Cross-DAO Delegation

This is the core function, enabling a single delegate to aggregate voting power from multiple delegators across different DAOs. It consolidates fragmented influence, allowing a specialist or a representative body to vote on proposals in multiple DAO treasuries or protocols with a unified, more impactful voice. For example, a DeFi risk analyst could be delegated tokens from users in both Aave and Compound to vote on interest rate model updates.

A user's delegation is not locked to a single DAO's interface or smart contract system. Through standardized interfaces like EIP-5805 (Delegatable Votes) and EIP-6372 (Contract Clock), delegation can be portable across ecosystems. This means a delegate's reputation and a delegator's choice can move with them, reducing the friction of managing governance participation in a multi-chain, multi-DAO environment.

It enables delegation based on subject-matter expertise rather than general reputation. Token holders can delegate their voting power in specific domains to different experts.

• Example: A holder might delegate their Uniswap votes to a liquidity pool specialist, their MakerDAO votes to a collateral risk analyst, and their Arbitrum votes to a scaling researcher, optimizing governance input across each protocol's unique needs.

By outsourcing the research and voting process to trusted, active delegates, cross-DAO delegation directly addresses voter fatigue. Token holders, especially those with small balances across many protocols, are relieved from the burden of tracking numerous governance forums and proposals. This increases overall participation rates and decision quality by concentrating voting power with those most informed and incentivized to use it responsibly.

Cross-DAO delegation treats governance power as a composable primitive. It allows for the creation of meta-governance structures like:

• Delegate DAOs: Entities (e.g., StableLab, Gauntlet) that act as professional delegates across many protocols.
• Sub-delegation: A delegate can further delegate specific powers, creating hierarchical or specialized governance flows.
• Voting Strategies: Enables complex on-chain voting strategies that react to conditions across multiple protocols.

Because delegation occurs on-chain and often through public registries, it creates a transparent and auditable record of delegation relationships and voting history. This allows for:

• Delegate Performance Tracking: Tools can analyze a delegate's voting consistency, participation rate, and proposal outcomes.
• Sybil Resistance: It consolidates power into fewer, more identifiable addresses, making collusion or attack vectors more visible.
• Dynamic Re-delegation: Delegators can easily change their delegate based on performance metrics.

A foundational technical standard for cross-DAO delegation is the ERC-20/ERC-721 Delegation Registry. This smart contract interface allows a wallet to register a single delegate address for all its tokens, enabling protocols to check a universal registry rather than individual token contracts. It solves the problem of managing separate delegations for each token or DAO by providing a single source of truth for delegation status. This standard is widely adopted by snapshot-based voting platforms.

Smart contract vaults, such as Delegatable Vote Escrow Tokens, are a core implementation. Users deposit governance tokens (e.g., UNI, COMP) into a vault contract, which mints a wrapped version (e.g., veUNI). The vault then programmatically delegates the underlying voting power to a specified address or set of addresses across different DAOs. This abstracts delegation logic into a single, manageable asset and enables features like fee sharing with delegates and time-locked commitments.

Protocols like Paladin and Element implement delegation markets where delegates signal their expertise and voting intent (e.g., "DeFi Treasury Management"). Users can delegate tokens to these delegate pools based on stated strategies. The technical implementation involves:

• On-chain registry of delegate profiles and policies.
• Secure smart contracts to custody delegated tokens.
• Automated reward distribution from delegates to delegators based on performance.

For DAOs operating across multiple blockchains (e.g., Olympus on Ethereum and Arbitrum), cross-DAO delegation requires messaging layer integration. Implementations use canonical token bridges with governance modules or cross-chain messaging protocols (like LayerZero, Axelar) to relay delegation states. The technical challenge is maintaining sovereignty and security; delegation on a sidechain must be reflected on the mainchain's governance contract without creating double-voting risks.

A hierarchical model where a primary delegate can further delegate received voting power to sub-delegates. This is implemented via nested smart contract calls and merkle tree structures for efficient proof-of-delegation. It allows for the creation of delegation networks where expertise is specialized (e.g., a security delegate sub-delegates to a treasury expert). The technical specification must include revocation logic at every level and clear audit trails for accountability.

Many DAOs use off-chain voting via Snapshot with ERC-1271 signature validation. Cross-DAO delegation here is managed by having the delegation registry sign votes on behalf of the token holder. The implementation involves:

• Delegate wallets signing vote payloads for multiple DAOs.
• Snapshot strategies that query the on-chain delegation registry to calculate voting power.
• This separates the costly on-chain act of delegation from the gasless act of voting across many proposals.

Cross-DAO delegation enables voting cartels where a single entity amasses influence across multiple protocols. This can lead to coordinated governance attacks, such as:

• Passing proposals that benefit the cartel at the expense of other stakeholders.
• Creating mutually beneficial deals between DAOs that undermine their individual mandates.
• Example: A delegate controlling key votes in both a lending protocol and a stablecoin DAO could push for risky collateral policies.

Delegation concentrates power, creating systemic risk. A security breach or malicious action by a major cross-DAO delegate can impact multiple ecosystems simultaneously.

• Key risk: Compromise of a delegate's private keys or account.
• Impact: The delegate's voting power across all connected DAOs could be used maliciously in a single transaction.
• This violates the security principle of isolation, where a failure in one system should not cascade to others.

The delegate's incentives may not align with the delegators in each specific DAO. This principal-agent problem is magnified across jurisdictions.

• A delegate may prioritize proposals that benefit their primary DAO affiliation, neglecting others.
• Vote selling becomes feasible, where delegates trade their influence across DAOs for personal gain.
• Delegators lack the context to monitor decisions across multiple, complex governance forums, reducing accountability.

Cross-DAO delegation can obscure the true locus of control, making it difficult to identify who holds ultimate power. This complicates regulatory compliance and threat analysis.

• Nested delegation chains can hide the beneficial owner.
• Tools for analyzing governance power within a single DAO fail to map cross-protocol influence.
• This opacity enables shadow governance, where decisions are made by an unseen coalition across ecosystems.

DAOs become structurally dependent on the health and governance of other protocols. A crisis or successful attack in one DAO can spill over via its delegates.

• Example: If a major delegate's tokens are slashed or frozen in DAO A, their voting power in DAOs B, C, and D vanishes, causing sudden governance instability.
• This creates financial and governance contagion, linking the security of otherwise independent protocols.

Protocols can implement safeguards to reduce cross-DAO delegation risks:

• Delegation Caps: Limit the percentage of voting power any single delegate can hold.
• Cool-down Periods: Enforce delays before delegated power becomes active, allowing for reaction.
• Transparency Dashboards: Require full disclosure of a delegate's cross-DAO commitments and potential conflicts of interest.
• Sybil Resistance: Use proof-of-personhood or stake-weighting to prevent the creation of fake delegate identities.