Snapshot excels at high-participation, low-friction governance by leveraging off-chain signatures and IPFS. This eliminates gas fees for voters, enabling participation from thousands of delegates without financial barrier. For example, Uniswap and Aave regularly see proposal turnouts exceeding 10,000 votes, a scale impractical with direct on-chain voting due to cost. Its modular plugin system supports strategies like ERC-20, ERC-721, and custom logic via the Snapshot X framework.
LABS
Comparisons
Snapshot (Off-Chain) vs On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects on the core trade-offs between off-chain signature aggregation and fully on-chain, gas-sponsored voting mechanisms for DAO governance.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Choice for DAO Governance
Choosing between off-chain signaling and on-chain execution defines your DAO's security model, voter accessibility, and operational cost.
On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship takes a different approach by executing votes directly on the blockchain (e.g., using OpenZeppelin Governor with a Relayer). This results in finality and automation—a passed vote can automatically trigger treasury transactions or smart contract upgrades. The trade-off is complexity and cost: while gas sponsorship (via services like Gelato or Safe{Wallet}) removes voter fees, the DAO bears the total gas burden, which can exceed $10,000 for a single high-traffic proposal on Ethereum mainnet.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing voter turnout and frequency for signaling or temperature checks, choose Snapshot. If you prioritize trust-minimized execution, automatic enforcement, and have a budget for gas sponsorship, choose On-Chain Voting. For many, the optimal path is a hybrid: using Snapshot for efficient consensus-building, then ratifying critical decisions via a final on-chain vote.
tldr-summary
Snapshot vs On-Chain Voting
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of off-chain signaling and on-chain execution for DAO governance.
01
Snapshot: Zero-Cost Participation
Gasless voting: Users sign messages off-chain, eliminating transaction fees. This matters for maximizing voter turnout in large communities (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) where gas costs are a major barrier.
02
Snapshot: High Flexibility & Speed
Rapid iteration: Proposals can use complex voting strategies (ERC-20, ERC-721, multi-chain) and be created/executed in minutes. This matters for frequent signaling votes, temperature checks, and community sentiment analysis.
03
On-Chain: Unbreakable Finality
Execution guarantees: Votes are binding state changes on the ledger (e.g., executing a treasury transfer via Safe). This matters for high-stakes decisions requiring cryptographic security and automatic execution, as seen in Compound Governor and Aave v3.
04
On-Chain: Sybil Resistance & Live Delegation
Native token-weighting: Voting power is directly tied to on-chain assets, resisting spam. Live delegation (like in OpenZeppelin Governor) allows dynamic power transfer. This matters for protocol upgrades where stake-weighted security is non-negotiable.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Snapshot vs On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship
Direct comparison of governance mechanisms for cost, security, and voter participation.
| Metric | Snapshot (Off-Chain) | On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship |
|---|---|---|
Voter Transaction Cost | $0 | $0 (Sponsored) |
Vote Execution Cost (Protocol) | $0 | $2 - $50+ |
Vote Finality & Execution | Off-Chain Signal | On-Chain State Change |
Sybil Resistance | Token Holders (ERC-20, ERC-721) | Native Token Holders |
Time to Result | < 5 minutes | ~1 block to 7 days |
Integration Complexity | Low (Snapshot API, IPFS) | High (Custom Relayer, Safe{Wallet}) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Snapshot (Off-Chain) vs On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship
Key strengths and trade-offs for governance models at a glance. Choose based on security, cost, and user experience requirements.
01
Snapshot (Off-Chain) Pro: Zero-Cost Participation
No gas fees for voters: Signatures are free, enabling mass participation. This matters for large DAOs like Uniswap or Aave, where proposals can receive 10,000+ votes without imposing financial barriers on members.
02
Snapshot (Off-Chain) Pro: High Throughput & Flexibility
Unlimited voting weight and complex logic: Supports quadratic voting, ERC-20/721/1155 balances, and custom strategies via plugins. This matters for experimental governance and multi-token systems, processing votes instantly off-chain.
03
Snapshot (Off-Chain) Con: Execution Risk & Trust
Off-chain signaling only: Votes are not enforceable on-chain, creating a trusted execution gap. This matters for high-value treasury actions, requiring a separate, trusted multisig to implement results, as seen in early Compound proposals.
04
Snapshot (Off-Chain) Con: Sybil & Spam Vulnerability
Relies on snapshot block: Vulnerable to token borrowing or flash loan attacks at the snapshot block. This matters for high-stakes decisions, requiring careful strategy design (e.g., time-weighted averages) to mitigate.
05
On-Chain Voting Pro: Autonomous Execution
Vote outcome auto-executes: Smart contracts like OpenZeppelin Governor enforce results, removing human intermediaries. This matters for permissionless protocols like MakerDAO, where stability fee changes execute directly from the vote.
06
On-Chain Voting Pro: Censorship Resistance & Finality
Fully on-chain record: Votes are immutable L1/L2 transactions, providing cryptographic finality. This matters for regulatory compliance and audit trails, as used by Arbitrum DAO's on-chain governance.
07
On-Chain Voting Con: High Voter Cost
Gas fees burden voters: Even with sponsorship (via ERC-2771 or Gelato), the protocol bears high costs. This matters for scaling participation, as seen with early Aragon votes where gas could exceed $50 per vote on Ethereum mainnet.
08
On-Chain Voting Con: Throughput & Complexity Limits
Constrained by blockchain limits: Complex voting logic increases gas costs and risk. This matters for rapid iteration, making it harder to implement novel mechanisms like conviction voting compared to Snapshot's off-chain design.
pros-cons-b
Snapshot (Off-Chain) vs On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship
On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for governance systems.
01
Snapshot: Costless Participation
Zero gas fees for voters: Votes are signed messages stored on IPFS/Arweave, not on-chain transactions. This enables massive voter turnout (e.g., Uniswap, Aave proposals with 10,000+ voters) without financial barrier. Ideal for broad sentiment signaling and high-frequency governance.
02
Snapshot: Flexibility & Speed
Rapid iteration and complex voting types: Supports quadratic voting, ranked choice, and custom strategies via plugins. Proposals can be created and voted on in minutes, not days. Critical for DAO experimentation and adapting to community needs without blockchain latency or cost constraints.
03
On-Chain Voting: Unbreakable Execution
Votes directly trigger on-chain state changes: Using systems like OpenZeppelin Governor with EIP-4337 account abstraction for gas sponsorship. Eliminates the trusted multisig bottleneck for execution. Essential for high-value treasury transfers (>$1M) or critical parameter updates in DeFi protocols like Compound.
04
On-Chain Voting: Sybil-Resistant & Verifiable
Voting power is live, on-chain state: Uses real-time token balances or NFTs, preventing snapshot manipulation. The entire process is cryptographically verifiable from vote to execution. Non-negotiable for protocols with adversarial stakeholders or compliance-heavy operations.
05
Snapshot: The Execution Risk
Requires a trusted executor: Off-chain votes are signals; a multisig must manually execute the passed proposal. Introduces centralization risk and execution lag. Problematic for time-sensitive decisions or if the multisig becomes unresponsive.
06
On-Chain Voting: The Cost & Complexity
Gas sponsorship is mandatory: Requires a relayer network or paymaster contract (e.g., Biconomy, Stackup) to cover fees, adding operational overhead. Voting cycles are slower and more expensive to run. Can be prohibitive for smaller DAOs or communities with many small holders.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Solution
Snapshot for DAOs\nVerdict: The default choice for broad, community-driven governance.\nStrengths: Zero-cost participation enables maximum voter turnout. Seamless integration with major DAO tooling like Safe, Tally, and Guild. Supports complex voting strategies (e.g., ERC-20, ERC-721, delegation). Ideal for signaling votes, temperature checks, and high-frequency proposals where on-chain execution is overkill.\nWeaknesses: Off-chain results require a trusted multisig for execution, introducing a trust assumption and potential delay.\n\n### On-Chain Voting for DAOs\nVerdict: Essential for autonomous, trust-minimized execution.\nStrengths: Votes directly trigger on-chain actions via contracts like Governor Bravo or OpenZeppelin Governor. The ultimate in security and censorship resistance. Gas sponsorship (via meta-transactions or paymasters like Biconomy, Gelato) mitigates voter cost. Critical for treasury management, protocol parameter changes, or any vote where result integrity is paramount.\nWeaknesses: Lower voter participation due to gas cost friction, even with sponsorship. Slower proposal lifecycle.
SNAPSHOT VS ON-CHAIN VOTING
Technical Deep Dive: Security Models and Execution Flows
A critical analysis of off-chain signaling (Snapshot) versus on-chain execution with gas sponsorship, examining their security guarantees, cost structures, and ideal governance use cases.
Yes, Snapshot voting is significantly cheaper for voters, as it is free. Voters sign messages off-chain, incurring zero gas fees. On-chain voting requires paying for transaction gas, though protocols like Tally and Sybil often implement gas sponsorship or meta-transactions to cover these costs for users. The protocol treasury ultimately bears the expense of on-chain execution.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
A final assessment of the trade-offs between Snapshot's off-chain signaling and on-chain voting with gas sponsorship.
Snapshot excels at high-participation, low-cost governance because it removes the primary barrier of gas fees. For example, major DAOs like Uniswap and Aave use it to achieve voter turnout in the tens of thousands, with proposal creation costing less than $0.01 on IPFS. Its flexibility supports complex voting strategies (e.g., weighted by token balance or delegated voting power) and integrates with multi-chain treasuries without friction.
On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship takes a different approach by absorbing user costs to achieve direct state execution. This results in a trade-off: it provides unparalleled finality and security, as seen with protocols like Optimism's Citizen House, but at a significant and predictable operational cost for the sponsoring entity. The sponsorship model can simplify the user experience to a single transaction signature.
The key trade-off is between cost-efficiency/scale and execution finality/security. If your priority is maximizing voter participation, testing governance sentiment, or managing a multi-chain DAO with a limited budget, choose Snapshot. If you prioritize automated, trustless execution where votes directly and irrevocably change protocol parameters or treasury state, and you have the budget to sponsor gas (costs can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars per proposal depending on chain and complexity), choose On-Chain Voting with Gas Sponsorship.
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