On-Chain vs. Off-Chain Governance
A conceptual framework for deciding which governance activities should be recorded immutably on a blockchain and which can be managed through other means to balance programmatic execution, cost, and accessibility.
Context
This pattern is fundamental for any DAO or decentralized network that needs a formal, auditable process for collective decision-making. The choice between on-chain and off-chain mechanisms impacts the organization’s execution model, operational tempo, treasury management, and the inclusivity of its governance process. It is a core architectural choice that shapes how power is exercised and how decisions are legitimized and, crucially, enacted within the network.
Challenges
This pattern addresses the inherent trade-offs in decentralized decision-making:
-
Programmatic Execution vs. Accessibility: On-chain voting can be designed to directly and automatically trigger on-chain actions (e.g., transferring funds from a treasury) upon a successful vote. This is its key feature. However, it can be technically complex for participants. Off-chain votes are more accessible but cannot directly execute on-chain actions; they require a trusted intermediary (like a multi-sig wallet controlled by elected signers) to implement the result.
-
Network Choice and Cost: While voting on Ethereum Mainnet can still be costly and create a barrier to participation, the rise of Layer 2 solutions (L2s) has made on-chain voting costs negligible in many ecosystems. The challenge is now less about “cost vs. free” and more about the strategic choice of which network the DAO operates on and whether it prioritizes Mainnet’s specific security assumptions over the low-cost environment of an L2.
-
Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The governance process is not just the vote itself. Off-chain forums and signaling tools allow for nuance, discussion, straw polls, and easy iteration on proposals. This process is flexible. On-chain voting, by contrast, is rigid and formal. It is designed for a final, committed decision on a well-defined proposal, not for deliberation.
-
Social vs. Programmatic Consensus: The outcome of any vote is ultimately legitimized by social consensus. However, an on-chain vote enforces its result programmatically—the code executes as written. An off-chain vote’s result is enforced socially—the community trusts and expects the designated actors (e.g., a council) to honor the outcome and execute it on-chain.
Solution Framework
The most effective solution is rarely a purely on-chain or off-chain model, but a Hybrid or “Multi-Domain” Governance Framework. This pattern involves strategically separating governance activities to leverage the strengths of each domain.
-
Off-Chain Deliberation and Signaling: The vast majority of governance activity—discussion, debate, sentiment gathering, and consensus building—should occur off-chain.
- Mechanisms: Community forums (Discourse), chat platforms (Discord), and gasless voting tools (Snapshot).
- Purpose: To gauge community sentiment, refine proposals, and build strong social consensus without incurring costs or facing the rigidity of on-chain systems. These are non-binding votes that act as a powerful directive to the executors.
-
On-Chain Execution: This domain is reserved for the final, formal ratification and execution of decisions that have already achieved social consensus off-chain.
- Mechanisms: On-chain voting modules (like a Governor contract), or more commonly, a multi-signature wallet (Safe) controlled by trusted community members or a council.
- Purpose: To provide a final, verifiable, and secure method for enacting the will of the community on-chain, whether that’s transferring treasury funds, upgrading a smart contract, or changing a protocol parameter.
The core principle is to use off-chain processes for broad participation and consensus-building, and an on-chain mechanism for the final, trust-minimized execution step. The common flow remains: Discussion (Forum) → Signaling Vote (Snapshot) → Binding On-Chain Execution (by a multi-sig or DAO contract).
Implementation Considerations
When designing your governance system, use the following comparison to place activities in the appropriate domain:
| Characteristic | Off-Chain Governance | On-Chain Governance |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Use | Discussion, polling, signaling, social consensus building | Final, binding execution of on-chain transactions |
| Cost | Free | Variable (negligible on L2s, can be costly on Mainnet) |
| Process Flexibility | High (easy to create polls, iterate on ideas) | Low (formal, rigid proposal and voting structures) |
| Execution Method | Socially enforced. Requires a trusted intermediary (e.g., a multi-sig) to enact results on-chain. | Programmatically enforced. Can be designed to directly execute on-chain actions without an intermediary. |
| Common Tools | Snapshot, Discourse, Discord, Telegram | Tally, Governor Contracts, Safe (as an executor), Aragon |
Examples & Case Studies
-
Uniswap: Uniswap employs a multi-stage process that begins off-chain and culminates in a binding on-chain vote. The process starts with a “Request for Comment” on the forum, followed by a “Temperature Check” and “Consensus Check” on Snapshot to ensure there is sufficient support without incurring gas fees. Only after passing these off-chain gates can a proposal be submitted to the formal, on-chain governance system where UNI token holders vote to enact it programmatically. You can read more about their process in the Uniswap Governance Documentation.
-
Lido: The Lido DAO primarily uses Snapshot for its governance decisions, allowing for wide, gas-free participation. The results of these off-chain votes are then implemented on-chain by the Aragon-based governance contract, which has more rigid voting parameters. This hybrid model, often referred to as “Easy Track,” allows for efficient decision-making while retaining on-chain finality. More details are available at the Lido DAO Governance Page.
References
- token-based-governance: This pattern often relies on a hybrid model, using tokens for off-chain voting power on platforms like Snapshot and for on-chain voting power in formal protocols.
- Council Governance: A council, often implemented as a multi-sig wallet, is a common and effective “bridge” to execute the results of off-chain votes on-chain.
- Delegated Governance: Delegation is a key feature in both domains. A token holder might delegate their voting power on Snapshot (off-chain) and separately delegate their on-chain proposal and voting power within the protocol itself.