Governance tokens lack utility beyond voting. On an appchain like dYdX v4, the token secures the chain but the protocol's core revenue flows to stakers, not token holders. This creates a fee extraction misalignment where validators profit from sequencer fees while token governance remains symbolic.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Governance Tokens Are Failing Appchains
Governance tokens for sovereign appchains like those in Cosmos and Polkadot are structurally flawed. Without enforceable utility or direct cashflow rights, they devolve into pure speculation, failing to provide the security or alignment they promise.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Appchain Governance Paradox
Appchain governance tokens fail because they misalign economic incentives with operational sovereignty.
Sovereignty demands operational capital that tokens don't provide. Running a Cosmos SDK chain requires funding validators, RPC nodes, and indexers. Projects like Injective bootstrap this with venture capital, not token emissions, proving governance is a cost center. Token-based treasuries are insufficient for infrastructure.
The DAO tooling is primitive. Managing a live blockchain with Snapshot votes and Discord is operationally negligent. Compare this to L2 governance frameworks like Arbitrum's Security Council, which uses multi-sigs and expert delegates for rapid incident response. Appchain DAOs lack this execution layer.
Evidence: The total value locked in appchain governance tokens is a fraction of their application's TVL. Axelar's AXL token, securing a bridge network, trades at a fraction of the value it secures, demonstrating the discount for pure governance.
key-trends
WHY GOVERNANCE TOKENS ARE FAILING APPCHAINS
The Symptoms of Failure
Appchain governance tokens are collapsing under the weight of their own contradictions, creating a negative feedback loop of disengagement and value extraction.
01
The Voter Apathy Death Spiral
Token distribution fails to align with active governance. 95%+ of token holders never vote, ceding control to a few whales or the founding team. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where passive tokens are sold, further depressing price and participation.
- Low Turnout: <5% participation is standard, making votes meaningless.
- Whale Dominance: A few entities can dictate all protocol upgrades.
- Negative Feedback: Low participation → low utility → sell pressure → lower participation.
<5%
Voter Turnout
95%+
Passive Holders
02
The Fee Capture Mirage
Promised revenue sharing from sequencer fees or MEV rarely materializes for token holders. The economic model is either unsustainable or captured by infrastructure layers. See dYdX v3 to v4 transition where fee sharing was a core promised upgrade that struggled to materialize as a value driver.
- Zero Real Yield: Most tokens offer speculative staking APY, not fee cashflow.
- Infrastructure Tax: Validators/sequencers capture real value; governance tokens get promises.
- Model Failure: High fees kill UX; low fees kill tokenomics. Appchains can't solve this trilemma.
~0%
Fee Yield
High
Infrastructure Tax
03
The Liquidity vs. Control Paradox
Appchains need deep liquidity on centralized exchanges (CEXs) for price discovery and accessibility, but this divorces the token from its governance utility. Arbitrum's $ARB is the canonical case: massive CEX listing created a liquid market but ensured most tokens would never touch the chain for voting.
- CEX Listings Essential: But they turn governance tokens into pure speculative assets.
- Utility Decoupling: Tokens held on Binance cannot vote on Snapshot or execute on-chain actions.
- The Result: A governance token that nobody uses for governance.
>80%
Off-Chain Held
Decoupled
Utility
04
The Fork Escape Hatch
In a decentralized ecosystem, any successful appchain can be forked trivially. If governance becomes contentious or extractive, users and developers simply leave. This makes the governance token's 'control' privilege illusory. See the Cosmos ecosystem, where chains like Juno have faced governance crises leading to community splits.
- Zero Barrier to Exit: Code is open-source; validators are commoditized.
- Tokenholder Hostage Crisis: Bad governance leads to a fork, rendering the original token worthless.
- Sovereignty Illusion: The threat of a fork neuters any radical governance action.
Low
Switching Cost
High
Fork Risk
05
The Speculative Governance Attack
Governance tokens are financial assets first, governance tools second. This creates perverse incentives where actors (e.g., venture funds like a16z) accumulate tokens to force through proposals that increase short-term token price at the expense of long-term health. The Osmosis 'Fee Burn' proposal is a prime example of financial engineering overriding product sense.
- Financial Primacy: Voting is driven by token price impact, not protocol health.
- VC Overreach: Large, liquid token positions allow investors to override builder consensus.
- Short-Termism: Proposals optimize for the next quarter's chart, not the next decade's infrastructure.
Financial
Primary Driver
VC-Led
Voting Blocs
06
The Complexity Moat (That Isn't)
Appchains argue their customizability is a moat, but this complexity makes governance intractable for average tokenholders. Voting on technical parameters (e.g., gas schedules, slashing conditions, IBC packet fees) is a job for core developers, not token speculators. This leads to governance paralysis or reckless changes.
- Information Asymmetry: Core devs have 100x more context than voters.
- Parameter Hell: Governance becomes a game of adjusting knobs nobody understands.
- Outcome: Either benign neglect (delegation to devs) or catastrophic misconfiguration.
High
Info Asymmetry
Paralysis
Common Outcome
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The First Principles Flaw: Governance Without Property Rights
Appchain governance tokens fail because they grant political control without the economic skin-in-the-game of true ownership.
Governance tokens are political derivatives. They confer voting rights over a protocol's parameters but lack the fundamental property rights of equity. Token holders vote on treasury allocations and upgrades without bearing the direct financial consequences of bad decisions, creating a principal-agent problem.
Appchains separate state from ownership. Unlike a corporation where shareholders own the assets and cash flows, Cosmos or Polygon Supernet validators secure the chain but the appchain team retains ownership of the application layer and its revenue. Governance becomes a debate over a shared utility, not stewardship of a joint asset.
The evidence is low voter turnout. Major Cosmos Hub proposals often see less than 50% participation. Without a direct claim on profits or assets, the rational choice for a token holder is apathy or speculative trading. This makes the network vulnerable to low-cost attacks by concentrated actors.
Contrast this with L2 sequencer fees. On Arbitrum and Optimism, a portion of transaction fees currently flows to the core development team's treasury. This model centralizes value capture, but it correctly aligns incentives: those building and operating the chain profit from its success, unlike a disenfranchised token holder.
GOVERNANCE TOKEN ANALYSIS
Appchain Token Utility: Promise vs. Reality
A first-principles comparison of the promised utility of appchain governance tokens against their realized economic and security value.
| Utility Dimension | Theoretical Promise | Current Reality | Key Example |
|---|---|---|---|
Fee Capture / Revenue Share | dYdX v3 (off-chain orderbook) | ||
Protocol-Directed MEV Redistribution | Sei (no active program) | ||
Staking APY (Inflation-Funded) | 5-15% | 5-15% | Avalanche Subnets, Polygon Supernets |
Staking APY (Fee-Funded) |
| <2% | Most Cosmos SDK chains |
On-Chain Voting Participation |
| <10% of supply | Osmosis, Injective |
Security Bond (Slashable Stake / TVL) |
| <15% | dYdX Chain, Arbitrum Nova |
Exclusive Access to Core Protocol Features | Axelar (interchain gas paid in AXL) |
counter-argument
THE VALIDATOR PROBLEM
Steelman: "But Interchain Security Solves This!"
Interchain security is a technical patch that fails to address the core economic and governance failures of appchain tokens.
Interchain security is a subsidy. It outsources validator staking to a hub like Cosmos, but this does not create native demand for the appchain's token. The token remains a governance-only instrument, failing the fundamental test of accruing value from its own network's usage.
Security is not monetization. Projects like Neutron and Stride use the Cosmos Hub's validators, but their tokens still trade at a massive discount to their secured TVL. This proves that rented security does not create token value; it merely lowers one operational cost for developers.
The governance illusion persists. Even with shared security, token voting determines protocol upgrades and treasury spend. This recreates the same low-participation, whale-dominated governance dynamics seen on Avalanche subnets or Polygon Supernets, where voter apathy is the norm.
Evidence: The Cosmos Hub secures over $1B in assets for other chains, yet ATOM's price-to-fee ratio remains dislocated. The security product is consumed, but the fee flow and value accrual are structurally severed from the staking asset.
case-study
WHY APPS ARE SHEDDING THEIR NATIVE TOKENS
Case Studies in Governance Token Drift
Appchain governance tokens are failing to capture value, leading to strategic pivots away from native token models.
01
The dYdX Exodus
Migrated from an L1 token to a pure fee-sharing token on its Cosmos appchain. The native $DYDX token now governs only the DAO, not the core exchange protocol, decoupling governance from usage.
- Result: Token utility collapsed to pure speculation and DAO votes.
- Lesson: If the token doesn't secure the chain or capture fees, its value proposition evaporates.
~$0
Protocol Fee Accrual
L1 → L2
Migration
02
Arbitrum's Stipend Governance
The $ARB token is a governance-only asset with zero fee capture. This has led to voter apathy and "airdrop farmer" governance, where proposals are funded via a massive $3.5B+ DAO treasury instead of sustainable protocol revenue.
- Result: Low voter turnout and treasury-driven growth, not token-driven utility.
- Lesson: Governance without economic alignment creates a subsidized, fragile political system.
<10%
Voter Turnout
$3.5B+
DAO Treasury
03
The Appchain-as-a-Service Pivot
Platforms like Celestia and EigenLayer enable appchains without a native token. Teams use $TIA for data availability or restake $ETH for security, outsourcing consensus to avoid the token trap.
- Result: App developers focus on product, not bootstrapping a worthless governance token economy.
- Lesson: The most valuable appchain token is often the one you don't have to create.
$TIA / $ETH
Security Token
0
New Token Minted
future-outlook
THE REALIGNMENT
The Path Forward: From Governance to Property
Appchain governance tokens are failing because they represent political influence over a service, not ownership of a productive asset.
Governance is a liability. Token holders bear the cost of security and upgrades but capture minimal protocol revenue, creating a fundamental misalignment between risk and reward.
Property rights create alignment. A token representing direct ownership of network sequencer cash flows or MEV auction proceeds transforms holders into residual claimants, not just voters.
Appchains are businesses, not democracies. Protocols like dYdX and Aevo demonstrate that users prioritize performance and fees, not token-weighted governance over block parameters.
Evidence: The Cosmos Hub's ATOM 2.0 proposal failed because it couldn't convincingly tie the token's value to the economic activity of the chains it secured.
takeaways
APPCHAIN GOVERNANCE TOKENS
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Governance tokens for sovereign appchains are broken. Here's the structural failure and the emerging fix.
01
The Liquidity Trap: Tokens Without Cash Flows
Appchain tokens like dYdX's DYDX or Avalanche subnet tokens lack intrinsic value capture. Their only utility is voting on esoteric parameters, creating a governance premium that evaporates when users don't care.\n- No Fee Capture: Value accrues to the app's stablecoin/USDC treasury, not the token.\n- Speculative Asset: Becomes a meme coin decoupled from chain utility, leading to >80% drawdowns from ATH.
0%
Fee Capture
>80%
Drawdowns
02
The Security Subsidy: Paying for a Ghost Chain
Appchains must bootstrap their own validator set and security, a $100M+ annual cost for Ethereum-level safety. Tokens are used to incentivize validators, creating massive sell pressure.\n- Dilutive Emissions: >20% APY staking rewards constantly dilute holders.\n- Weak Security: Low token price leads to cheap attack costs, as seen in many Cosmos SDK chains.
$100M+
Annual Security Cost
>20%
Dilutive APY
03
The Solution: Shared Security & Fee Switches
The fix is two-fold: outsource security and mandate fee capture. EigenLayer and Cosmos Hub (Interchain Security) let appchains rent Ethereum/Cosmos validator security.\n- Real Yield: Enforce a protocol fee switch (e.g., 10% of sequencer revenue) directed to stakers.\n- Market Fit: Works for high-fee chains like dYdX or Hyperliquid, not low-traffic apps.
10%
Fee Switch
~0 ETH
Bootstrap Cost
04
The Arbitrum Model: A Blueprint for Success
Arbitrum's ARB token, while currently non-cash flowing, demonstrates the path: massive adoption first, fee switch later. The DAO controls the sequencer and can vote to divert fees.\n- Adoption First: $2.5B+ TVL and dominant market share before governance.\n- Clear Path: Token holders have a direct claim on future $100M+ annual sequencer revenue.
$2.5B+
TVL First
$100M+
Future Revenue
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