Is the governance model of HUMA DAO sufficiently decentralized? @Huma Finance 🟣 $HUMA #HumaFinance

As a RWA (Real World Assets) protocol based on the Solana ecosystem, HUMA DAO seeks to balance decentralization and efficiency in its governance model, but there is still room for controversy.

1. Token governance and voting rights distribution

HUMA DAO uses governance tokens (such as PST) for voting, theoretically allowing all token holders to participate in proposals and decisions, in line with the basic framework of decentralized governance. However, its early token distribution may lean towards institutional investors and the core team, leading to the risk of centralized voting power. For example, in some RWA protocols, the top 10% of addresses hold over 60% of the tokens, which may weaken the voice of retail investors.

2. Smart contracts and automated execution

HUMA achieves automatic execution of proposals (such as fund allocation and parameter adjustments) through smart contracts, reducing human intervention and enhancing transparency. However, its core contracts are still deployed by the development team; if they are not fully open-sourced or set up with multi-signature control, there may be centralization vulnerabilities.

3. The trade-off between compliance and off-chain collaboration

HUMA collaborates with licensed financial institutions (such as Arf) and must comply with KYC and anti-money laundering regulations, meaning some decisions may rely on off-chain compliance processes, which somewhat limits complete decentralization.

Conclusion: HUMA DAO is technically close to decentralized standards, but token distribution and compliance requirements present a 'hybrid model' in its governance. In the future, further optimization is needed through more equitable token distribution and on-chain governance tools (such as Snapshot integration).