Which crypto tokens should have governance rights? This question is important to builders and policymakers today. Legislators and regulators are trying to decide when a blockchain is truly decentralized vs. when it’s still controlled by a small group of people. Builders are trying to figure out if giving tokenholders voting rights will help or hurt their projects. In my new piece for @a16zcrypto, I unpack the two main reasons for projects to give governance rights to tokenholders. 1️⃣ Decentralization beyond programmability. Blockchains make it possible to lock rules into code, avoiding human control over how the network operates. But often, you can’t pre-program everything. Protocols change, new risks emerge, fees and functionality need updating. If founders are the ones making those calls, regulators will (rightly) say the system is still under human control. But if tokenholders are the ones deciding as a group, then the system can be credibly decentralized. That’s why governance rights matter most for network tokens like UNI or AAVE. They help avoid concentrated human control of the network and keep it neutral. 2️⃣ Community engagement. Not all governance is about decentralization. Sometimes it’s about better decisions or community buy-in. Aave and MakerDAO vote on risk parameters, Optimism and Arbitrum use token votes to allocate grants, NounsDAO and others let members vote on creative projects. These votes keep people invested and let the project leverage the wisdom of the crowd. These two motivations can help guide governance rights across different kinds of tokens, and it should provide a useful starting point for people building or seeking to guide policy around tokens and governance in crypto. Check out the full post in the comments.