What Is Snapshot Voting? Definition, How It Works, and Why DAOs Use Off-Chain Governance

Definition

Snapshot is an off-chain governance platform that allows DAO members to vote on proposals without paying blockchain transaction (gas) fees. Votes are signed messages stored on a decentralised storage network (IPFS) rather than executed as on-chain transactions. The platform uses a snapshot of token balances at a specific block height to determine voting power, preventing manipulation through last-minute token transfers or flash loan attacks.

Snapshot has become the most widely used governance platform in the DAO ecosystem, with thousands of organisations using it for governance decisions ranging from informal sentiment polls to binding treasury allocations.

How Snapshot Works

The Snapshot voting process follows a defined workflow.

Space creation. A DAO creates a Snapshot space — a dedicated governance interface configured with the DAO’s governance parameters. The space specifies the governance token, the blockchain network, the voting strategies (how voting power is calculated), the proposal validation rules (who can create proposals), and the voting settings (duration, quorum, approval threshold).

Proposal submission. An authorised member creates a proposal within the space. The proposal includes a title, description, discussion link, and voting options. The proposer specifies the snapshot block — the block height at which token balances are recorded for voting purposes.

Voting. Token holders cast votes by signing a message with their wallet. The signature proves that the voter controls the address holding the governance tokens, and the vote is recorded on IPFS. No on-chain transaction is required, meaning voting is gasless — it costs nothing to participate.

Vote tallying. When the voting period ends, Snapshot calculates the results based on the signed votes and the token balances at the snapshot block. The results are publicly visible and verifiable — anyone can check the signatures, token balances, and vote tallies.

Execution. Snapshot itself does not execute governance decisions on-chain. If the vote requires on-chain action — a treasury transfer, parameter change, or smart contract upgrade — a separate mechanism must be used to implement the result. This is typically handled through a multi-sig that executes the approved action, or through integration with an on-chain execution module.

Voting Strategies

Snapshot supports numerous voting strategies that determine how voting power is calculated.

Token-weighted voting assigns one vote per token held. This is the simplest and most common strategy.

Quadratic voting calculates voting power as the square root of token holdings, reducing the dominance of large holders.

Delegation-weighted voting incorporates delegated voting power, allowing delegates to vote with the combined weight of their own holdings plus delegations.

Multi-chain voting aggregates token balances across multiple blockchain networks, accommodating DAOs whose tokens are deployed on multiple chains.

NFT-based voting assigns voting power based on NFT ownership rather than fungible token holdings. Each qualifying NFT confers a defined number of votes.

Custom strategies can be created using JavaScript, allowing DAOs to implement bespoke voting power calculations that reflect their specific governance design.

Advantages of Off-Chain Voting

Snapshot’s off-chain approach addresses several pain points of on-chain governance.

Zero gas costs eliminate the financial barrier to voting. On Ethereum mainnet, an on-chain governance vote can cost ten to fifty dollars in gas fees — a prohibitive expense for holders with small positions. Gasless voting ensures that participation is accessible regardless of token balance.

Speed and flexibility. Off-chain voting can be configured and launched quickly, without deploying or modifying smart contracts. DAOs can experiment with different voting strategies, quorum requirements, and proposal formats without incurring development costs.

Higher participation. The combination of zero cost, simple interface, and wallet-based authentication has produced consistently higher participation rates on Snapshot compared to on-chain governance systems. Removing the gas barrier is the single most effective intervention for reducing voter apathy.

Spam resistance. The snapshot mechanism — recording balances at a past block — prevents flash loan attacks and last-minute token accumulation. An attacker cannot borrow tokens, vote, and return them within a single block because the voting power is determined by a historical balance.

Limitations and Trade-Offs

Off-chain voting involves trade-offs that DAOs must evaluate carefully.

Non-binding execution. Snapshot votes do not automatically trigger on-chain actions. The gap between vote result and on-chain execution requires a trusted intermediary — typically a multi-sig — to implement the governance decision. This intermediary could, in theory, refuse to execute a vote or execute it incorrectly. The trust assumption undermines the trustless properties that on-chain governance provides.

Several solutions address this gap. Snapshot X (formerly SafeSnap) integrates Snapshot with on-chain execution modules, allowing approved proposals to trigger on-chain transactions through an oracle. oSnap by UMA provides a similar bridge, using optimistic verification to connect off-chain votes with on-chain execution.

Reduced finality. On-chain votes produce deterministic, immutable outcomes — once the governance contract executes the result, it cannot be reversed (absent a separate governance action). Off-chain votes produce results that are advisory until executed on-chain, introducing a window of uncertainty.

Centralised infrastructure. While votes are stored on IPFS, the Snapshot platform itself — the interface, the vote tallying logic, and the strategy execution — represents a centralised dependency. If Snapshot were compromised or became unavailable, DAOs relying on it for governance would need to migrate to alternative platforms.

Limited composability. On-chain governance outcomes can be composed with other smart contracts — a vote can trigger a treasury transfer that triggers a swap that triggers a deposit. Off-chain votes lack this composability because they exist outside the smart contract execution environment.

Best Practices

DAOs using Snapshot should consider several operational practices.

Set snapshot blocks in the future relative to proposal creation — typically at the start of the voting period — to prevent proposers from accumulating tokens between proposal creation and the snapshot.

Integrate with on-chain execution modules (Snapshot X, oSnap, or custom implementations) to reduce the trust assumption in vote execution.

Publish clear governance documentation specifying which Snapshot votes are binding, what execution mechanism is used, and what recourse exists if execution diverges from the vote result.

Use Snapshot for governance decisions where gasless participation and broad accessibility are more important than trustless execution. Reserve on-chain governance for high-stakes decisions — smart contract upgrades, large treasury movements, and constitutional changes — where trustless execution is essential.

Donovan Vanderbilt is a contributing editor at ZUG DAO, the decentralised governance intelligence publication of The Vanderbilt Portfolio AG, Zurich. His work examines the intersection of governance design, institutional economics, and on-chain coordination.