ICP’s dominance in decentralised governance is turning heads, and for good reason. DeFi Llama’s latest governance rankings reveal that the top ten projects are all ICP DAOs, a feat no other blockchain has pulled off. From the Network Nervous System (NNS) to OpenChat, KongSwap, and DOLR AI, ICP’s architecture isn’t just competing; it’s redefining what on-chain governance looks like.
The ability to attach executable code to proposals and have the network autonomously update without human intermediaries changes everything. It eliminates the need for traditional admins or devs to push updates, replacing them with transparent, verifiable governance mechanisms. The numbers speak for themselves: NNS leads with over 12,761 proposals, WaterNeuron follows with 2,668, and ICFC stands strong at 1,070. Even Dragginz, rounding out the top ten, has nearly 300 proposals, a volume many projects on other chains struggle to reach.
This model of decentralised governance isn’t just theoretical; it’s operational. The Network Nervous System, for instance, plays a key role in managing the Internet Computer Protocol itself, with governance participants voting on proposals that influence everything from software upgrades to economic parameters. The sheer volume of participation suggests that ICP’s approach to DAO-driven management is resonating with users who want more than symbolic voting power.
Projects like OpenChat highlight how decentralised governance can be integrated into real-world applications. Unlike Web2 messaging platforms where users have no say in policy changes or feature rollouts, OpenChat enables its community to influence the platform’s evolution. This direct involvement creates a user experience driven by consensus rather than corporate decisions made behind closed doors.
The governance rankings also hint at a broader trend: blockchains optimised for on-chain decision-making could gain an edge over those still relying on multi-sig wallets or off-chain governance forums. ICP’s governance model reduces reliance on privileged actors, making systems inherently more resistant to centralisation over time.
This shift raises an interesting question—are traditional DAOs still viable if they require manual intervention from developers? ICP’s success suggests that as smart contract capabilities evolve, the expectation for DAOs will move beyond voting on text proposals to enacting real, automated change. The idea of self-updating applications governed entirely by token holders is no longer speculative; it’s happening now, and the data from DeFi Llama confirms it.
What’s particularly striking is that ICP has managed this without the typical roadblocks faced by other blockchain governance models. Gas fees are negligible, governance participation isn’t restricted by high costs, and proposals execute with minimal friction. These factors contribute to the high volume of proposals and successful executions visible in the rankings.
With ICP’s DAOs dominating DeFi Llama’s governance leaderboard, it’s clear that decentralisation isn’t just a talking point—it’s being implemented at scale. The coming months will show whether other blockchains can adopt similar models or if ICP continues to set the benchmark for what on-chain governance should look like.
