How to Write a DAO Governance Proposal in English
A complete guide for blockchain developers and community members: how to write a DAO governance proposal in English — structure, vocabulary, key sections, and professional phrases.
DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) governance proposals are on-chain or off-chain documents that allow token holders to vote on decisions affecting a protocol — from treasury allocations to parameter changes, partnerships, and upgrades. Writing an effective governance proposal in English is a skill that separates proposals that pass from those that fail. This guide covers structure, vocabulary, tone, and the key sections every strong proposal must include.
What Is a Governance Proposal?
A governance proposal is a formal written document submitted to a DAO’s governance process. It describes:
- What change is being proposed
- Why it is needed
- How it will be implemented
- What the expected outcome is
Proposals are typically posted to a governance forum (e.g., Discourse, Commonwealth) for discussion before moving to an on-chain vote (e.g., Snapshot, Tally, or a native governance contract).
The lifecycle of a governance proposal:
- Idea / temperature check — informal discussion in Discord or the forum
- Draft proposal — structured written proposal for feedback
- Final proposal — polished version submitted for voting
- Voting period — token holders cast votes
- Execution — if approved, changes are implemented (sometimes automatically via a timelock)
Governance Proposal Structure
Title
The title should be clear and descriptive. Common formats:
[GIP-XX] — Title describing the proposal
[PROPOSAL] — Title
RFC: Title (Request for Comment)“[GIP-14] — Increase Protocol Fee to 0.1% and Allocate 20% of Revenue to the Community Treasury”
Summary (Abstract)
A 2–4 sentence summary of what the proposal does. Assume the reader knows nothing.
## Summary
This proposal requests a protocol fee increase from 0.05% to 0.1% on all swaps.
50% of collected fees will buy back and burn PROTO tokens; 20% will be directed to
the Community Treasury for grants; 30% will be distributed to liquidity providers.
This change is intended to improve protocol sustainability and align token holder incentives.Motivation
Explain why this proposal is needed. What problem does it solve? What opportunity does it capture?
## Motivation
The current protocol fee of 0.05% generates approximately $1.2M per year at current
trading volume. This is insufficient to fund ongoing development and audits without
relying on investor capital. Several competing protocols have moved to higher fee
structures without loss of TVL, suggesting fee sensitivity is low among our user base.
Additionally, the absence of token buybacks has contributed to PROTO token sell pressure
from team and investor unlocks. This proposal addresses both issues simultaneously.Vocabulary:
TVL (Total Value Locked) — the total value of assets deposited in a protocol Token buyback — using protocol revenue to purchase tokens from the open market (often reducing supply) Token burn — permanently removing tokens from circulation, reducing supply Sell pressure — market conditions where more tokens are being sold than bought (depresses price) Revenue distribution — how protocol revenue is allocated to different stakeholders
Specification
The technical specification describes exactly how the proposal will be implemented. Be precise.
## Specification
### Parameter Changes
| Parameter | Current | Proposed |
|-----------|---------|---------|
| Swap fee | 0.05% | 0.10% |
| Fee distribution — Buyback | 0% | 50% |
| Fee distribution — Treasury | 100% | 20% |
| Fee distribution — LPs | 0% | 30% |
### Implementation
The fee parameter is stored in the `ProtocolConfig` contract:
`0x1234...abcd` on Ethereum mainnet.
The governance multisig will call `setSwapFee(10)` (basis points) after
the proposal passes. A Gnosis Safe transaction will be prepared and broadcast
within 48 hours of the voting period ending.
The revenue distribution contract will require a separate deployment
(see linked GitHub PR for the audited implementation).Risk Assessment
Acknowledge risks honestly. A proposal that ignores risks is typically distrusted by sophisticated voters.
## Risks
**Fee sensitivity risk**: Higher fees may reduce swap volume. Based on comparable
protocols' fee increases, we expect less than 5% volume reduction. However, if volume
drops more than 15%, a fee reduction proposal should be considered within 90 days.
**Smart contract risk**: The revenue distribution contract is new code.
It has been audited by [Auditor Name] — audit report linked below.
A 7-day timelock is in place before execution.
**Governance risk**: If the buyback mechanism is poorly timed, it may create
predictable price movements that can be gamed. We propose periodic
rather than continuous buybacks to reduce this risk.Implementation Timeline
## Timeline
- Week 1: Forum discussion and feedback period
- Week 2: Snapshot vote (5-day window)
- Week 3: If approved, Gnosis Safe transaction prepared by core team
- Week 4: 7-day timelock execution
- Day 30: Parameter change live on mainnetVoting Options
Always define what a Yes/No/Abstain vote means.
## Voting
- **For**: Approve fee increase to 0.10% and revenue distribution as described
- **Against**: Maintain current fee of 0.05%
- **Abstain**: No preference; count toward quorum without direction
**Quorum**: 5% of circulating supply must vote
**Approval threshold**: Simple majority (>50% of votes cast, excluding abstain)Professional Language for Governance Proposals
Formal, neutral tone
Governance proposals should be formal and neutral — not promotional or emotionally charged.
- ❌ “This is absolutely essential for the protocol’s survival!”
- ✅ “This proposal addresses a sustainability concern identified in the Q4 2025 treasury review.”
Acknowledging dissent
“We acknowledge that some community members have expressed concern about the fee increase’s impact on user adoption. We have attempted to address this in the Risk section above. We welcome continued discussion on the forum.”
Inviting feedback before the vote
“This is currently a draft proposal. We encourage all stakeholders to comment below before we move to a formal vote. In particular, we are seeking feedback on the buyback mechanism design and the revenue split percentages.”
Governance Vocabulary Quick Reference
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Quorum | Minimum participation required for a vote to be valid |
| Timelock | A delay between vote approval and on-chain execution |
| Multisig | A wallet requiring multiple signatures to execute transactions |
| Snapshot | An off-chain governance voting tool (gas-free) |
| Temperature check | An informal early vote to gauge community sentiment |
| GIP / GRC / AIP | Governance Improvement Proposal (naming convention varies by DAO) |
| Delegate | A token holder who has been given voting power by other holders |
| On-chain governance | Voting executed and enforced directly by smart contracts |
| Off-chain governance | Signalling votes not enforced by code (requires trust in executors) |
| Rage-quit | A mechanism allowing dissenting members to exit with their proportional funds before a decision is implemented |
Practice
Expand your blockchain and Web3 vocabulary with the Blockchain exercise set and explore the full Blockchain Developer learning path.