DAOUSDT
DAO Maker / Tether USD
crypto Composite

I went down a rabbit hole on how voting actually works on vote.uniswapfoundation.org and the part nobody really talks about is the relayer.
In a plain OpenZeppelin Governor setup, casting an onchain vote is a transaction, so you pay gas. fine for a whale delegate. but if you're sitting on a few hundred UNI of delegated weight, paying real money to vote on a proposal you might be on the losing side of anyway is a genuine disincentive. participation quietly skews toward people who don't notice the gas.
The gasless flow sidesteps that with a relayer. you sign your ballot as an EIP-712 typed message offchain, a relayer submits it onchain and eats the gas. the vote still settles onchain, you just don't pay for the settlement. catch is somebody has to, and right now that somebody is the Uniswap Foundation covering the relayer cost out of its budget. ENS DAO does the exact same thing for its own governance.
which makes gasless voting a subsidy, not a protocol feature. it holds as long as the foundation keeps funding it. if that line item ever gets trimmed, gasless voting doesn't throw an error, it just silently reverts to gas-gated participation and small-delegate turnout craters. feels like relayer funding should be endowed or treated as a protocol-level cost rather than a discretionary foundation expense, and I haven't seen a proposal that actually does that. given how much of current turnout leans on it, that's a strange gap to leave open.

**Gm frENS, Happy Friday.**
**ETH Daily - May 14, 2026**
* CLARITY Act [advances](https://x.com/BankingGOP/status/2054975087795716133).
* KelpDAO [resumes](https://x.com/KelpDAO/status/2054977337264144768) rsETH withdrawals.
* Coinbase treasury [deployer](https://www.coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-and-hyperliquid-aligning-markets-on-hyperliquid-to-usdc) on Hyperliquid.
* Lido [plans](https://x.com/d_gusakov/status/2054956970575118462) validator consolidation.
* ACDC #178 [minutes](https://christinedkim.substack.com/p/acdc-178).
* Fidelity FILQ [market fund](https://x.com/VivekVentures/status/2054946669083390374).
* Lido DAO [approves](https://x.com/LidoFinance/status/2054978950372208924) Earn protection.
* EIP-8025: [optional execution proofs](https://x.com/ladislaus0x/status/2054880667293339966).
* PSE: [problems](https://pse.dev/blog/private-transfers-engineering-user-research) in private transfers.
* Vitalik [on MTSlive](https://x.com/MTSlive/status/2054991439654965284).
* Ethereum Security QF [final day](https://x.com/ethereumfndn/status/2054969464387436576).
* Ethereum Hub [in Libson](https://x.com/EFetheverywhere/status/2054934350702026995).
* Etherscan [adds](https://x.com/etherscan/status/2054890415317512399) snakey charts.
* Aave [bug bounty](https://x.com/StaniKulechov/status/2054940212455789009).
* Kraken [migrates](https://x.com/krakenfx/status/2054941472512717301) to CCIP.
* Zerion [CLI](https://x.com/zerion/status/2054947495512510546) for agents.
Read more: [https://ethdaily.io/947](https://ethdaily.io/947)

the part that gets lost here is that Tally was an interface, not the governance itself. the governance for Uniswap, ENS, Arbitrum lives in OpenZeppelin Governor contracts that are still onchain and still getting votes regardless of which frontend renders them. a frontend company winding down is a counterparty moment, not an endgame - the contracts keep running and someone else serves the UI. so 'Tally is dead' and 'DAO governance is dead' are two very different claims, and only the first one is actually true. on the participation point the top comment makes, it's real, but a chunk of it is mechanical: voting onchain costs gas, so turnout gets gated by whether anyone will sponsor a gasless relay. the DAOs that fixed that (ENS and Uniswap both sponsor relayers indefinitely) see meaningfully higher participation. that doesn't make governance a mass-participation activity, but 'nobody votes' is partly a UX bill nobody wanted to pay.

Kelp DAO contracts never failed; the vulnerability stemmed entirely from LayerZero underlying infrastructure.
The mass exodus we are seeing today, with institutions like Kraken and giants like Solv abandoning LayerZero technology, confirms that the problem was systemic.

governance-controlled moderation at slow vote cadence is a dead end for fast-response actions specifically, but the standard fix on OZ Governor is to not have the full DAO execute the takedown. split it: a small elected security council (constrained multisig) can act in seconds for clear-cut abuse, the DAO votes only on policy and on retroactively ratifying or revoking council actions. optimistic patterns also work, where a moderator role removes content unilaterally and the action only sticks if not vetoed inside a 24h window. role management contracts scoped per action class keep the council from creeping outside its lane. on your reward formula the gameability concern is real, the usual mitigation is making relay rewards require a stake that's slashable on missed cross-checks, not just trusting bytes-received reports.

the numbers from 2026 so far are genuinely scary:
* kelp DAO: $293M drained through their layerzero bridge. single exploit hit 20+ chains because one bridge contract held the reserves for all of them
* drift protocol: $285M. north korean hackers spent 6 months social engineering their way in
* 1inch/trustedvolumes: $6.7M last week. same attacker from the 2025 hack came back and found a new door
* april 2026 alone: $600M+ stolen across 28-30 separate incidents. worst single month in crypto history
40+ protocols have shut down or entered wind-down mode this year. aave froze rsETH markets and lost $6 billion in TVL from panic withdrawals even though their contracts weren't touched.
the pattern isn't random. bridges keep producing the biggest single-day losses because they're designed as massive honeypots. $22 billion in bridge TVL as of march, each one a single point of failure for every protocol downstream.
what bugs me is the response is always the same. "we need better audits." "we need better monitoring." nobody is questioning whether the bridge model itself is fundamentally broken.
bridges work by locking assets on one chain and minting representations on another through a trusted intermediary (multisig, oracle network, validator set). every one of these is an attack surface. kelp's bridge got spoofed because layerzero's messaging layer was fooled into thinking the withdrawal was legitimate.
the alternative exists. data availability layers can handle cross-chain verification without lock-and-mint. instead of one contract holding $293M that can be drained in a single tx, you verify data availability cryptographically across chains. no honeypot, no single point of failure, no trusted intermediary to spoof.
DA layers like avail, celestia, eigenda are live and production ready. the tech isn't theoretical anymore. it's an adoption problem not a research problem.
at what point do we stop patching bridges and start replacing them?