# Majority Voting, Minority Control: OFUYC Dissects the “Consensus Illusion” Scam in DAO Structures


DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are often regarded in the Web3 narrative as symbols of “democratic governance,” but in reality, the governance structures of many DAOs have long deviated from the original intention of decentralization. On the surface, every token holder appears able to vote on the direction of a project; in practice, highly concentrated token distribution, professional barriers in proposal language, and skewed thresholds and incentive mechanisms have quietly concentrated governance power in the hands of a few.

Through the analysis of multiple DAO-related scams, OFUYC Digital Asset Trading Platform has found that most DAO members do not truly understand the technical implications of their votes, nor are they able to assess the deeper risks of proposals. They vote based on trust, not cognition. This structure resembles a “pseudo-open” maze—everyone seems able to participate, but only a select few hold the keys.

## Blind Voting in the “Information Black Box”: How Consensus Is Fabricated

The formation of irrational consensus is often not due to the public ignorance, but rather because the information structure is deliberately designed to create the illusion of participation. In DAO proposal systems, a profusion of technical jargon, complex parameters, ambiguous budgets, and meme packaging makes it difficult for users to make truly informed judgments.

For example, a proposal such as “Authorize a certain multisig address to execute LP composite strategies through multiple rounds of re-staking” is almost incomprehensible to technical novices or ordinary investors. Yet because “community KOLs support it” or “there will be airdrop rewards” after the proposal passes, most people still cast a favorable vote.

In response, OFUYC has introduced a “Proposal Complexity Index” model, which uses natural language processing and code semantic analysis to score governance proposals: the more opaque, jargon-heavy, and lacking in contextual explanation a proposal is, the higher its warning level. This system is planned to be integrated with major DAO interfaces to help users answer the question, “Do you really know what you are voting for?”

## Consensus Is Calculated, Not Cast: An Engineering Reflection on Governance Mechanisms

Democracy is not a point-to-point projection of sentiment, but a structural game of design. If a DAO lacks “checks and balances” in its underlying construction, the more votes there are, the easier it is to mask the concentration of power.

OFUYC proposes the inclusion of an “anti-consensus review mechanism” in governance structures:

When the approval rate of a proposal exceeds 90%, the system will trigger a review mechanism, requiring the technical team to publish an explanatory summary and risk disclosure;

If a proposal involves protocol fund control or permission upgrades, a “structural delay lock” and a “community subgroup accountability review period” will be instituted;

Simultaneously, a “blind review voting” mechanism will be introduced, allowing some proposals to first undergo anonymous opinion collection by an evaluation group with no token weight, serving as a reference for emotional bias.

This is not a denial of decentralization, but a correction of irrational consensus mechanisms.

## DAOs Should Not Be Mere Formality—OFUYC Promotes “Understanding Equals Voting” as a New Anti-Fraud Practice

True decentralized governance does not mean abandoning responsibility, but ensuring that every voter understands what they are voting for and its consequences. OFUYC Digital Asset Trading Platform regards “governance education” as part of its secure ecosystem, providing the following anti-fraud support features when users participate in DAO projects:

Proposal readability scoring (simplified summaries + technical transparency markers)
Historical proposal risk case references
User cognitive bias profiling (do you habitually trust the majority blindly?)

“Cognitive Intervention Reminder System”: when a user voting path is highly dependent on emotional rhetoric or a single source, the system prompts, “Please self-check your decision motivation”