Citation
Bennett, A., Vander Vos, P., Le, D. V., Belenkiy, M. “Concave is the New Linear: The Impossibility of Anti-Plutocratic DAO Governance.” arXiv:2605.18990v1 [cs.GT] (18 May 2026). Circle Research.
Core Result
No voting rule that derives power solely from wallet balance can be anti-plutocratic on a permissionless blockchain. Using a costed model of on-chain voting (per-wallet splitting + voting costs, fixed setup costs, minimum-balance requirements), they prove: whenever a wallet of any size yields nonzero voting power, a Sybil attacker who splits tokens across many wallets achieves total voting power that grows at least linearly in holdings. For concave rules actually proposed to dampen whales (positive, increasing, finite — e.g. Quadratic Voting), the optimal Sybil strategy yields power asymptotically linear in holdings, regardless of the cost scheme.
Why Concave Voting Fails
- QV (power = √tokens) assumes one stable identity per voter; permissionless chains can’t bind wallets to identity, so the single-identity assumption breaks.
- A Sybil attacker splits holdings into many wallets, each accruing the concave (cheap-per-token) low end of the curve, recovering ~linear aggregate power — defeating the anti-plutocratic intent. Anti-Sybil patches (minimum balances, higher voting/wallet-generation costs) don’t change the asymptotics.
Empirical Findings
- Replayed the 10 most recent finalized proposals of 5 major DAOs (ENS, Compound, Uniswap, Arbitrum, ZKsync) under linear, quadratic, logarithmic, and power(α=0.25) voting.
- Sybil amplification factors: 1,172×–4,039× under QV; >229,000× under steeper power rules.
- Uniswap: a Sybil-optimal attacker captures a $300M vote for ~$75K in token + gas costs; a single-wallet attacker with the same budget gets only ~1/259 of the power needed to win.
- Frames token-control attacks against the Feichtinger et al. SoK taxonomy (28 real-world attacks; bribing / token-control / HCI / code vulnerability), citing Tornado Cash DAO (2023) and Indexed Finance.
Connection to Wiki
- Formalizes the governance-extraction channel of Generalized Extractable Value (GEV) (channel 2): concentration + Sybil-amplifiable voting is a structural extraction surface independent of ordering MEV.
- Mechanism-design impossibility result in the same spirit as Paper: Adversarial Procurement in Blockchains — Mechanism Design for Verifiable Outsourcing and the auction-corruption results in Paper: Imperfect Commitment in Maximal Extractable Value Auctions — information/identity asymmetries defeat naïve mechanisms.
See Also
- Generalized Extractable Value (GEV) — governance extraction as one of seven GEV channels
- Paper: Adversarial Procurement in Blockchains — Mechanism Design for Verifiable Outsourcing — sibling adversarial-mechanism-design result
- Ethereum”s Values: Zero Option, CROPS, and the Right to Quit — decentralization/credible-neutrality framing