Governor Contract: ERC20 Votes vs ERC721 Votes

Token Standard Advantage: Leverages the ubiquitous ERC20 standard, ensuring compatibility with every major DEX (Uniswap, Curve), lending protocol (Aave, Compound), and wallet. This enables delegated voting and seamless vote trading via flash loans. Ideal for protocols prioritizing broad, liquid participation like Uniswap or Compound.

Cost & Complexity Advantage: Sybil resistance is typically handled off-chain via token purchase or airdrop. On-chain, 1 token = 1 vote logic is straightforward, reducing gas costs for vote casting and delegation. Best for projects where governance weight directly correlates with economic stake, minimizing implementation overhead.

Granular Governance Advantage: Each token (e.g., an NFT) can encode unique attributes (seniority, role, reputation score) that programmatically influence voting power. Enables progressive decentralization models (e.g., Founder NFT with veto power) and complex DAO structures like MolochDAO or Guilds. Perfect for identity-centric or tiered governance.

Identity-Centric Advantage: The minting process itself can gatekeep membership, tying voting power to a verified identity or achievement (e.g., completing a quest, holding a specific asset). This creates native sybil resistance without relying solely on capital, as seen in projects like Optimism's Citizen House. Optimal for reputation-based systems.

Liquid & Fractional Voting Power: Enables 1 token = 1 vote with fractional ownership, allowing for precise delegation and micro-governance. This is critical for protocols like Uniswap and Compound, where voting power directly correlates to economic stake. Supports vote delegation to experts without transferring asset custody.

Vulnerable to Sybil Attacks: A whale can split holdings across many addresses to simulate broad support. Requires snapshot mechanisms (e.g., OpenZeppelin's ERC20Votes) to mitigate. Less expressive for identity-based or reputation-weighted systems, as it purely represents capital.

One-Person-One-Vote & Identity: Each token represents a unique membership or achievement (e.g., Proof of Attendance Protocol). Ideal for social DAOs like Friends with Benefits or developer guilds where reputation, not capital, dictates influence. Naturally resistant to simple Sybil attacks.

Complex Vote Weighting & Liquidity: Cannot natively represent fractional ownership. Implementing tiered reputation (e.g., 1 NFT = 5 votes) requires custom logic, increasing contract complexity. Less compatible with DeFi primitives like lending/borrowing, reducing holder utility.

Standardized & Liquid: Built on the dominant token standard (ERC20) used by Uniswap, Aave, and Compound. Voting power is fractional and liquid, enabling delegation and participation from any token holder. This matters for broad, permissionless DAOs where participation scales with token distribution.

Vote Dilution & Sybil Risk: A single entity can split funds to create multiple voting addresses, requiring complex Sybil resistance mechanisms. Governance can be dominated by large token whales. This is a critical weakness for projects prioritizing egalitarian or reputation-based governance.

One-Token-One-Vote & Identity: Each NFT represents a discrete membership or reputation unit, enforcing Sybil-resistant, egalitarian voting. Ideal for membership DAOs (e.g., Proof of Attendance Protocols) or reputation systems where participation is binary, not weighted by capital.

Illiquid & Complex Delegation: Voting power is indivisible; you cannot delegate a fraction of an NFT's vote. Implementing vote delegation requires custom logic beyond the standard. This is a major hurdle for large-scale DAOs needing flexible governance participation models.