Is DAO Governance Broken? How Voter Apathy and Power Struggles Should Be Fixed
Speakers
Proph3t
— co-founder of MetaDAO
Nick Almond
— Head of Governance, Jito Foundation
Summary
Laura Shin hosts Nick Almond and Proph3t to dissect recent DAO governance crises, including the ENS treasury power struggle, the $20M BonkDAO heist, and the token-vs-equity debate ignited by Venice’s VVV token. Proph3t advises avoiding VVV, arguing that equity will capture most of the value, while Nick Almond sees more projects declaring their tokens as the primary asset.
- ENS founder Nick Johnson used his tokens to block a Security Council renewal, enabling foundation control of a $100M+ treasury.
- Low voter turnout allowed a 3% token holder to single-handedly decide the DAO’s fate.
- BonkDAO lost $20M via a governance proposal that passed with almost no voter participation and no extended timelock.
- Proph3t advocates abandoning voting for decision markets, arguing voting is inherently flawed.
- Nick Almond proposes curated delegates as a practical fix for voter apathy and DAO capture.
- The Venice VVV token controversy: Proph3t says avoid VVV because equity has fiduciary duty and will likely capture most value.
- Nick Almond predicts more projects will publicly declare themselves token-centric, mirroring Jito’s recent move.
Ideas
Avoid VVV; equity captures most value.
Proph3t believes the Venice VVV token is unattractive because when a company has both equity and a utility token, equity holders have management control and fiduciary duty, creating a structural incentive to accrue value to equity at the expense of the token. He notes that dual token-equity structures have historically delivered poor financial returns for token holders, and he explicitly states he would not buy VVV anymore.
Up Next
This Unchained (Chopping Block) video, published July 15, 2026, features Proph3t discussing VVV. 1 trade idea extracted by AI with direction and confidence scoring.