At a Glance

Duration: 60 minutes (in-class) + take-home preparation  |  Points: 40

Learning Objectives

  • Understand DAO Governance: Analyze real DAO structures, treasuries, and token distributions
  • Evaluate Voting Power: Compare token-based, quadratic, and conviction voting outcomes
  • Design Proposals: Create realistic governance proposals with budgets and metrics
  • Mechanism Comparison: Identify advantages and vulnerabilities of different voting systems
  • Whale Influence: Analyze concentration of voting power and its effects on decision-making

Assignment Overview

You will draft a governance proposal for one of three real DAO profiles, then simulate how different voting mechanisms would affect the outcome. This assignment reveals how mechanism design impacts decentralized decision-making and resource allocation.

Materials Provided

  • dao_profiles.html: Three DAO profiles with real treasury and distribution data
  • proposal_template.html: Structured worksheet for your proposal
  • voting_simulation.html: Analysis worksheet for voting outcomes
  • sample_proposals.html: Example proposals for reference

Activity Steps

1 Choose Your DAO

Review the three DAO profiles and select one that interests you. Consider:

  • Treasury size and available resources
  • Token distribution and concentration
  • Historical participation rates
  • Governance structure (direct voting vs delegation)

2 Draft Your Proposal

Use the proposal template to create a realistic governance proposal. Your proposal should:

  • Address a genuine need or opportunity for the DAO
  • Request a reasonable budget (typically 0.5% - 3% of treasury)
  • Include clear success metrics and timeline
  • Specify implementation steps

Tips for Strong Proposals

  • Research what similar DAOs have funded successfully
  • Be specific about deliverables and milestones
  • Consider the DAO's stated mission and values
  • Keep budget requests realistic and justified

3 Simulate Voting Outcomes

Using the voting simulation worksheet, calculate how your proposal would fare under three mechanisms:

  • Token Voting: 1 token = 1 vote (standard DAO voting)
  • Quadratic Voting: Cost = votes², reduces whale influence
  • Conviction Voting: Vote weight accumulates over time

For each mechanism, analyze:

  • Would the proposal pass?
  • What is the margin of victory/defeat?
  • How much influence do top holders have?
  • How does community participation affect the outcome?

4 Analyze and Improve

Based on your simulation results:

  • Which voting mechanism is most favorable to your proposal? Why?
  • How could you modify your proposal to gain broader support?
  • What are the governance vulnerabilities you identified?
  • If you were a large token holder, how would you vote? Why?

Presentation Format

5-Minute Presentation Structure

2 minutes
Proposal Pitch
  • Present your DAO and proposal
  • Justify budget and timeline
  • Explain expected impact
2 minutes
Voting Analysis
  • Compare outcomes across three mechanisms
  • Highlight whale influence differences
  • Show participation effects
1 minute
Improvement Recommendations
  • Suggest governance improvements
  • Propose changes to your proposal
  • Identify mechanism strengths/weaknesses

Deliverables

Submit the following:

  • Completed proposal_template.html with your governance proposal
  • Completed voting_simulation.html with all three mechanism analyses
  • Presentation slides or notes (optional but recommended)

Timeline

Week 1
Review DAO profiles, select your DAO, draft proposal
Week 2
Complete voting simulations, analyze results
Week 3
Prepare presentation, submit materials
Week 4
In-class presentations and peer discussion

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Unrealistic budgets: Don't request >5% of treasury without extraordinary justification
  • Vague metrics: "Increase awareness" is not measurable; "Gain 10,000 new users" is
  • Ignoring distribution: Top holder concentration dramatically affects outcomes
  • Missing the math: Actually calculate voting outcomes; don't just estimate
  • One-size-fits-all: Different mechanisms favor different proposal types

Evaluation Criteria

  • Proposal Quality (16 points): Realistic, well-justified, clear metrics
  • Voting Analysis (12 points): Accurate calculations, insightful comparisons
  • Critical Thinking (8 points): Identifies vulnerabilities and improvements
  • Presentation (4 points): Clear, engaging, time-managed

Total: 40 points

Related Resources

Rubric Answer Key Instructor Guide

Assignment Resources

© Joerg Osterrieder 2025-2026. All rights reserved.