How DAO Rankings Work
Transparent methodology for governance health scoring
Our Mission
We rank DAOs to help the ecosystem improve, not to shame anyone. Think of this as a governance health check, not a competition.
Our goal is constructive: shine a light on what's working and where there's room to grow. We're building the Moody's rating system for DAO governance - helping communities assess governance health objectively.
GVS Components & Weights
The Governance Vitality Score (GVS) is calculated from four key components, each measuring a different aspect of governance health:
Sybil Resistance Score (formerly HPR)
Measures what percentage of voters are genuine humans versus bots or coordinated wallet clusters.
- Detects coordinated wallet clusters voting together
- Filters bot activity based on voting patterns
- Calculates: Likely Human Voters / Total Unique Voters
Important distinction: This measures voter quality (are voters human?), not voter engagement (what % of followers voted). A DAO can have 10/10 Sybil Resistance (all voters are human) but only 0.5% participation rate (few people vote). Both metrics matter — see the Deep Dive Report for participation rates.
Why it matters: High Sybil Resistance indicates real people are making governance decisions, not bots or coordinated attacks.
DEI - Delegate Engagement Index
Tracks how actively top delegates participate in governance proposals using a Weighted Participation Rate — measuring how often top delegates voted across up to 30 proposals (up to 180-day window).
- Delegates measured: top 20% of voters by voting power (minimum 3, maximum 50)
- Recency weighting: last 30 days = full weight (1.0×), 30–60 days = 70% weight, 60–90 days = 40% weight
- Adaptive lookback: when fewer than 5 proposals exist in 90 days, the window extends to 180 days and uses unweighted rates for fairness
Example: A DAO with 3 proposals in 90 days uses a 180-day lookback and unweighted rates — this ensures sparse governance activity is not unfairly penalised.
Why it matters: Delegation is only effective when delegates are active stewards. Passive delegates holding large voting power without engagement weakens governance quality. The Weighted Participation Rate differs from a simple vote count ratio — it rewards recent and consistent participation.
PDI - Power Dynamics Index
Measures voting power concentration and leadership turnover patterns.
- Gini coefficient of voting power distribution
- Top 5 voters' control percentage
- Leadership turnover in proposal outcomes
Why it matters: Healthy governance requires distributed power. High concentration means a few whales can override community consensus, defeating the purpose of decentralized governance.
GPI - Grassroots Participation Index
Measures engagement from smaller token holders (bottom 80% by holdings).
- Participation rate of non-whale token holders
- Small holder proposal engagement
- Community breadth of voting activity
Why it matters: True decentralization means everyday community members participate, not just large holders. High grassroots engagement indicates a DAO that serves its entire community.
Weight Summary
Confidence Scoring
Each GVS score includes a confidence level indicating data completeness and reliability:
≥80% data completeness
Full proposal history, reliable voter data, comprehensive metrics
50-79% data completeness
Partial proposal history or some data gaps, score is indicative
<50% data completeness
Limited proposal history, new DAO, or data collection issues
Note: Low confidence doesn't mean a bad DAO - it means we have less data to analyze. New DAOs naturally start with lower confidence until they build governance history.
Data Quality: Wallet Filtering
Our analysis distinguishes between human governance participants and protocol-controlled wallets. This ensures scores reflect genuine community participation.
What gets filtered
- Treasury wallets — DAO treasuries holding protocol funds
- Exchange wallets — Centralized exchange hot/cold wallets (Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, etc.)
- Bridge contracts — Cross-chain bridges (Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum, Wormhole, etc.)
- Protocol contracts — Smart contracts like routers, factories, and token contracts
What stays in
- Fund/VC wallets — Venture capital and investment funds are legitimate governance participants
- Individual wallets — All personal wallets participate fully
- Multisig wallets — Flagged for transparency but kept in calculations
How it works: Wallet labels are sourced from eth-labels (115,000+ labeled Ethereum addresses) combined with manually curated overrides for major known wallets. Labels are cached and verified regularly.
Vote Quality Score (VQS)
While GVS measures a DAO's overall governance health, the Vote Quality Score (VQS) zooms in on individual delegates. It answers: “How thoughtful is this voter's participation?”
Each delegate receives a VQS from 0 to 10, composed of up to four signals:
Deliberation
Measures how long a voter waits before casting their vote. Voters who consistently vote within minutes of a proposal opening may not be reading the full proposal. Higher deliberation time suggests more thoughtful participation.
Independence
Measures how diverse a voter's choices are across proposals. Voters who always pick the same option (e.g., always “For”) show less independent judgment than voters who evaluate each proposal on its merits.
Focus
Measures whether a voter engages across different proposal categories (treasury, governance, technical) rather than only voting on one type. Broader engagement indicates deeper governance involvement.
Originality
Measures how independently a voter decides compared to the largest token holders (whales). Voters whose choices closely mirror whale voting patterns may be following rather than forming their own opinions.
How VQS is Calculated
When all four signals are available, each contributes 25% to the composite VQS. When some signals are unavailable (see below), the weight is redistributed equally among the remaining signals.
Ranked-Choice & Weighted Voting
Some DAOs use ranked-choice or weighted voting instead of single-choice ballots. For these DAOs, Independence and Originality cannot be meaningfully calculated and are shown as N/A.
In these cases, the VQS composite is recalculated using only the available signals. For example, if both Independence and Originality are N/A, VQS is based on Deliberation (50%) and Focus (50%). This ensures fair comparison without inflating scores with placeholder values.
Coverage
VQS is currently available for 24 of 47 tracked DAOs (~51%). The remaining DAOs do not have VQS data for one of two reasons:
- No recent Snapshot proposals — Many DAOs (e.g., Optimism, Curve, NounsDAO) use on-chain governance via Tally or Governor contracts instead of Snapshot. VQS currently analyzes Snapshot data only.
- Insufficient voting data — VQS requires at least 3 votes per delegate within the last 6 months. DAOs with very few proposals cannot meet this threshold.
We plan to expand coverage to on-chain governance systems in a future update.
Ecosystem Benchmarks
Based on 24 DAOs. Score distribution: Red (<2): 3.5% · Orange (2–4.9): 73.5% · Yellow (5–7.9): 18.5% · Green (≥8): 4.4%
DAO Governance Archetypes
Across 24 DAOs, three distinct voter quality patterns emerge. These archetypes reflect governance culture — not quality rankings. A Consensus DAO isn't necessarily worse than a Pluralistic one; the context matters.
Pluralistic
Median VQS ≥ 6Delegates vote independently across diverse proposal types. High deliberation, varied choices, strong originality.
Examples: CVX (7.8) · Aavegotchi (7.1) · Frax (6.7)
Mixed
Median VQS 4–6A broad middle ground — some engaged, deliberate voters alongside more routine participants.
Examples: Arbitrum (4.2) · Balancer (4.4)
Consensus
Median VQS < 4Delegates tend to vote in alignment with each other and with large token holders. Common in mature, established protocols with strong community convergence.
Examples: ENS (3.2) · Uniswap (3.6) · Lido (1.8)
Data Sources
- •Snapshot.org API (primary source)
Proposal data, voting records, participation metrics
- •Ethereum Blockchain (on-chain verification)
Token distributions, transaction history
- •Public Governance Forums (qualitative analysis)
Discussion quality, community sentiment
Update Frequency
GVS and VQS scores are recalculated daily via an automated pipeline that processes all tracked DAOs.
Each DAO is processed individually with staggered timing to respect upstream API rate limits. DGI benchmark indices are recalculated immediately after individual scores complete.
Opt-Out Policy
Don't want to be ranked? We respect that.
DAOs may request removal from public rankings at any time. Requests are processed within 24 hours, no questions asked.
Request RemovalForm coming soon. For now, email hello@chainsights.one and we'll remove you within 24 hours.
Limitations & Disclaimers
- ⚠️This is ONE perspective on governance health
- ⚠️Rankings do not constitute endorsement or recommendation of any DAO, token, or governance practice.
- ⚠️High score ≠ perfect DAO, Low score ≠ bad DAO
- ⚠️Quantitative metrics can't capture everything
- ⚠️Use this as a starting point for improvement, not gospel
DISCLAIMER: Rankings are educational tools based on publicly available data and should not be considered financial, legal, or investment advice. Scores reflect quantitative metrics and may not capture the full complexity of governance structures. Rankings are opinions, not statements of fact. We make no guarantees about accuracy or completeness.
GDPR Compliance: We collect minimal data necessary for service delivery. For details on data collection, storage, and your rights, see our . Privacy Policy.
Methodology Evolution
We reserve the right to adjust weights and criteria as we learn what actually matters for DAO governance.
All changes will be documented and published with advance notice. We update our methodology quarterly based on community feedback and research.
Change Log
- v1.4 (March 2026): Added VQS ecosystem benchmarks (4,279 voters, 24 DAOs), three DAO governance archetypes (Pluralistic / Mixed / Consensus), score distribution breakdown; edge case fix for ranked-choice DAOs (Independence=N/A instead of inflated 10.0)
- v1.3 (February 2026): Added Vote Quality Score (VQS) methodology, ranked-choice/weighted voting handling, daily recalculation cadence; DEI transparency improvements — Weighted Participation Rate label, recency weighting documentation, adaptive lookback explanation
- v1.2 (February 2026): Added wallet label filtering — treasury, exchange, bridge, and protocol wallets excluded from human-focused metrics
- v1.1 (December 2025): Enhanced legal disclaimers and GDPR compliance
- v1.0 (December 2025): Initial methodology
- Future updates will be listed here
Have Feedback?
We're constantly learning. If you think we're missing something important or weighting things incorrectly, we want to hear from you.
Send FeedbackLooking for the DAO Governance Index (DGI) benchmark methodology? The DGI aggregates GVS scores into ecosystem-wide benchmarks. Read the DGI Methodology →