SAMOURAÏ COOPDecentralized governance or the classic model: a comparison
The way decisions are made directly influences a project’s success. Two main approaches stand opposed: decentralized governance, which relies on collective participation and blockchain technology, and the classic model, centralized around a single authority. Here are the main differences:
Key points:
Decentralized governance:
-
Decisions made by stakeholders via tools such as DAOs.
-
Greater transparency thanks to the blockchain.
-
Suited to varied teams and collaborative projects, but can be slow and complex. Classic model:
-
Fast decisions thanks to a clear hierarchy.
-
Less transparency, high administrative costs.
-
Suits rigid organizations or projects requiring strict control.
Quick comparison:
Criterion Classic governance Decentralized governance Decision speed
Fast
Slower
Transparency
Limited
Strong
Cost
High administrative costs
Technical fees (blockchain)
Flexibility
Low
Higher
Risk
Concentration of power
Possible technical vulnerabilities
To choose between these approaches, assess your priorities: speed and control for the classic model, or collaboration and transparency for decentralized governance. A hybrid solution can be a good compromise depending on your project’s size and needs.
Decentralized vs classic governance: comparison of the key criteria
DAOs: the companies of tomorrow? Understand it all in 5 minutes!
1. Decentralized governance
Decentralized governance redistributes power by directly involving stakeholders, instead of centralizing it in a hierarchical structure. In the creative sector, this model often relies on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), where decisions are made collectively by token holders[3][6].
Web3 platforms dedicated to creation have gradually evolved from direct democracy toward representative models. This transition responds to the “voting paradox”, where the complexity of decisions can discourage active participation[6]. These adjustments show how DAOs adapt their mechanisms to meet the specific challenges of the creative sector.
A concrete example is Samouraï Coop. This organization operates as a collective of peers, bringing together directors (such as Yohann Grignou), hackers, artists, researchers from Gno.Land and blockchain developers. Together, they produce films and digital works while upholding principles of shared governance[4].
Transparency, for its part, is guaranteed by the use of blockchain and smart contracts. These tools automate the control of processes and allow every participant to verify the financial flows and the overall workings of the system[2][3]. A study conducted among 52 digital creators revealed that the majority of them perceive blockchain as a lever for improving transparency, while offering fairer compensation systems through tokens[2].
Decentralization also brings local decision-making capacity, allowing peers to react quickly without being slowed down by bureaucracy[1][3]. To reinforce this agility, SubDAOs (specialized subgroups) can be created. These entities, holding authority over specific domains such as finance, legal matters or post-production, allow more targeted and efficient management[3]. This structure also favors the inclusion of non-traditional players, who can bypass the usual editorial filters and meet the expectations of specific niches.
In parallel, token-based systems seek to redistribute revenue more equitably, reducing the often high commissions of centralized platforms[2][3]. Initiatives such as retroactive reward programs, which pay contributors after value has been created, encourage excellence and competition. However, DAO governance remains complex, and the absence of formal mechanisms for resolving disputes still raises doubts. A significant share of creators express a lack of trust in these systems[2]. To meet these challenges, an approach combining indirect accountability and representation can be put in place. Token holders elect representatives who oversee technical experts, ensuring that complex decisions are made by qualified people[6].
Despite these challenges, the advantages offered by decentralized governance make it possible to consider a more in-depth comparison with traditional centralized models.
2. The classic governance model
To understand the nuances between different systems, let’s turn to the classic model, characterized by marked centralization, the opposite of a decentralized approach. Here, power is concentrated at the top. In the context of the French cultural sector, this often translates into complex administrative chains that slow down the implementation of projects. Between 2007 and 2021, the Ministry of Culture saw 8 ministers come and go in less than 14 years, accompanied by numerous changes among chiefs of staff. This instability disrupted strategic continuity [7]. These frequent rotations at the top exposed a structural weakness, holding back long-term initiatives.
Decision-making structure
In traditional organizations, decisions rest mainly with executives or boards of directors, often far removed from operational stakeholders. Andrew Hall and Porter Smith describe a model in which shareholders elect a board tasked with overseeing technical decisions, thus avoiding decision overload [6]. In the French creative sector, this centralization is aggravated by a shortage of staff in the administration, creating bottlenecks. This complicates, for example, the launch of heritage restoration projects [7].
Transparency
In this model, transparency relies on audits, performance reports and centralized budget control. However, 45% of ministerial appropriations are absorbed by the large national institutions and salaries, leaving little room to support new projects or creative players [7]. Moreover, performance contracts are often signed late, well after directors have taken office, which undermines effective management [7]. This centralization also affects the capacity to adapt, a point we will examine later.
Flexibility
The rigid hierarchical structure of the classic model hampers adaptation to rapid change. By assigning authority in a fixed way according to institutional status, it becomes difficult to reorganize roles in the face of change. Andrej Zwitter and Jilles Hazenberg point out that legal frameworks struggle to keep pace with technical innovations [5]. This lack of flexibility is particularly problematic in the creative industries, which demand more fluid approaches. A striking example is the contaminated mineral water scandal at Nestlé Waters in 2024–2025, which revealed the inability of hierarchical structures to react quickly to crises involving major players [8].
Cost
The classic model comes with high costs. In 2020, the Ministry of Culture had nearly 9,400 staff, plus 14,000 employees across its various operators [7]. In 2019, the “Culture” budget represented €2.95 billion, while local authorities devoted around €10 billion to cultural spending [7]. This complex organization consumes a significant share of resources, to the detriment of direct support for creators and innovation.
Advantages and disadvantages
Every governance model, whether classic or decentralized, has its strengths and its limits. Here is a comparison table summing up the main differences:
Criterion Classic governance Decentralized governance Decision speed
Fast – thanks to a centralized authority [13]
Slower – requires consensus, votes and consultations [9][10]
Scalability
Good – supported by solid hierarchical structures [3]
Difficult – frequent decisions at large scale are a problem [9][10]
Cost
High costs – salaries and administrative expenses [13]
Technical costs – blockchain fees but fewer intermediaries [15]
Risk management
Risk of a single point of failure and abuse of power [14]
Risk of Sybil attacks and vulnerabilities in smart contracts [9][10]
Transparency
Limited – decisions often made in private [9]
Strong – votes recorded on the blockchain [9][12]
These differences highlight the strategic choices to be made according to a project’s priorities and constraints. For example, classic governance excels in decision speed, an asset that is often essential for projects requiring immediate responses. Decentralized governance, on the other hand, though slower, offers greater transparency thanks to the blockchain [13].
As Miles Jennings, General Counsel at a16z crypto, explains:
“‘Don’t be evil’ is very different than ‘can’t be evil’ when a CEO decides one course or another” [3]
This quote neatly illustrates the difference between governance based on trust and governance where malicious actions are technically impossible.
However, decentralized governance is not without its flaws. The concentration of power remains a problem: less than 1% of token holders control 90% of the votes. What’s more, internal disagreements are behind 65% of startup failures [10].
Finally, costs also vary greatly. For example, a €5,000 bank transfer can cost around €125, while a Bitcoin transfer comes to just €1. But security remains a challenge: hacks in the Web3 ecosystem caused $718 million in losses in the second quarter of 2022 alone [11].
Use cases in creative and media production
Let’s look at how traditional and emerging models take shape in creative and media production. Classic studios, with their hierarchical structure, centralize decisions, which reduces creators’ autonomy.
Web3, for its part, upends this approach by eliminating intermediaries. Thanks to NFTs and smart contracts, creators can interact directly with their audience while retaining full control over their intellectual property [16]. Lex Sokolin, chief economist at Consensys, explains:
“Web3 is a movement that combines innovations in technology with a revolution in social organization… Decentralized autonomous organizations and community NFTs are leading us towards new ways of working together, creatively collaborating with each other, and growing from the fruits of our labor.” [17]
A concrete example of this transformation is Samouraï Coop. This peer-to-peer network brings together talents from film, technology and design. By combining audiovisual production and dApp development, Samouraï Coop allows its members to take part in strategic decisions while fostering the sharing of knowledge across disciplines.
A study conducted among 52 active digital creators shows that many appreciate the freedom and the revenue redistribution that decentralized platforms offer. However, some remain skeptical of the current conflict-resolution mechanisms [2]. Meanwhile, the global market for enterprise social networks and online communities is expected to grow from $9.37 billion in 2024 to $26.27 billion by 2031, at an annual growth rate of 15.9% [19].
These advances call traditional hierarchical structures into question. Caitlin Keeley, executive creative director at The Local Collective, questions this transition:
The Imagination Practice essay on decentralised creativity asks, in a run of what-ifs, what it would mean to move past old ideas of leadership and hierarchical work toward deeply collaborative ways of working — to leave behind the lone hero’s creativity and go from egosystems to ecosystems. [18]
This reflection illustrates the shift from the concept of “individual genius” to that of “scenius” – a collective intelligence that emerges from a community rather than from an individual [18].
Conclusion
To recap, the choice between decentralized governance and a centralized model rests on several factors: the size of your team, your goals, and the specific nature of your project.
Centralized structures offer advantages for small organizations seeking to optimize speed of execution, maintain strict control over their brand image and reduce costs. Decentralization, on the other hand, is better suited to large structures that require varied expertise, more flexibility, and direct interaction with their community.
For creators, it all comes down to a balance between autonomy and efficiency. If your project demands rigorous control of the brand image, non-disclosure agreements or a clear hierarchy, a centralized model remains relevant. Conversely, if you favor a collaborative organization, resistant to censorship and supported by a wider network of contributors, decentralized governance could be the ideal solution.
Andrew Hall and Porter Smith, of a16z crypto, explain this dynamic in these terms:
“By asking less of voters, representative democracy can actually empower them more, channeling and focusing their activity in a bid to encourage participation and prevent concentrated interest groups from capturing the system” [6]
A hybrid approach, combining decentralization and representation, appears to be a pragmatic solution for complex creative projects.
It is essential to assess your team’s skills and your project’s complexity. A specialized team, following standardized procedures, will work better in a centralized structure. A generalist team, capable of taking on varied creative challenges, will thrive in a decentralized framework. Progressive decentralization can also be a wise strategy: start with centralized control, then gradually transfer power to the community once stability is reached [3].
In the end, success rests on a well-thought-out organization, aligned with the real needs of your creative project.
FAQs
What are the main strengths of decentralized governance in creative projects?
Decentralized governance brings a freedom of action and a transparency that transform the way creative projects are run. With this model, creators and participants can make decisions collectively, whether it is setting the project’s direction, distributing revenue or establishing the rules of participation. All of this happens without depending on a central authority. Blockchain technology plays a key role here, guaranteeing the traceability and verifiability of transactions and votes, thereby strengthening trust within the community.
This model also encourages active collaboration. Every contributor can get directly involved in the design, which opens the door to a diversity of ideas and an enriching creative dynamic. On top of that, this participatory approach strengthens the sense of belonging, because everyone feels they play an active part in the project.
Finally, pooling resources into digital commons lowers financial barriers. This eases access to tools, encourages sharing and allows a more balanced distribution of the benefits. The result: the interests of all the players align on a common goal, that of ensuring collective success.
What are the main cost differences between classic and decentralized governance?
In classic governance, spending is mainly associated with well-established hierarchical structures. This includes executive salaries, administrative fees, the costs of centralized infrastructure such as servers, premises and proprietary software, as well as legal compliance expenses. These costs tend to be fixed and predictable, since they are borne by a central entity that oversees all operations.
Decentralized governance, on the other hand, works differently. Here, the costs are spread across the participants. Thanks to collective decision-making and the use of technologies such as blockchain, centralized administration fees are considerably reduced. However, this model introduces variable costs, such as transaction fees (known as “gas”), smart contract maintenance and rewards for contributors, often distributed in the form of tokens. These expenses make it possible to do without traditional intermediaries, but they depend heavily on network activity and can fluctuate with token volatility.
Classic governance thus relies on high fixed costs, while decentralized governance favors variable fees, better suited to collaborative projects where the community plays a central role.
What are the main challenges of decentralized governance in DAOs?
The decentralized governance of DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) comes with complex challenges, tied to their operating without a central authority and to their use of the blockchain.
First, trust rests on two pillars: the code (smart contracts) and off-chain human interactions. This dual requirement can make coordination delicate. On one side, a reliable technical infrastructure must be guaranteed; on the other, harmonious collaboration between members must be established. Moreover, vulnerabilities in the code or cyberattacks can threaten not only the security of the funds, but also the legitimacy of the decisions made.
Another major obstacle lies in the absence of a clear legal framework. DAOs do not fit easily into traditional legal categories (association, company, etc.), which complicates the definition of members’ responsibilities and the protection of investors. In addition, tokenized governance can create power imbalances. When tokens are concentrated in the hands of a few participants, this can reduce the diversity of voices in decision-making processes. Not to mention the high transaction costs (gas fees) and the slowness of on-chain operations, which hold back the efficiency of decisions.
To get around these obstacles, many DAOs adopt hybrid models, combining technological tools, off-chain governance mechanisms and legal solutions suited to the way they operate.