Introducing the DGI: The First Governance Health Index for Web3
Wallets lie. We don't.
The Problem With DAO Governance Today
You've seen the headlines: "DAO passes proposal with 99% approval." Sounds democratic, right?
Look closer. That 99% came from 12 wallets. Three of them are controlled by the same person. The "community vote" was decided before it started.
This is the reality of DAO governance in 2026. We have the infrastructure for decentralized decision-making, but almost no way to measure if it's actually working.
Until now.
Introducing the Decentralized Governance Index (DGI)
The DGI is the first curated governance health index for the Snapshot ecosystem. We analyze 46 DAOs across 4 categories, producing a single score that tells you how healthy a DAO's governance really is.
Not how many tokens voted. Not how many wallets participated.
How many humans are actually governing.
Why "Wallets Lie"
Traditional governance metrics count wallets. But wallets are cheap. One person can create hundreds. Whales can split holdings across dozens of addresses to appear like "broad participation."
The DGI cuts through this by focusing on identity-first analytics:
- Human Participation Rate — What percentage of unique humans (not wallets) are actively voting?
- Delegate Engagement — Are delegates actually participating, or just holding tokens?
- Power Dynamics — How concentrated is voting power among top holders?
- Grassroots Activity — Is governance driven by the community or dominated by insiders?
The Scoring System
Every DAO receives a score from 0-10:
| Score | Grade | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 8.0 – 10.0 | A | Vital |
| 6.0 – 7.9 | B | Healthy |
| 4.0 – 5.9 | C | At Risk |
| 2.0 – 3.9 | D | Critical |
| 0.0 – 1.9 | F | Failing |
Scores are recalculated daily based on the latest on-chain governance activity from Snapshot.
What We Found: State of DAO Governance
After analyzing 46 major DAOs, here's what the data reveals:
Category Averages
| Category | Average DGI | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| DeFi | 6.01 | Healthy |
| Social | 4.74 | At Risk |
| Infrastructure | 4.27 | At Risk |
| Public Goods | 3.27 | Critical |
The insight: DeFi protocols lead in governance health. Public Goods DAOs — ironically, those built to serve the community — have the weakest governance structures.
Current Top 3 (as of February 2026)
- Radiant Capital — 8.6 (A)
- Alchemix — 8.4 (A)
- Aavegotchi — 8.3 (A)
These DAOs demonstrate what healthy governance looks like: high human participation, engaged delegates, and distributed voting power.
The Uncomfortable Truth
- Only 3 of 46 DAOs score in the "Vital" range (8.0+)
- Public Goods DAOs average 3.27 — barely above "Critical"
- The gap between best and worst is enormous: 8.6 vs. under 2.0
Methodology: How We Calculate the DGI
The DGI combines four weighted components:
1. Human Participation Rate (Weight: 35%)
We estimate unique human voters by analyzing wallet clustering, voting patterns, and on-chain identity signals. A DAO where 500 humans vote scores higher than one where 5,000 wallets (controlled by 50 people) vote.
2. Delegate Engagement (Weight: 25%)
Delegation is meaningless if delegates don't participate. We measure how actively top delegates vote and engage with proposals.
3. Power Dynamics (Weight: 20%)
Using a modified Gini coefficient, we assess how concentrated voting power is. A DAO controlled by 3 whales scores lower than one with distributed influence.
4. Grassroots Participation (Weight: 20%)
What percentage of governance activity comes from non-whale addresses? This measures whether "regular" community members have real influence.
What the DGI Is Not
Let's be clear about limitations:
- Not a quality judgment — A high DGI doesn't mean a DAO makes good decisions, just that its decision-making process is decentralized and participatory.
- Not comprehensive — We analyze Snapshot governance. Off-chain coordination, forum discussions, and non-Snapshot voting aren't captured.
- Not perfect — Identity detection has confidence intervals. We're transparent about uncertainty.
Why This Matters
DAOs control billions in treasury assets. They govern critical DeFi infrastructure. They're supposed to be the future of coordination.
But without measurement, there's no accountability. DAOs can claim "decentralization" while being controlled by a handful of insiders.
The DGI changes that. It gives:
- DAO members a way to assess their own governance health
- Investors a metric to evaluate governance risk
- Researchers comparable data across the ecosystem
- DAO operators benchmarks to improve against
Explore the Index
The full DGI rankings are available at chainsights.one/governance-index.
Every DAO profile includes:
- Overall DGI score and grade
- Breakdown by all four components
- 7-day trend tracking
- Category benchmarking
Want a deeper analysis? Our Governance Reports provide detailed insights, competitive benchmarks, and actionable recommendations.
What's Next
This is version 1.0. We're actively developing:
- Open-Universe Free Check — Analyze any of 13,000+ Snapshot spaces, not just the curated 46
- Monthly DGI Reports — Ecosystem-wide governance health tracking
- API Access — For researchers and builders who want to integrate DGI data
- Expanded Coverage — More DAOs, more chains, more governance systems
Join the Conversation
The DGI is open. The methodology is public. We want feedback, criticism, and collaboration.
- Explore the rankings: chainsights.one
- Follow updates: @ChainSights_one
- Questions or feedback: contact@chainsights.one
Governance transparency shouldn't be gated. That's why the full index is free to explore — no login required.
Wallets lie. We don't.
ChainSights is built by Mario Semper, founder of masemIT e.U. 3% of all revenue is donated to hoki.help, supporting families with seriously ill children.