L'outil de gouvernance Ethereum Tally ferme ses portes, Uniswap et Arbitrum recherchent de nouvelles solutions de remplacement

Cryptocurrency governance solution Tally, after operating for over five years, officially announced its closure on March 17. The Tally platform previously provided DAO governance infrastructure for major Ethereum protocols such as Uniswap and Arbitrum, serving over 1 million users and hundreds of organizations, and processing more than $1 billion in payment transactions through its infrastructure.

History and Core Achievements of Tally

Guided by the vision of an “Ethereum Infinite Garden”—a diverse ecosystem composed of protocols and communities requiring complex coordination and governance infrastructure—Tally achieved several key milestones during its nearly five years of operation:

Over $1 billion: Total payment transactions processed via Tally infrastructure

1 million users: Total number of users served by the platform

Hundreds of organizations: Number of protocols and DAOs utilizing Tally governance infrastructure

Top-tier protocol clients: Influential Ethereum protocols like Uniswap and Arbitrum rely on Tally’s governance system

Closure date: Governance applications will begin to shut down gradually by the end of this month, with the interface remaining online for a period during the transition

Reasons for Closure: Token Plan Abandonment and Structural Challenges in Business Model

The decision to close Tally coincided with a critical financial turning point. Bertram revealed that the company initially planned to launch a token generation event (TGE), but after “almost completing the entire process,” they ultimately decided to abandon it. He provided two main reasons:

Market timing is poor: “Doing this in the current market environment makes no sense.” This indicates the company believes the current token market cannot provide sufficient valuation support for governance tool projects.

Unable to fulfill promises: A deeper reason is that Bertram admitted the company “lacked confidence in fulfilling the promises made when selling tokens to token holders.” This candid and rare public statement reflects the fundamental limitations of DAO governance tools as a business model—even platforms with well-known clients and millions of users find it difficult to convert into sustainable token economies.

Bertram’s core judgment was: “That future (Ethereum Infinite Garden) did not materialize, or at least discussing that future now is premature.” When reflecting on Tally’s positioning, he noted that building a VC-backed decentralized protocol governance tool company is currently not feasible under the existing market structure.

Broader Implications for the DeFi Ecosystem

Tally’s closure signals a broader industry message, revealing the commercialization difficulties of DeFi infrastructure layers. Even providers of governance tools for top protocols like Uniswap and Arbitrum face challenges in establishing sustainable VC-supported business models without token mechanisms or sufficient paid demand.

In his farewell post, Bertram wrote: “I am immensely proud of what we have achieved, proud of our team, and proud of the organizations we have worked with. Tally may not be part of the future of cryptocurrencies, but we were part of its development journey.”

Frequently Asked Questions

After Tally’s closure, how will protocols like Uniswap and Arbitrum that used Tally continue their DAO governance?

The Tally team has begun working with enterprise clients to develop transition plans. The interface will remain online until fully shut down. Protocols like Uniswap and Arbitrum will need to migrate to other governance tools (such as Snapshot, Governor Bravo integrated directly, or OpenZeppelin governance frameworks), or build their own governance frontends. Since the underlying smart contracts for DAO governance are not provided by Tally, on-chain governance functions will remain unaffected; the main impact will be on user interfaces for proposal browsing, voting, and execution.

Why is it difficult to establish a sustainable business model for DAO governance tools?

DAO governance tools face the “public goods dilemma”—the governance infrastructure is critical for the safe operation of protocols, but protocols are often unwilling to pay high enough fees for such “utilities,” and investor (token holder) returns are typically aligned with stable, low-growth infrastructure. Additionally, many governance tools’ functions are increasingly built or integrated directly into protocols’ main products, further shrinking the market space for independent governance tool providers.

Does Tally’s closure indicate that DAO governance models are losing momentum?

Tally’s closure mainly reflects challenges specific to a particular business model (VC-backed governance tool companies), rather than a decline in DAO governance concepts themselves. The number of DAOs and governance activities on Ethereum continues to grow, but the way infrastructure is built may be evolving toward more diverse approaches—including protocol self-building, open-source community maintenance, and business designs more precisely aligned with token holder interests.