As the blockchain ecosystem gradually evolves from a technology-driven to a system-driven approach, whoever can turn decentralized governance from an empty slogan into a truly usable system will secure a ticket to the next stage.
Walrus Protocol’s exploration in this area is indeed interesting. They didn’t rigidly copy a single governance model; instead, they designed a layered governance architecture, cleverly satisfying two seemingly contradictory needs: decision-making must be fast, and democracy must be genuine.
How do they do it? Daily operational adjustments are handled through a rapid voting mechanism, allowing projects to respond flexibly to market rhythms; but major upgrades at the protocol level extend debate periods, raise thresholds for approval, and prevent rash decisions from causing pitfalls; proposals involving fundamental principles—what we can consider "constitutional-level" amendments—must go through a dedicated process, requiring multiple community referendums. This division of authority not only gives the community a real sense of participation but also provides necessary insurance space for key decisions.
What’s even more interesting is their innovation in voting mechanisms. The traditional one-token-one-vote system has long been criticized—easily turning into a capital game where big players call the shots. Walrus Protocol introduces a layered proof-of-influence system:
$WAL holders can gain higher voting weights by locking tokens for a long period. This design filters out participants who are genuinely concerned with the protocol’s long-term interests, rather than short-term speculators. At the same time, they quantify invisible efforts like code contributions and community building into the governance influence system, making governance rights no longer exclusive to wealth.
The logic behind this is not complicated—if you want a DAO to truly come alive, having a democratic label isn’t enough; the costs and benefits of participating in governance must be aligned, and different forms of contribution should be recognized. From this perspective, Walrus Protocol’s framework provides a mature and valuable reference model for projects aiming to scale DAO applications. Of course, the true test lies in long-term operation.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
As the blockchain ecosystem gradually evolves from a technology-driven to a system-driven approach, whoever can turn decentralized governance from an empty slogan into a truly usable system will secure a ticket to the next stage.
Walrus Protocol’s exploration in this area is indeed interesting. They didn’t rigidly copy a single governance model; instead, they designed a layered governance architecture, cleverly satisfying two seemingly contradictory needs: decision-making must be fast, and democracy must be genuine.
How do they do it? Daily operational adjustments are handled through a rapid voting mechanism, allowing projects to respond flexibly to market rhythms; but major upgrades at the protocol level extend debate periods, raise thresholds for approval, and prevent rash decisions from causing pitfalls; proposals involving fundamental principles—what we can consider "constitutional-level" amendments—must go through a dedicated process, requiring multiple community referendums. This division of authority not only gives the community a real sense of participation but also provides necessary insurance space for key decisions.
What’s even more interesting is their innovation in voting mechanisms. The traditional one-token-one-vote system has long been criticized—easily turning into a capital game where big players call the shots. Walrus Protocol introduces a layered proof-of-influence system:
$WAL holders can gain higher voting weights by locking tokens for a long period. This design filters out participants who are genuinely concerned with the protocol’s long-term interests, rather than short-term speculators. At the same time, they quantify invisible efforts like code contributions and community building into the governance influence system, making governance rights no longer exclusive to wealth.
The logic behind this is not complicated—if you want a DAO to truly come alive, having a democratic label isn’t enough; the costs and benefits of participating in governance must be aligned, and different forms of contribution should be recognized. From this perspective, Walrus Protocol’s framework provides a mature and valuable reference model for projects aiming to scale DAO applications. Of course, the true test lies in long-term operation.