When it comes to the Web3 ecosystem, many people believe that decentralized voting is the ultimate solution — but reality is quite different.

Let's look at the current situation. Projects like certain leading DEXs or some L2 networks rely entirely on tokens for governance. The more tokens you hold, the greater your say. It sounds democratic, but there are hidden pitfalls.

Imagine this: a venture fund holds 10% of a protocol's tokens. Their fund cycle is only three years. The incentive is clear — quickly propose to allocate the treasury, or launch aggressive marketing to pump and dump. Short-term gains double, but at what cost? The protocol’s long-term security is sacrificed. This is the so-called "whale hijacking," a very common scenario.

Is there a way to break the deadlock? APRO’s approach is worth examining.

They implemented a "dual-chamber constitution" — one side is the Token House, representing capital’s voice; the other is the Citizen House, representing the long-term interests of the ecosystem. The two centers of power check each other, and they also introduced an "Optimistic Veto" mechanism, preventing one side from acting unilaterally. This ensures both the efficiency of business decision-making and the preservation of decentralization.

This is no longer just a simple DAO improvement. It’s a genuine evolution of human organizational structure in the Web3 era. Checks and balances, diverse representation, constraint mechanisms — these governance insights have finally been embedded into code.