The more I look at DAO governance, the more I feel the real problem is not low participation.
It is identity ambiguity.
A system does not automatically become more legitimate just because more wallets show up. If one person can appear through multiple addresses, then what looks like community presence may just be presence multiplied by structure. That is exactly the tension the original post raises when it asks whether DAOs are real communities or just collections of wallets trying to look like one.
To me, that is a much deeper issue than voting mechanics.
Because governance is not only about counting signals.
It is about knowing whether those signals represent distinct conviction, repeated noise, or coordinated influence hidden behind fragmented identity.
That is why proof matters here.
Not because proof solves governance on its own, but because governance starts becoming more credible when presence carries something harder to fake than wallet count alone. The post makes this point indirectly by asking what happens when one person can speak through ten different wallets. (binance.com)
Maybe the real crisis in DAO governance is not participation.
Maybe it is the gap between visibility and verifiable presence.