There's much to be said about the use of an NFT token--ERC-721, 1155, or other image-capable ERC "Ethereum Request for Comment" standard--versus any ERC20 when it comes to choosing a tool for DAO governance.

From the perspective of those organizing a governance committee, it mitigates much of the problems associated with someone dumping their token.

From an individual user's perspective, you have a floor price and that may be breeched, but even if the price for an NFT token trades below the floor price the reality is that most people are looking at the median, in terms of how did the last, say, 10 sales of this NFT go. Unless there is a cascade against the DAO in terms of favor and people are selling their DAO governance tokens en masse, these one-off sales are unlikely to redefine the floor.

When it comes to the practicality associated with managing a DAO, you have the DAO architecture but simplifying key facets of the operation of the DAO to save on gas is a consideration, even for large DAOs with an abundance of resources. The length of code is aggressive and very often necessitates a high transaction cost that could amount to a few hundred USD, even during periods of low Gwei.

​

DAO Governance NFT: An Emerging Governance Tool

You're also going to have people with $0.01 with of the DAO governance tokens who demand dozens of questions be answered. Having worked in customer service, it's almost always the people who pay the least that are demanding the most in terms of support and attention. Large spenders usually have people who have questions answered for them and, for this reason, won't send a tsunami of questions your way. You want to attract larger spenders, if at all possible, and having a limited supply NFT governance token permits that. It also curates people who have been in the blockchain space for a while and have HODLed along the way such that they have a nice little bag of crypto that they can sprinkle on projects they think have a higher than not possibility to achieve at least one of their use case objectives.

There are projects that fractionalize NFTs so users who are truly committed and want some sort of coverage on an NFT but also want to use that NFT to earn LP earnings in a stablecoin as people trade in and out of an NFT, but it's up to the individual project as to if they want to accommodate questions from owners of these fractionlized NFTs. Helping people along the journal of blockchain discovery is important as those who have businesses that are facing customers in the domain business, as an example, will tell you, there's a fine line between being a business and doormat. Giving users the tools to find answers to their questions on their own is in the best interest of the users, by giving them the tools to find further questions, but also frees up the company to focus on innovating.

There has been an increasingly prominent push to remove email addresses from support pages and instead forward people to a public-facing Discord, Telegram, or offering no support at all. I think the no support push is a bit extreme and the best middle ground can be found in the ticketing system with managed expectations that users will receive a reply within 24-48 hours and not 24-48 minutes. Through managed expectations and both parties able to assert themselves enough to get their needs met, we strike a good balance of customer and corporation cooperation.