Futarchy simulation in DeSci DAOs shows directional alignment with existing governance while eliminating capital-weighted voting pathologies

A peer-reviewed study analyzing 13 DeSci DAOs and running retrospective simulations on VitaDAO proposals found 'full directional alignment under deterministic modeling' — futarchy and existing governance structures would have selected the same proposals when given the same information. However, the mechanism differs fundamentally: current DeSci governance suffers from 'vote buying and strategic collusion by large holders' through capital-weighted voting, while futarchy shifts to mechanisms that 'reward those who are epistemically accurate, rather than economically powerful.' This finding is double-edged: it validates that domain expert judgment in current governance is directionally sound, but also means futarchy's value proposition is process improvement (eliminating plutocratic pathologies) rather than outcome improvement (selecting better projects). The study is simulation-based using prospective modeling, not deployed system evidence, which limits its evidentiary weight compared to MetaDAO's actual deployment data. The paper recommends measurable KPIs and epistemic diversity as design principles, noting futarchy is particularly suited to scientific funding decisions with quantifiable endpoints.