Launching a Multi-Tier DAO Membership Structure

A multi-tier DAO membership structure organizes participants into distinct levels with varying rights and responsibilities. Common tiers include Core Contributors with full voting power, Token Holders with proposal and voting rights, and Community Members with discussion privileges. This model, used by protocols like Compound and Uniswap, prevents governance capture by whales while incentivizing long-term alignment. Structuring membership requires defining clear criteria for each tier, such as token holdings, reputation scores, or contribution history, encoded into smart contract logic.

The technical implementation typically involves a modular smart contract architecture. A primary MembershipRegistry contract manages tier assignments and stores member data. Separate Voting and Treasury contracts then query this registry to enforce access controls. For example, a vote() function would check msg.sender's tier via the registry before allowing a proposal submission. Using an upgradeable proxy pattern for the registry, like the Transparent Proxy or UUPS, allows DAOs to adjust tier thresholds without migrating the entire system.

Here is a simplified Solidity example for a basic tier registry using a mapping and an enum to define membership levels. This contract allows an admin to assign tiers and includes a modifier to restrict function access.

solidityCopy
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.19;

contract TieredMembership {
    enum Tier { NONE, COMMUNITY, TOKENHOLDER, CORE }
    
    mapping(address => Tier) public memberTier;
    address public admin;
    
    constructor() {
        admin = msg.sender;
    }
    
    modifier onlyTierOrHigher(Tier _requiredTier) {
        require(memberTier[msg.sender] >= _requiredTier, "Insufficient tier");
        _;
    }
    
    function setTier(address _member, Tier _newTier) external {
        require(msg.sender == admin, "Only admin");
        memberTier[_member] = _newTier;
    }
}

A governance function in a separate contract would use the onlyTierOrHigher(Tier.CORE) modifier to restrict execution.

Key design considerations include sybil resistance and progressive decentralization. To prevent fake accounts, tier eligibility should be tied to verifiable assets like locked tokens (e.g., ve-token models), soulbound NFTs, or attestations from a trusted oracle. Start with a more centralized admin model for the registry, then gradually transfer control to a multi-sig or a vote of the core tier. Document the tier specifications and upgrade process clearly in the DAO's constitution to maintain transparency and member trust.

For production deployment, integrate with existing governance frameworks to reduce audit surface and development time. OpenZeppelin Governor contracts can be extended with custom voting weight logic based on tier. The Snapshot off-chain voting tool supports strategies that calculate voting power from on-chain tier data. Always conduct thorough testing and security audits, especially for functions that assign privileged roles. A well-architected multi-tier system creates a scalable, fair, and secure foundation for DAO governance.

A multi-tier DAO membership structure allows for differentiated governance rights and access based on member commitment, often measured by token holdings or NFTs. Before writing any code, you must define the core parameters of your tiers. Key decisions include: the number of tiers, the criteria for each (e.g., holding 1000 GOV tokens for a "Core" tier, or a specific NFT for a "Contributor" tier), and the associated permissions (voting weight, proposal creation rights, treasury access). Tools like OpenZeppelin's Governor and Tally are essential for building and managing this on-chain governance.

Your technical stack will center on smart contracts for membership and voting. The most common approach uses the ERC-1155 standard for tier badges (NFTs) due to its efficiency in managing multiple token types within a single contract. Alternatively, you can use an ERC-20 token with snapshot-based tier logic or separate ERC-721 contracts for each tier. You'll need a development environment like Hardhat or Foundry, and testnets (Sepolia, Goerli) for deployment. Essential libraries include OpenZeppelin Contracts for secure, audited base implementations of tokens and governance modules.

Setting up a local environment requires installing Node.js (v18+), a package manager like yarn or npm, and initializing your project. Run npx hardhat init or forge init to create a boilerplate. You will then install dependencies: @openzeppelin/contracts for base contracts and @tallyxyz/contracts if using their governance extensions. Configure your hardhat.config.js or foundry.toml to connect to an RPC provider like Alchemy or Infura for testnet deployment. Always use a .env file to manage private keys and API endpoints securely.

The core contract architecture involves at least three components: a Membership Token contract (ERC-1155/721/20), a Treasury contract (often a Gnosis Safe), and a Governor contract. The Membership contract mints badges based on predefined rules. The Governor contract, configured with a custom voting token logic contract, reads these badges to determine voting power. For example, a VotingPowerSource contract can assign 1 vote to Tier-1 holders and 10 votes to Tier-2 holders. This separation of concerns enhances security and upgradability.

Before the mainnet launch, exhaustive testing on testnets is non-negotiable. Write comprehensive tests in Solidity (Foundry) or JavaScript/TypeScript (Hardhat) that simulate: tier minting, vote delegation, proposal creation, and execution. Use forking tests against mainnet state for realism. After testing, you will deploy your contracts in a specific order: 1) Membership Token, 2) Governor with the token address, 3) Treasury. Finally, verify all contracts on block explorers like Etherscan using plugins (hardhat-etherscan). Document the deployed addresses and governance parameters for your community.

A multi-tier membership structure creates distinct levels of access, responsibility, and reward within a DAO. Common tiers include Core Contributors (full-time builders with high voting power), Active Members (regular participants who stake tokens), and Community Members (token holders with basic rights). Each tier should have clearly defined entry requirements, such as a minimum token stake, proof-of-work contribution, or NFT ownership. This structure prevents governance dilution and aligns influence with commitment, as seen in protocols like Compound with its delegate system and Uniswap with its tiered proposal thresholds.

The tokenomics model must support these tiers. This involves deciding on token supply, distribution, and utility. Key questions include: Will governance be token-weighted (1 token = 1 vote) or use a time-locked boosting mechanism like ve-tokenomics? What percentage of tokens are allocated to the treasury, community rewards, and the core team? A typical initial distribution might allocate 40% to community liquidity mining, 30% to the treasury, 20% to core contributors (with vesting), and 10% to early investors. The token must have clear utility: governance voting, fee sharing, gated access to features, or staking for rewards.

Smart contracts enforce these rules. For tiered access, you can use an ERC-1155 contract to mint different membership NFT classes, each with unique metadata defining its rights. Governance weight can be calculated by a separate Governor contract that reads from a staking contract, where locking tokens for longer periods grants more voting power. A basic check for a "Core Contributor" tier might look like:

solidityCopy
function isCoreContributor(address member) public view returns (bool) {
    return balanceOfStakedTimeLocked(member) >= MIN_CORE_STAKE && contributorNFT.balanceOf(member) > 0;
}

This code checks both a staking commitment and an NFT badge.

Finally, design the economic flywheel. Membership tiers should be dynamic, allowing members to progress by contributing value. Mechanisms include: staking rewards paid from protocol fees, retroactive funding for successful workstreams, and penalties like slashing for malicious proposals. The goal is to create a system where active participation is financially incentivized, and the treasury is sustainably funded through protocol revenue or token inflation. Avoid overly complex models; start with 2-3 clear tiers and expand based on community feedback and on-chain metrics.

With your membership tiers and token distribution defined, the next step is to configure your governance mechanism. Weighted voting is the standard model for token-based DAOs, where a member's voting power is directly proportional to their stake. This creates a Sybil-resistant system aligned with economic interest. For this guide, we will use Snapshot, a gasless, off-chain voting platform that integrates seamlessly with most ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 tokens. It allows you to create proposals, manage voting strategies, and record results on IPFS without requiring members to spend gas.

The core of your setup is the voting strategy. In your Snapshot space settings, you define how voting power is calculated. For a simple token-weighted system, you would select the erc20-balance-of strategy, which checks a member's balance of your governance token at a specific block number. For a multi-tier system combining MEMBER NFTs and CONTRIBUTOR tokens, you need a multi-strategy. Snapshot allows you to combine strategies using operations like sum, multiply, or define a custom formula. For example, you could configure: [{"name": "erc721", "params": {"symbol": "MEMBER", "address": "0x..."}}, {"name": "erc20", "params": {"symbol": "CONTRIB", "address": "0x...", "decimals": 18}}].

Critical governance parameters must be set in your space's validation and voting settings. The validation settings determine who can create a proposal. A common pattern is to set a proposal threshold, such as requiring a member to hold at least 1 MEMBER NFT or 100 CONTRIBUTOR tokens. The voting settings define the rules for the vote itself: the voting period (e.g., 5 days), the quorum (minimum total voting power required for a proposal to be valid, like 20% of total supply), and the type of voting (typically single-choice or approval voting).

Once your space is configured, you can create your first proposal. A well-structured proposal should include: a clear title, a detailed description of the change using markdown, the specific actions to be executed (often via EIP-712 signatures for on-chain execution), and the voting choices. Snapshot supports executable proposals that can interact with smart contracts through services like SafeSnap. This allows a successful vote to automatically trigger a transaction from the DAO's treasury multisig, moving from off-chain signaling to on-chain execution.

After launching a proposal, actively promote it within your community channels. Monitor the discussion and voting activity on the Snapshot page. Once the voting period ends, the result is permanently recorded. If the proposal passes the quorum and majority threshold, the designated DAO operators (often multisig signers) are responsible for executing the approved action. Documenting this entire flow—from proposal ideation to execution—is crucial for transparency and sets a precedent for future governance cycles.

A sub-DAO is a smart contract-based governance module that operates semi-autonomously under a parent DAO. For a multi-tier membership structure, you deploy a separate sub-DAO for each tier (e.g., CoreTeamDAO, ContributorDAO, TokenHolderDAO). Each sub-DAO manages its own treasury, proposal types, and voting rules, which are defined in its governance contract. The parent DAO retains ultimate sovereignty, typically holding the power to upgrade or dissolve sub-DAOs, while delegating day-to-day operational control. This architecture prevents governance sprawl by isolating tier-specific decisions.

The core technical component is the governance contract for each sub-DAO. Using a framework like OpenZeppelin Governor, you configure parameters specific to the tier's role. For a CoreTeamDAO, you might implement a multisig or a low-quorum, high-weight vote for fast operational decisions. A TokenHolderDAO would use token-weighted voting with higher quorums for protocol-wide changes. Key parameters to set in the constructor include votingDelay, votingPeriod, proposalThreshold, and the voting token (which could be a custom ERC-20 or ERC-1155 representing the membership NFT).

Treasury segregation is critical. Each sub-DAO should control its own Treasury contract (e.g., an OpenZeppelin TimelockController). Funds are allocated from the parent treasury via approved proposals. For example, a quarterly budget for the ContributorDAO is transferred in a single parent DAO proposal. Thereafter, the Contributor sub-DAO autonomously votes on granular grant payouts from its treasury. This limits the parent DAO's overhead and empowers each tier. Use safeTransfer functions for asset movements and consider a vesting contract for long-term budget distributions.

Proposal and voting flow must be clearly defined. A ProposalFactory contract can standardize creation. A Core member might call createFundingProposal(contributorDAO, amount, description) which mints an NFT representing the proposal to the parent DAO. Sub-DAO members then vote using their tier-specific voting power. For cross-tier initiatives, you can implement a relay mechanism: a proposal passing in the TokenHolderDAO can automatically create a corresponding executable proposal in the parent DAO's timelock queue via a secure relayProposal function.

Access control between layers is enforced via smart contract permissions. Use OpenZeppelin's AccessControl to define roles. The parent DAO should have the DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE over all sub-DAO contracts. Sub-DAOs get the PROPOSER_ROLE and EXECUTOR_ROLE on their own treasury timelock. This ensures a sub-DAO can only execute successful proposals on its pre-approved treasury assets. Regularly audit these permission bindings. A common pattern is for the parent DAO to hold a veto power implemented as a timelock cancel function, providing a safety mechanism without micromanagement.

Finally, consider upgradeability and composability. Use Transparent Proxy or UUPS patterns for sub-DAO governance contracts to allow for future improvements ratified by the parent DAO. Your architecture should also allow sub-DAOs to interact with DeFi protocols; the ContributorDAO's treasury could deposit funds into an Aave vault via a proposal. Document all contract addresses and permission links in a living technical specification. Tools like OpenZeppelin Defender can help administer this complex multi-contract system securely.

After finalizing your smart contract logic and passing all tests, the next step is deployment to a live blockchain network. For development and initial testing, use a testnet like Sepolia or Goerli. You'll need a wallet with test ETH and a tool like Hardhat or Foundry. The deployment script should handle the sequential deployment of your contracts: first the ERC-1155 membership token, then the voting contract, and finally the treasury contract, passing the addresses of the previous contracts as constructor arguments to establish the proper dependencies. Always verify your contracts on a block explorer like Etherscan after deployment.

Once deployed, you must initialize the DAO's governance parameters. This involves calling a setup function (often initialize or configureDAO) on your main governance contract. You will specify the initial admin address, define the proposalThreshold for each membership tier (e.g., 1 token for Bronze, 5 for Silver), set the votingDelay and votingPeriod, and whitelist the membership NFT contract address. This step is critical and should be executed in a single transaction to avoid leaving the contract in an unconfigured state.

The final phase is frontend integration, connecting your web app to the live contracts. Use a library like wagmi or ethers.js with a framework like Next.js. Key integration tasks include: enabling users to connect their wallets, fetching their tier balance from the ERC-1155 contract to determine voting power, displaying active proposals from the voting contract, and providing interfaces to create proposals and cast votes. Implement listeners for events like ProposalCreated and VoteCast to update the UI in real-time. For a complete reference, review the OpenZeppelin Governor frontend integration guide.

Security and maintenance are ongoing responsibilities. Consider implementing a timelock controller for the treasury to introduce a delay between a proposal's approval and execution, protecting against malicious proposals. Establish clear upgrade paths for your contracts using transparent proxy patterns (e.g., UUPS) managed by the DAO itself. Document all contract addresses, ABIs, and roles for your community. The launch is complete when members can successfully connect, view their tier, create a proposal, and vote, fully activating your on-chain governance system.

Your deployed system now enables a permissioned, meritocratic governance model. The MultiTierDAOMembership contract manages distinct roles—like MEMBER, CONTRIBUTOR, and DELEGATE—each with specific voting weights and permissions. The Governor contract uses these weights to calculate voting power, ensuring proposals are decided by a weighted tally. This structure moves beyond simple token-based voting to recognize active participation and delegated authority.

To build upon this foundation, consider these next steps for a production-ready system:

• Integrate a Token Gating Frontend: Use tools like Collab.Land or Guild.xyz to automate role assignment and verification based on on-chain activity or NFT holdings.
• Implement Proposal Incentives: Add a treasury module to reward successful proposal execution or participation, using a Safe wallet for fund management.
• Upgrade to a Custom Governor: Migrate from OpenZeppelin's standard contracts to a custom Governor that supports gasless voting via Snapshot or includes optimistic approval workflows.

For ongoing maintenance and security, establish clear processes. Use a multi-sig wallet controlled by top-tier delegates for contract upgrades. Regularly audit proposal activity and member participation metrics. Consider implementing a rage-quit mechanism or a constitutional framework to handle governance disputes. The code from this guide is a starting point; a robust DAO requires continuous iteration based on community feedback and evolving governance needs.