Governance tokens are venture equity. They represent a claim on future protocol cash flows and control, not just a voting mechanism. This transforms them from community tools into foundational capital assets for Web3 startups.
the-state-of-web3-education-and-onboarding
Blog
The Future of Governance Tokens in Venture Deals
An analysis of how governance tokens have shifted from speculative assets to the core negotiation point in venture deals, determining long-term protocol control, fee capture, and treasury allocation.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
Governance tokens are evolving from speculative assets into structured financial instruments for venture capital.
The SAFT model is obsolete. Simple Agreements for Future Tokens fail to address vesting, price discovery, and investor alignment post-launch. Modern deals now structure tokens with liquidity cliffs and staking-based vesting, mirroring traditional equity schedules.
Protocols like Uniswap and Aave demonstrate this evolution. Their treasury governance and fee switch debates are direct analogs to corporate dividend and buyback policies, proving tokens are mature financial securities.
Evidence: Over $1B in venture capital flowed into token-based rounds in 2023, with structured terms becoming the standard for Series A+ deals in protocols like EigenLayer and Celestia.
thesis-statement
THE FUTURE OF VALUATION
The Core Argument
Governance tokens will evolve from speculative coupons into the primary financial instrument for protocol-level venture capital, directly linking token utility to equity-like cash flows.
Governance tokens become equity. The current model of governance tokens as 'airdrop coupons' is unsustainable. Future venture deals will structure tokens as the primary vehicle for capturing protocol revenue, mirroring traditional equity but with on-chain enforceability via mechanisms like EIP-4626 vaults and fee switches.
The key is enforceable cash flow. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave demonstrate that fee mechanisms exist, but token holders lack a direct, enforceable claim. The next generation will embed revenue distribution into the token's smart contract logic, creating a verifiable yield asset that attracts institutional capital.
This kills two birds. It solves the 'what is this token for?' problem by providing intrinsic value, and it creates a new, scalable asset class for venture funds like a16z and Paradigm. Tokens transition from governance-only to governance-and-cash-flow instruments.
Evidence: Look at Frax Finance's sFRAX. It's a direct claim on protocol revenue, creating a yield-bearing stablecoin. This model, applied to governance tokens, is the blueprint. The metric that matters is protocol revenue captured per token, not just TVL or votes.
market-context
THE FUTURE OF GOVERNANCE TOKENS
The New Deal Landscape
Governance tokens are evolving from speculative assets into structured financial instruments that define venture capital deal flow.
Governance tokens become venture equity. The next wave of protocol funding will use token warrants and vesting schedules hard-coded into smart contracts, replacing traditional term sheets. This creates a transparent, on-chain cap table.
Liquidity replaces valuation obsession. Deals will be priced on bonding curve mechanics and liquidity depth, not speculative FDV. Protocols like Aerodrome and Velodrome demonstrate governance token value is a direct function of TVL and fee accrual.
The counter-intuitive shift is from governance to cash flow. VCs will accept tokens with restricted governance power in exchange for superior fee-sharing rights or treasury revenue splits. This mirrors the Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization thesis applied to venture stakes.
Evidence: Avalanche and Optimism foundations have executed structured deals where token unlocks are tied to specific ecosystem milestones and liquidity provision metrics, not just time.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF GOVERNANCE TOKENS
Key Trends in Token-Centric Deals
Governance tokens are evolving from simple voting tools into sophisticated financial and coordination primitives for venture capital.
01
The Problem: Governance is a Liability, Not an Asset
Token-based voting is often low-signal, easily gamed, and creates regulatory risk. VCs treat governance rights as a compliance headache rather than a value driver.
- Low voter turnout (~5-10% is typical) makes decisions non-representative.
- Vote-buying and delegation markets (e.g., Tally, Boardroom) are immature.
- SEC scrutiny on "investment contracts" devalues pure governance claims.
~5%
Avg. Turnout
0
Cash Flow Rights
02
The Solution: Attach Real Economics (Fee Switches & Cash Flows)
Protocols are hardwiring revenue distribution to token holders, transforming governance into a cash-flowing asset class. This mirrors traditional equity.
- Uniswap's fee switch debate centers on turning $3B+ annualized fees into tokenholder revenue.
- Frax Finance distributes protocol earnings via buybacks and burns.
- Lido's stETH revenue could eventually flow to LDO stakers, creating a native yield.
$3B+
Annual Fees (Uniswap)
Native Yield
New Standard
03
The Problem: Capital Inefficiency of Locked Tokens
VCs and teams holding large, vesting token positions face massive opportunity cost. Illiquid, non-productive assets cripple treasury management.
- $10B+ in VC/team tokens sit idle, unhedged, and exposed to volatility.
- No leverage or yield without selling, which signals weak conviction.
- Creates sell pressure at unlock events, harming retail holders.
$10B+
Idle Capital
High Volatility
Unhedged Risk
04
The Solution: Token Vesting as a DeFi Primitive (EigenLayer, Symbiotic)
Restaking and vesting locker protocols allow locked tokens to secure new networks and generate yield, solving capital inefficiency.
- EigenLayer enables staked ETH/LSTs to secure AVSs; the model extends to vesting team tokens.
- Projects like Symbiotic allow any asset (including vesting tokens) to be used as restaking collateral.
- Creates new revenue streams for VCs and aligns long-term incentives without selling.
10x+
Capital Utility
New Yield
For Locked Tokens
05
The Problem: One-Token-Fits-All Governance Fails
A single token attempting to govern technical upgrades, treasury management, and grant funding leads to voter fatigue and poor decisions. Different decisions require different stakeholders.
- Developer updates should be ratified by technical delegates, not token-weighted whales.
- Grant funding should involve ecosystem experts, not passive speculators.
- Creates misaligned incentives and slows protocol evolution.
Low-Quality
Decisions
Voter Fatigue
High
06
The Solution: Specialized Governance Sub-DAOs & NFTs
Protocols are fracturing governance into specialized sub-DAOs with tailored membership (e.g., based on expertise, NFT ownership).
- Optimism's Citizen House uses non-transferable NFTs (Citizen NFTs) for grant funding.
- Arbitrum's Security Council is a 13-of-16 multisig of elected experts for emergency upgrades.
- MakerDAO's SubDAOs (like Spark) have their own tokens and governance for specific product lines.
Expert-Led
Sub-DAOs
Non-Transferable
Reputation NFTs
VESTING & VALUATION STRATEGIES
The Governance Token Deal Matrix
Comparing core structures for venture deals involving protocol governance tokens, from traditional equity to novel on-chain mechanisms.
| Deal Parameter | Traditional Equity-Style Vesting | On-Chain Vesting (e.g., Sablier, Superfluid) | Performance-Linked Vesting (e.g., Gauntlet, Llama) |
|---|---|---|---|
Vesting Schedule Enforcement | Legal contract (off-chain) | Smart contract (immutable) | Oracle-triggered smart contract |
Liquidity for Early Contributors | Conditional (e.g., on metrics) | ||
Typical Cliff Period | 12 months | 0-3 months | 0-6 months |
Standard Deal Dilution | 20-25% | 5-15% | 10-20% |
Valuation Benchmark | Last equity round / fully diluted | FDV at deal signing | FDV linked to TVL/Revenue milestones |
Governance Power Activation | Post-cliff / post-TGE | Linear with stream | Tranches upon milestone completion |
Primary Counterparty Risk | Issuing entity (legal) | Smart contract security | Oracle reliability & metric design |
Example Protocols / Tools | Standard SAFT | Sablier, Superfluid, Vested | Gauntlet, Llama, UMA |
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE STACK
The Mechanics of Control: Beyond the Token Price
Venture deals will shift from valuing token price exposure to valuing direct, enforceable governance rights over protocol infrastructure.
Governance is the new equity. Future venture deals will structure token warrants as direct, non-transferable voting power over core protocol parameters. This creates a strategic control surface for investors, decoupled from the speculative token market.
The stack is the asset. VCs will demand rights over the technical governance stack: upgrade keys for the L2 sequencer, multisig seats on the DAO's Security Council, and veto power over treasury management tools like Llama or Sybil.
Counter-intuitive insight: A protocol with a low-float, high FDV token is more attractive for control-based deals. It concentrates decision-making power in fewer, aligned hands, unlike a widely distributed token where governance is inert.
Evidence: Arbitrum's Security Council model, where a 9-of-12 multisig can execute emergency upgrades, demonstrates the premium on executable control, not just token voting. Venture deals will replicate this structure for early-stage protocols.
risk-analysis
GOVERNANCE TOKEN FUTURE
The Centralization Risks
Venture deals increasingly use governance tokens as equity proxies, creating hidden centralization vectors that undermine the very decentralization they're meant to enable.
01
The Veto Cartel Problem
Venture capital firms and early investors often receive veto rights or super-majority voting power via token allocations, creating a permanent governance oligarchy. This structurally prevents protocol evolution that threatens their financial position.
- Consequence: Proposals for fee switches, treasury reallocation, or competitor integrations are systematically blocked.
- Real Example: Early Uniswap governance battles showcased how concentrated voting power can stall progress.
>60%
Veto Power Held
0
Successful Rebellions
02
The Liquidity Lock Illusion
Standard 4-year linear vesting with 1-year cliff for team/investor tokens creates predictable, massive sell pressure and temporary centralization spikes. The 'locked' tokens still vote, creating phantom governance where inactive future sellers dictate current decisions.
- Result: Governance is hostage to the exit timelines of insiders, not long-term stakeholders.
- Solution Path: Explore lock-voting separation or streaming voting power that decays with unlock schedules.
~80%
Voting Power Vesting
Year 1+
Sell Pressure
03
DeFi's Airdrop Governance Trap
Protocols like Blur, EigenLayer, and Starknet use airdrops to bootstrap communities, but <10% token distribution to users means VC/team retain overwhelming control. This creates governance theater where community votes are symbolic but powerless against insider blocs.
- Data Point: Many top-50 DeFi protocols have <15% of circulating supply in active community governance.
- Emerging Model: Look to Cosmos Hub's liquid staking or Curve's vote-escrow for models that better align long-term holding with power.
<10%
User Allocation
>70%
Insider Control
04
The DAO-as-SPAC Endgame
Venture deals are structuring token launches as de facto SPACs—raising capital pre-product with the promise of future 'acquisitions' (protocol deployments). Governance tokens become tradable warrants on a VC's portfolio, not tools for decentralized coordination.
- Risk: Tokenholders are passive investors in a venture fund, not active protocol governors.
- Case Study: Frax Finance's hybrid model and Ondo Finance's tokenized assets show the blurring line between security and utility.
$5B+
DAO Treasury Assets
VC-Driven
Deployment
future-outlook
THE NEW TOKEN STANDARD
The Regulatory and Competitive Frontier
Governance tokens will evolve into regulated, cash-flow-bearing securities or become obsolete in venture deals.
Governance tokens become securities. The SEC's enforcement actions against Uniswap and Coinbase prove that pure governance tokens are untenable. Future venture deals will structure tokens as registered securities with explicit profit-sharing rights, mirroring Real-World Asset (RWA) protocols like Ondo Finance.
Vesting schedules replace airdrops. The speculative airdrop model of protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism is dead. Venture investors will demand equity-like vesting cliffs and lock-ups, enforced by smart contracts, to align long-term incentives and mitigate regulatory risk.
Competition shifts to legal engineering. The competitive moat for protocols like Aave or Compound will be their legal wrapper, not their code. Teams that master regulated DeFi structures will attract institutional capital, while others face existential regulatory risk.
Evidence: The market cap of governance tokens for top-20 DeFi protocols has stagnated at ~$20B, while tokenized treasury products from Ondo and Maple have grown 300% year-over-year.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF GOVERNANCE TOKENS IN VENTURE DEALS
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The utility and valuation of governance tokens are being redefined by new deal structures that align long-term incentives.
01
The Problem: Governance Tokens as Unsecured, Speculative Assets
Traditional token sales treat governance tokens as pure equity proxies with no cash flow rights and volatile price discovery. This misalignment leads to mercenary capital and failed governance participation.
- Key Risk: Tokens trade at massive discounts to fully-diluted valuation (FDV).
- Key Symptom: <5% of token holders actively participate in governance votes.
<5%
Active Voters
>80%
FDV Discount
02
The Solution: Revenue-Share Wrappers & Lock-to-Vote
Protocols like Frax Finance and Ondo Finance are pioneering token wrappers that bundle governance rights with a claim on protocol revenue or yield.
- Key Benefit: Creates a cash-flowing asset with intrinsic value floor.
- Key Benefit: Lock-to-vote mechanisms (e.g., ve-token models) tie voting power to long-term commitment, reducing volatility.
ve-Token
Model
30-50%
APY Boost
03
The New Deal Structure: Tokens as Convertible Notes
Forward-thinking VCs (e.g., Paradigm, a16z crypto) are structuring deals where capital is a loan convertible to a future revenue-sharing governance token at a discount.
- Key Benefit: Aligns investor and protocol success; investors get downside protection.
- Key Benefit: Delays token issuance and price discovery until product-market fit is proven, avoiding the "vaporware token" trap.
SAFT+
Structure
2-4 Years
Vesting Cliff
04
The Metric Shift: From FDV to Protocol-Controlled Value (PCV)
Valuation is moving from speculative fully-diluted value to the tangible assets a protocol controls and monetizes, as seen with MakerDAO's PSM and Lido's staking dominance.
- Key Metric: Protocol Revenue / PCV Ratio becomes the new P/E.
- Key Implication: Tokens backed by $1B+ in PCV (e.g., treasury assets, staked ETH) have a concrete, defensible valuation floor.
$1B+
PCV Benchmark
P/E Ratio
New Metric
05
The Liquidity Problem: DEX Pools vs. Strategic Token Buybacks
Providing liquidity via Uniswap v3 pools is capital-inefficient and attracts arbitrageurs. Protocols like Olympus DAO pioneered strategic treasury management via bond sales and buybacks.
- Key Benefit: Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL) reduces reliance on mercenary LP capital.
- Key Benefit: Direct buybacks from treasury support token price during bear markets and signal long-term confidence.
POL
Strategy
-90%
Impermanent Loss
06
The Regulatory Endgame: The Howey Test vs. Functional Utility
The SEC's aggressive stance forces a fundamental redesign. Tokens must demonstrate clear, immediate utility beyond speculative investment to avoid security classification.
- Key Design: Usage-For-Governance models, where voting power is earned via protocol activity (e.g., fees paid, assets bridged).
- Key Precedent: Projects like Helium shifting to Solana and redesigning tokenomics highlight the regulatory imperative.
Howey Test
Hurdle
Utility-Only
Design Mandate
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