Off-Chain Voting with On-Chain Execution excels at enabling high-participation, complex governance at low cost to voters. By leveraging off-chain platforms like Snapshot for signaling and only executing passed proposals on-chain, it removes gas fees as a barrier. For example, Uniswap and Aave regularly see thousands of votes per proposal with zero voter cost, leveraging standards like EIP-712 for secure signing. This model is ideal for broad, community-driven DAOs where participation volume is critical.
LABS
Comparisons
Off-Chain Voting with On-Chain Execution vs Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting
A technical analysis comparing the two-phase hybrid model, exemplified by Snapshot, against unified on-chain gasless voting systems for DAO governance, focusing on finality, user experience, and architectural trade-offs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Governance Dilemma
Choosing a governance model is a foundational decision that balances voter accessibility with execution security and cost.
Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting takes a different approach by abstracting transaction fees through meta-transactions or account abstraction (ERC-4337), keeping the entire process—from vote casting to execution—within the blockchain's security boundary. This results in a trade-off: it provides stronger execution guarantees and resistance to manipulation (e.g., preventing last-minute vote switching) but often at the cost of higher protocol complexity and reliance on fee subsidy mechanisms, as seen in early implementations by Compound and Optimism's Citizen House.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing voter turnout and minimizing friction for a large, diverse token holder base, choose Off-Chain Voting. If you prioritize censorship resistance, execution atomicity, and minimizing trust assumptions for high-value treasury decisions, choose Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting. The former scales participation; the latter hardens security.
tldr-summary
Off-Chain Voting vs. Fully On-Chain Voting
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two dominant gasless voting architectures, highlighting their core trade-offs for protocol governance.
02
Off-Chain Voting: Trade-offs
Execution lag & multi-step process: Requires a separate, on-chain transaction (often by a multisig) to enact results, creating a delay and centralization point. This matters if your protocol requires immediate, trust-minimized execution.
Off-chain data reliance: Voting integrity depends on the availability and integrity of the off-chain service (e.g., Snapshot's IPFS pins). This matters for censorship-resistant protocols that cannot tolerate downtime.
04
Fully On-Chain Voting: Trade-offs
Relayer cost burden: While voters are gasless, someone pays for the gas via a paymaster or relayer, creating an operational cost and potential centralization vector. This matters for budget-constrained treasuries or protocols without a dedicated relayer.
On-chain proposal constraints: Proposal data (text, code) is stored on-chain, incurring higher costs and limiting complexity. This matters for early-stage DAOs that need cheap, flexible proposal drafting.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Head-to-Head Specifications
Direct comparison of governance models for DAOs and protocols.
| Metric | Off-Chain Voting (e.g., Snapshot) | Fully On-Chain Gasless (e.g., OpenZeppelin Governor) |
|---|---|---|
Voter Transaction Cost | $0 | ~$0 (sponsored by protocol) |
On-Chain Execution Required | ||
Time to Finalize Vote | ~1-3 days | ~5-7 days (incl. timelock) |
Sybil Resistance Mechanism | Token-weighted, Delegation | Token-weighted, Delegation |
Supports EIP-712 Signatures | ||
Typical Use Case | Signal proposals, high-frequency polls | Treasury management, parameter upgrades |
Integration Complexity | Low (off-chain aggregator) | High (custom Governor contract) |
pros-cons-a
Architectural Trade-offs for DAOs
Pros and Cons: Off-Chain Voting with On-Chain Execution
A data-driven comparison of two dominant governance models, highlighting key operational and security differences for protocol architects.
01
Off-Chain Voting: Key Strength
Radically lower user cost: Voting is gasless (e.g., Snapshot), enabling participation from wallets with zero ETH. This matters for maximizing voter turnout in large, token-holder-based DAOs like Uniswap or Aave.
$0
Voter Cost
02
Off-Chain Voting: Key Weakness
Execution lag and centralization risk: Votes are signals; a trusted multisig (e.g., Safe) must manually execute the passed proposal on-chain. This creates a time delay and a single point of failure, as seen in early Compound governance.
1-3 Days
Typical Execution Delay
03
Fully On-Chain Gasless: Key Strength
Trustless, atomic execution: Voting and execution are a single atomic transaction using meta-transactions or account abstraction (ERC-4337). This matters for high-frequency, automated protocols like MakerDAO's governance module, where speed and certainty are critical.
Atomic
Vote-to-Execution
04
Fully On-Chain Gasless: Key Weakness
Higher protocol complexity and cost: Requires sophisticated relayers, paymasters, or a native gas tank, shifting cost burden to the DAO treasury. This matters for budget-conscious projects as it introduces ongoing operational overhead and smart contract risk.
DAO-Borne
Gas Cost
pros-cons-b
OFF-CHAIN VOTING WITH ON-CHAIN EXECUTION vs. FULLY ON-CHAIN GASLESS VOTING
Pros and Cons: Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting
Key architectural trade-offs for governance, from cost and scalability to security and user experience.
01
Off-Chain Voting: Pros
Unmatched Scalability: Vote aggregation happens off-chain (e.g., Snapshot), enabling millions of participants without blockchain fees or congestion. This is critical for large DAOs like Uniswap or Aave with 100K+ token holders. Rich Voting Experience: Supports complex voting types (quadratic, weighted), detailed proposals, and instant results. Integrates with tools like Safe for execution.
02
Off-Chain Voting: Cons
Execution Risk & Friction: Votes are not automatically enforceable. Requires a separate, often multi-sig, transaction (e.g., via Safe Snapshot Executor) to enact results, creating a delay and potential centralization point. Lower Sybil Resistance: Relies on off-chain signature verification of token ownership, which can be less secure than direct on-chain state proofs against flash loan attacks.
03
Fully On-Chain Gasless: Pros
Trustless Execution: Voting and execution are atomic. A successful vote directly triggers the on-chain action via meta-transactions or account abstraction (ERC-4337), eliminating manual execution steps. Used by protocols like Optimism's Governance. Enhanced Security & Finality: Votes are settled on-chain, providing stronger Sybil resistance and immutability. The state transition is guaranteed if the vote passes.
04
Fully On-Chain Gasless: Cons
Higher Protocol Complexity & Cost: Requires sophisticated infrastructure for gas sponsorship (relayers, paymasters) and can incur significant L1 gas fees for the sponsoring entity. Solutions like Gelato Relay add operational overhead. Scalability Constraints: While gasless for users, voting transactions still consume blockchain space, potentially limiting participant scale compared to pure off-chain models during network congestion.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Off-Chain Voting with On-Chain Execution for DeFi/DAOs
Verdict: The Standard for High-Value Governance. Strengths: Ideal for complex, high-stakes proposals (e.g., treasury management, parameter changes) where voter deliberation and Sybil resistance are critical. Leverages battle-tested tools like Snapshot for gasless signaling and Safe{Wallet} for secure, multi-sig execution. Provides a full audit trail from forum discussion to on-chain action. Perfect for protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound with large, distributed tokenholder bases.
Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting for DeFi/DAOs
Verdict: Niche for Real-Time, Automated Decisions. Strengths: Excels for frequent, low-value operational decisions that require immediate, trust-minimized execution. Enables automated treasury rebalancing or parameter tweaks via Governor contracts with meta-transactions (ERC-2771) or sponsored gas. Best suited for leaner DAOs or sub-DAOs (e.g., Olympus Pro) that prioritize speed for routine operations but introduces higher smart contract complexity and potential centralization in the gas sponsor.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between off-chain voting with on-chain execution and fully on-chain gasless voting is a strategic decision that hinges on your protocol's core priorities.
Off-Chain Voting with On-Chain Execution excels at scalability and cost-efficiency because it delegates the complex, data-heavy voting process to specialized, high-throughput layer-2 solutions or dedicated services like Snapshot or Tally. For example, a DAO using Snapshot for a proposal with 10,000 voters can execute the vote for near-zero cost and finalize the result on-chain via a simple, single-transaction execution, bypassing Ethereum's ~$5-50 gas fees per voter. This model is the standard for large-scale governance in protocols like Uniswap and Aave, where voter participation is paramount.
Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting takes a different approach by maximizing security and execution atomicity through meta-transaction relayers or account abstraction. This results in a trade-off: while users pay no gas, the protocol or a subsidizer bears the cost, and all logic resides on the base layer, increasing smart contract complexity and potential attack surface. Systems like OpenZeppelin's Governor with a relayer or ERC-4337 Account Abstraction enable this, ensuring vote execution is inseparable from the voting action itself, which is critical for high-value treasury decisions.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing voter participation and scaling to thousands of users cost-effectively, choose Off-Chain Voting. It's the proven path for community-driven DAOs. If you prioritize maximum security, censorship-resistance, and atomic execution for high-stakes, lower-participation votes, choose Fully On-Chain Gasless Voting. The former optimizes for breadth; the latter optimizes for depth and finality.
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