What is a DAO governance health check?

A DAO governance health check is a free analysis that measures how decentralized and healthy a DAO's governance actually is. It examines voting power distribution, participation rates, and identifies whether governance is controlled by a few whales or genuinely distributed. ChainSights provides this as a free service with no signup required.

How is a DAO decentralization score calculated?

The Governance Vitality Score (GVS) measures governance activity quality using four weighted factors: Sybil Resistance (35%) - percentage of voters that are genuine humans vs bots/coordinated wallets; Delegate Engagement (25%) - how actively delegates participate; Power Dynamics (20%) - concentration of voting power among top holders; and Grassroots Participation (20%) - involvement of smaller token holders. Important: GVS measures activity quality, not decentralization. Power concentration metrics (Gini, Nakamoto, Top 5 control) are in the Deep Dive Report.

What is the Gini coefficient in DAO governance?

The Gini coefficient in DAO governance measures voting power inequality on a scale from 0 to 1. A Gini of 0 means perfectly equal distribution (every voter has equal power), while 1 means one entity controls everything. Most DAOs have Gini coefficients between 0.7-0.95, indicating high concentration. A lower Gini coefficient suggests healthier, more decentralized governance.

What is the Nakamoto coefficient for DAOs?

The Nakamoto coefficient measures how many entities would need to collude to control 51% of voting power. A Nakamoto coefficient of 3 means just 3 wallets control majority power - a governance risk. Higher is better: a Nakamoto coefficient of 50+ indicates well-distributed power. ChainSights calculates this using identity-first analysis, grouping wallets by real-world entities rather than treating each wallet separately.

What is a Governance Truth Report?

A Governance Truth Report is a comprehensive PDF analysis of your DAO's governance health. It includes the decentralization score (1-10), Gini and Nakamoto coefficients, whale and delegate identification, participation metrics, historical trends, and actionable recommendations for improving governance. Reports are delivered within 24 hours.

How much does a Governance Truth Report cost?

ChainSights offers a free Quick Health Check (1 per month) with basic metrics including score, Gini coefficient, Nakamoto coefficient, and ranking. Paid reports start at EUR 99 for Standard (detailed analysis) and EUR 199 for Deep Dive (comprehensive with roadmap). Share your honest review on Twitter for EUR 20 cashback.

Is there a free DAO governance tool?

Yes! ChainSights offers a completely free governance health check for any DAO using Snapshot. No signup or credit card required. You get your DAO's Governance Vitality Score (1-10), Gini coefficient, Nakamoto coefficient, and see how it ranks against other DAOs. One free check per month.

What data sources does ChainSights use?

ChainSights analyzes data from Snapshot, the leading off-chain governance platform used by major DAOs like ENS, Uniswap, and Aave. We examine voting power distribution, proposal outcomes, voter participation patterns, and delegate activity across recent governance history.

How DAO Rankings Work

Transparent methodology for governance health scoring

Methodology Version 1.1 • Last Updated: December 2025

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)

35% weight

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

25% weight

Tracks how actively delegates participate in governance beyond just voting.

Delegate voting rate across proposals
Proposal creation and engagement
Discussion participation and feedback

Why it matters: Delegation is only effective when delegates are active stewards. Passive delegates holding large voting power without engagement weakens governance quality.

PDI - Power Dynamics Index

20% weight

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

20% weight

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

35%

HPR

25%

DEI

20%

PDI

20%

GPI

Confidence Scoring

Each GVS score includes a confidence level indicating data completeness and reliability:

High

≥80% data completeness

Full proposal history, reliable voter data, comprehensive metrics

Medium

50-79% data completeness

Partial proposal history or some data gaps, score is indicative

Low

<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 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

Rankings are updated every 7 days (Sunday midnight UTC)

This cadence balances freshness with stability. DAOs need time to improve, and daily updates would create noise rather than signal.

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 Removal

Form 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

v1.1 (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 Feedback