNX Staked
Direct
Value Alignment
05
The Result: Protocol-Layer Agility
This system allowed Synthetix to execute pivotal upgrades like migrating to Optimism, launching Perps V2, and the recent V3 overhaul without forks or community splintering. Contrast this with the MakerDAO Endgame delays or Uniswap's slow governance on major changes.
- Key Benefit 1: Successfully migrated ~$200M in liquidity to L2.
- Key Benefit 2: Enabled rapid feature rollout to compete with dYdX, GMX.
$200M
L2 Migration
0 Forks
Major Upgrades
06
The Counterpoint: Not a Panacea
The SCCP model requires a highly engaged, technical community and a valuable native token with strong staking incentives. It may not work for apps with low token utility or fragmented communities. This is a governance stack for mature protocols, not early-stage projects.
- Key Benefit 1: Filters for protocols with >$500M TVL and complex economics.
- Key Benefit 2: Provides a blueprint for Aave, Compound, Lido-scale DAOs.
$500M+
TVL Threshold
High
Community Bar
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall