💪 Why isn't voting with Token good enough to protect holder? Most current DAOs use a model where whoever holds the most Token has the most say. This approach is simple but creates many problems as the DAO grows larger. The fact that voting is virtually free leads many people to vote based on emotion, community sentiment, or short-term price expectations, rather than long-term benefits. At the same time, the majority of holder did not participate because they knew their vote was unlikely to change the outcome, leading to a concentration of power in the hands of a small group. Worse still, Token can be borrowed or hoarded in the short term to manipulate governance. Ultimately, governance , which is supposed to protect Token value, becomes a tool for those with the most money. Decision markets: Let the market make the decisions. Another approach doesn't ask "which option do you prefer?" but rather "which option will make the Token more valuable, and are you willing to invest in that belief?". With decision markets, the team remains autonomous in its operations, while decisions affecting Token and the Treasury are made through the market. Each proposal has two outcomes: approval or rejection. Participants buy/sell based on their beliefs; if the market believes that approval would be good for the Token, the proposal is implemented. Here, price and real cash flow Vai as votes. 📌MetaDAO shows that this model works. In one MetaDAO proposal, despite strong support, a large amount of money was concentrated in the scenario of selling upon approval – signaling that the proposal did not create value. As a result, the proposal was rejected, and the team came up with a better alternative, which was subsequently approved. In the alternative proposal, the buying and selling sides are fairly balanced, reflecting genuine confidence rather than a fabricated overwhelming victory. Decision markets help DAOs listen to market signals, not just count votes. Case 1 In a MetaDAO proposal, although many people participated in the "passed" scenario, the majority of the money was in the "passed but sold" scenario. This shows that there was some formal support, but those who invested large sums of money didn't believe the proposal would create value. As a result, the proposal was rejected. The team then proposed a new solution with better terms, which was approved. This case demonstrates that the market not only accepts or rejects, but also helps to adjust decisions. Case 2 In another proposal, 20 large traders placed approximately $340,000 on a sell-reject scenario, while 45 smaller traders placed $215,000 on a buy-pass scenario. The two opposing viewpoints are nearly balanced, differing by only a few percent, reflecting the genuine beliefs and actual disagreements of the community, rather than a purely symbolic overwhelming victory. Why is this method more effective? Decision markets force participants to have "skin in the game": if they're right, they profit; if they're wrong, they lose money, so the signals are better. Manipulation becomes difficult and expensive because it requires constantly buying back those who trade correctly. More importantly, good information can lead to big Capital , and the more people participate, the more accurate the signal becomes.