Compute Nakamoto coefficient and top-10 voter share per protocol to flag dangerous concentration
Answers whether a protocol's on-chain governance is broadly distributed or controlled by a few large voters. It reads vote events from independently verified governor contracts, takes each voter's largest recorded voting weight across the recent proposal set, and computes the top-10 voting share and the Nakamoto coefficient (the number of voters needed to reach 51%). It scores and labels each protocol decentralized, moderately concentrated, or concentrated. Coverage excludes off-chain signaling and governance systems that AstraEye has not independently registered.
Voting concentration - and the distinction between voting WEIGHT and voting POWER, which is the whole subject.
WHAT IT MEASURES. From vote events on verified governor contracts: each voter's largest recorded voting weight across the recent proposal set, the top-10 share, and a Nakamoto coefficient defined here as the number of voters needed to reach 51%.
NOTE THE THRESHOLD IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONSENSUS ONE. In proof-of-stake security the critical fractions come from Byzantine fault tolerance - a third to disrupt finality, two thirds to finalise. In governance the threshold is whatever the contract's rules say, commonly a simple majority, hence 51%. Same statistic, different threshold, because the thing being compromised is different. Learn the fraction with its context attached.
WEIGHT IS NOT POWER, and this is the classical result. Political science has studied it since Shapley and Shubik (1954) and Banzhaf (1965): a voter's influence is not proportional to their share but depends on how often they are PIVOTAL - how often their vote turns a losing coalition into a winning one. The consequences are counterintuitive and worth working through. A holder with 49% against two holders with 25.5% each has no more power than either of them under majority rule, since any two of the three win. And a holder above the threshold alone has ALL the power: the others are formally irrelevant regardless of their shares. So a top-10 share can move substantially with no change in who actually decides anything.
TURNOUT IS THE OTHER HALF, and it usually dominates. Concentration measured over VOTES CAST is concentration among those who show up. Token governance turnout is frequently low, so a holder with a modest share of supply can hold a majority of votes cast - meaning effective concentration is typically far worse than a holdings-based figure suggests. Measuring from vote events rather than from balances is the right choice for exactly this reason.
TWO THINGS IT STILL CANNOT SEE. DELEGATION means recorded voting weight may be aggregated from many holders, so a large delegate is not necessarily a large owner - which cuts both ways for interpreting concentration. And one entity holding several addresses appears as several voters, so the coefficient is an UPPER BOUND on entity-level decentralisation, exactly as it is in the staking analysis.
The labels and score bands 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.