Crypto Governance Guide
Guide to DAO governance — voting mechanics (token-weighted, veToken, quadratic), proposal processes, delegation, and governance participation best practices. Covers Snapshot, on-chain governance, and real examples including Sperax, Aave, and Uniswap.
Install
$ agentstack add skill-sperax-sperax-skills-crypto-governance-guide ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Crypto Governance Guide
DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) use various governance models to make protocol decisions. This guide helps AI agents assist users with governance participation.
Governance Models
Token-Weighted Voting
Most common model: 1 token = 1 vote.
| Protocol | Token | Voting Platform | |----------|-------|----------------| | Uniswap | UNI | On-chain + Snapshot | | Aave | AAVE/stkAAVE | On-chain | | Compound | COMP | On-chain |
Pros: Simple, aligns economic incentives Cons: Whale-dominated, low participation
Vote-Escrowed (veToken)
Lock tokens for governance power. Longer lock = more power.
| Protocol | Token | Lock Period | Power Formula | |----------|-------|-------------|---------------| | Sperax | SPA → veSPA | 7d–4y | veSPA = SPA × (days/365) | | Curve | CRV → veCRV | 1w–4y | veCRV = CRV × (days/365) | | Balancer | BAL → veBAL | 1w–1y | veBAL = BAL × (days/365) |
Pros: Aligns long-term incentives, reduces mercenary governance Cons: Capital lock-up, decaying voting power
Quadratic Voting
Vote weight = √(tokens). Reduces whale dominance.
| Protocol | Implementation | |----------|---------------| | Gitcoin | Quadratic funding for grants |
Pros: More egalitarian Cons: Sybil-vulnerable without identity verification
Optimistic Governance
Proposals pass unless vetoed within a timeframe.
| Protocol | Implementation | |----------|---------------| | Optimism | Token House + Citizens' House |
Pros: Faster execution, less voter fatigue Cons: Requires active monitoring
Governance Lifecycle
Typical Process
Idea → Discussion → Proposal → Vote → ExecutionSperax Governance (Example)
| Phase | Action | Duration | |-------|--------|----------| | Phase 0 | Discord ideation | Open-ended | | Phase 1 | Forum SIP proposal | 48h minimum discussion | | Phase 2 | Snapshot vote | 3 days, veSPA-weighted | | Phase 3 | Engineering implementation | Varies |
Requirements:
- Quorum: 200M veSPA
- Passing: >50% Yes votes
- Snapshot: https://snapshot.box/#/s:speraxdao.eth
Aave Governance (Example)
| Step | Action | |------|--------| | ARC | Aave Request for Comments (forum) | | AIP | Aave Improvement Proposal (formal) | | Vote | On-chain vote (AAVE + stkAAVE weighted) | | Timelock | 24h delay before execution | | Execute | Automated on-chain execution |
Voting Platforms
Snapshot (Off-Chain)
- What: Gasless voting via signed messages
- Used by: Most DAOs for governance votes
- Cost: Free (no gas to vote)
- Security: Relies on social consensus for execution
On-Chain Governance
- What: Votes recorded on blockchain
- Used by: Compound, Aave, Uniswap (binding votes)
- Cost: Gas for each vote
- Security: Enforced by smart contracts
Tally
- What: Governance dashboard for on-chain proposals
- Used by: Compound, Aave, Uniswap, and many others
- URL: https://tally.xyz
Delegation
Many DAOs allow vote delegation — give your voting power to a delegate who votes on your behalf.
How It Works
- Choose a delegate whose values align with yours
- Delegate your voting power (you keep your tokens)
- Delegate votes on proposals on your behalf
- You can undelegate at any time
Benefits
- For voters: Don't need to track every proposal
- For DAOs: Higher effective participation
- For delegates: Build reputation in governance
Proposal Analysis
When helping users evaluate proposals, consider:
Impact Assessment
| Factor | Questions | |--------|-----------| | Scope | How big is this change? | | Risk | What could go wrong? | | Reversibility | Can it be undone? | | Precedent | Does it set a precedent? | | Economic Impact | How does it affect token holders? |
Red Flags in Proposals
- Extremely short voting periods
- Vague or poorly specified changes
- Large treasury spending without detailed budget
- Changes that benefit proposer disproportionately
- Governance parameter changes (quorum, timelock)
- Emergency proposals without clear emergency
Agent Tips
- Explain the proposal in plain language before recommending a vote
- Check quorum requirements — if a vote won't reach quorum, it doesn't matter
- Review discussion — what did the community say in forums?
- Delegation — recommend delegates for users who can't track every vote
- veToken mechanics — explain the lock-up tradeoff (more power vs less liquidity)
- Sperax governance — SPA → veSPA with weekly rewards makes governance participation profitable
Links
- Sperax Governance: https://snapshot.box/#/s:speraxdao.eth
- Snapshot: https://snapshot.org
- Tally: https://tally.xyz
- Sperax Docs: https://docs.sperax.io
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Sperax
- Source: Sperax/sperax-skills
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.