Polkadot OpenGov vs Ethereum DAO: Governance Model

Multi-track, parallel voting: Enables concurrent proposals across 15+ specialized tracks (e.g., Treasury, Fellowship, Whitelist). This matters for high-throughput governance where different decision types (spending, upgrades, parameter changes) require distinct thresholds and voter groups. No fixed council: Pure stakeholder democracy where all decisions are ratified by DOT holders, increasing decentralization at the cost of requiring more active voter participation.

Faster enactment cycles: Proposal timelines are configurable per track, with some (like the Whitelist track) enabling execution in ~1-5 days. This matters for rapid protocol iteration and responding to security threats. On-chain, binding referenda: Every approved proposal is executed autonomously via the runtime, eliminating intermediary multisig risks and providing deterministic finality.

Dominant standard (ERC-20/ERC-721) integration: DAOs like Uniswap, Arbitrum, and Lido manage $30B+ in collective TVL using battle-tested frameworks (e.g., OpenZeppelin Governor). This matters for projects deeply embedded in the EVM ecosystem requiring maximal composability with DeFi legos. Vast tooling landscape: Snapshot for gasless voting, Tally for delegation, and Safe for treasury management create a mature operational stack.

Architecture-agnostic models: Can implement token-weighted (Compound), NFT-based (NounDAO), or hybrid governance, allowing for customizable voter eligibility and proposal logic. This matters for niche communities and experimental structures. L2 cost efficiency: Deploying a DAO on Arbitrum or Optimism reduces proposal creation and voting costs to <$1, making on-chain governance viable for smaller treasuries.

On-chain, binding governance: All proposals and votes are executed directly on the Relay Chain via referenda. This matters for protocol-level changes requiring deterministic, unstoppable execution.

Sophisticated delegation & conviction: Features like multi-role delegation (e.g., separate delegates for Treasury, Parachain slots) and conviction voting (longer lock-ups = more voting power) enable highly specialized, capital-efficient governance.

High throughput & parallel tracks: Multiple referendum tracks (e.g., Root, Whitelist, Treasury) run concurrently, enabling ~50+ active proposals simultaneously versus Ethereum's serialized process.

High complexity & voter fatigue: The system's flexibility (28+ tracks, complex delegation) creates a steep learning curve. Low average voter turnout on non-critical proposals is a known challenge.

Centralization of voting power: Despite mechanisms, voting power is concentrated among the largest DOT holders and a few centralized exchanges, risking whale dominance in critical decisions.

Binding execution risk: An approved malicious or buggy proposal executes automatically, requiring robust, pre-vote technical auditing. Tools like Polkassembly are essential but add a layer of dependency.

Mature tooling & standards: Dominant frameworks like OpenZeppelin Governor, Compound's Bravo, and Aragon OSx provide battle-tested, audited smart contract modules. The ERC-20/ERC-721 voting token standard is universally supported.

Flexible, multi-sig compatible: Governance can be a hybrid of on-chain votes and Gnosis Safe multi-sig execution, allowing for safe, deliberate upgrades after a vote passes. This is critical for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., Uniswap, Aave).

Vibrant service ecosystem: A full stack exists for operations: Snapshot for gas-free signaling, Tally for delegate discovery and analytics, and Sybil for anti-sybil verification. ~90% of major DAOs use Snapshot for preliminary votes.

Off-chain signaling fragmentation: Snapshot votes are not binding; execution requires a separate, often privileged, transaction. This creates coordination failure risk and delays.

High gas costs for on-chain execution: Conducting fully on-chain votes on Ethereum L1 is prohibitively expensive for frequent decisions, pushing most activity to Layer 2s or off-chain tools, which fragments the process.

Lack of native chain governance: Ethereum's own upgrades are managed off-chain by core developers and client teams via Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), meaning the DAO tooling ecosystem is for dApps only, not the underlying protocol.