Review recent on-chain proposals and classify approval reliability as reliable, moderate, or poor
Answers whether a protocol's on-chain governance consistently approves proposals that reach a meaningful quorum. It reads recent closed proposals from independently verified governor contracts, counts how many proposals carried a usable quorum and met it, and computes an approval rate, labeling reliability reliable (80%+), moderate, or poor. Use it to assess the observed governance track record. The current score measures quorum-backed approval, not whether every approved proposal's intended real-world effects were implemented, and coverage excludes unregistered governance systems.
Governance track record - and a selection effect that inverts the natural reading.
WHAT IT MEASURES. Recent closed proposals from verified governor contracts: how many carried a usable quorum, how many met it, and the resulting approval rate, labelled reliable at 80% or above, moderate, or poor.
QUORUM is the minimum participation for a vote to count. It exists to stop a small group deciding for everyone by simply being the only ones present, and failing quorum is a distinct outcome from being voted down - the proposal did not fail, the process did not happen. Counting those separately is the right choice.
NOW THE PART THAT MATTERS. A HIGH APPROVAL RATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF HEALTHY GOVERNANCE, and reading it that way inverts what the number contains. Proposals do not arrive at an on-chain vote at random: in most protocols they pass through forum discussion, a temperature check and informal sponsor-gathering first, and proposals expected to fail are withdrawn before reaching the chain. So the on-chain approval rate largely measures the FILTER, not the deliberation. A 95% approval rate is consistent with rigorous pre-screening, and equally consistent with a rubber stamp where the outcome was decided elsewhere.
This is a SELECTION EFFECT, and it is the same shape as several elsewhere in this catalog: the sample you can observe was chosen by a process correlated with the outcome you are measuring. A student who learns to ask 'what determined which cases I can see?' will find it everywhere.
WHAT WOULD DISTINGUISH the two explanations: the proposal-to-vote conversion rate, the margin distribution (a governance where everything passes 99-1 is different from one where votes are contested), and whether any significant proposal has ever failed.
SO WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? Two real things. Persistent QUORUM FAILURE is a genuine finding - it means governance cannot act, which is a live risk if the protocol needs to respond to something. And it establishes that the governance process FUNCTIONS mechanically, which is a floor rather than a ceiling.
The score measures observed approval behaviour rather than governance quality.
The 80% threshold and the labels are our own convention.
Published reports are readable without an account. The newest is Ether (ETH) and XRP extend a month-long slide as Bitcoin falls below $75,000: trend, momentum and news (Nov 9, 2026). Create an account to run research on the stocks and crypto you choose.