Vitalik Buterin’s Visionary Blueprint: A Dual-Layer Structure for On-Chain Mechanisms

In a pivotal statement that could redefine blockchain governance, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has outlined a compelling vision for the future of on-chain mechanisms. Speaking via social media platform X on May 26, 2025, Buterin proposed that effective, scalable on-chain design must adopt a rigorous dual-layer structure. This framework fundamentally separates execution from value judgment, aiming to solve long-standing governance challenges in decentralized systems. Consequently, his analysis provides a critical roadmap for developers and communities navigating the next evolution of Web3.

Decoding Vitalik Buterin’s Dual-Layer Structure for On-Chain Mechanisms

Vitalik Buterin’s proposal centers on a clear architectural division. Firstly, the execution layer functions analogously to a prediction market. This layer remains open for participation by any actor. Participants essentially bet on specific outcomes, and the resulting profit or loss mechanisms naturally enforce truth-seeking behavior. For instance, a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) might use this layer to execute a treasury investment based on market consensus about its potential return.

Secondly, the value judgment layer operates under entirely different principles. Buterin insists this layer must be decentralized and pluralistic. Crucially, its structure cannot grant influence based purely on token holdings, a common flaw in existing ‘token-weighted’ voting models. Instead, it must capture diverse human values and preferences. Therefore, this separation prevents financial incentives from corrupting essential social and philosophical decisions within a protocol.

The Critical Need for Separation in Blockchain Governance

Historically, on-chain governance models have struggled with inherent conflicts. Many systems conflate market efficiency with collective value determination. For example, a wealthy holder might vote for a proposal that increases their token’s short-term price, even if it harms the network’s long-term health or community ethos. Buterin’s dual-layer structure directly addresses this conflict. By isolating profit-driven execution from principle-driven judgment, the design creates necessary checks and balances.

Furthermore, this approach aligns with broader trends in institutional design. Similar separations exist in traditional systems, like independent central banks (execution of monetary policy) and democratic legislatures (value judgment on societal priorities). In blockchain contexts, this separation could manifest in distinct smart contract modules or even separate sub-protocols. The execution layer’s clarity and the judgment layer’s pluralism together form a more resilient and legitimate governance core.

Technical Safeguards: Preventing Collusion in Value Judgment

Buterin specifically highlighted the paramount importance of preventing collusion within the value judgment layer. He cited technical solutions like anonymous voting and Minimal Anti-Collusion Infrastructure (MACI). MACI is a cryptographic framework that allows for tallied votes while making it computationally infeasible for a participant to prove how they voted to a third party. This prevents vote buying and coercion.

Additionally, implementing such safeguards requires careful engineering. The table below contrasts the characteristics of Buterin’s proposed two layers:

Real-World Context and Evolution of Buterin’s Governance Thought

This proposal is not an isolated idea but part of a consistent evolution in Buterin’s public writings on governance. Previously, he has critiqued simple coin-voting, explored futarchy (governance by prediction markets), and discussed the challenges of decentralized collusion. The dual-layer structure synthesizes these threads into a more mature, practical framework. It acknowledges that no single mechanism suffices for the complex decisions facing major protocols like Ethereum.

Moreover, the timing is significant. As Layer 2 scaling solutions mature and Ethereum’s ecosystem grows more complex, the demand for robust, on-chain governance tools intensifies. Protocols managing billions in assets require systems that are not only efficient but also perceived as fair and resistant to capture. Buterin’s blueprint offers a principled foundation for building those systems, moving beyond first-generation governance experiments.

Expert Perspectives and Potential Impacts on the Ecosystem

Industry analysts view this as a foundational contribution. “Buterin is mapping constitutional design onto blockchain primitives,” noted Dr. Aisha Chen, a researcher at the Crypto Governance Initiative. “Separating powers is Governance 101 in political science. Applying it on-chain is a logical but profound step.” The potential impacts are wide-ranging:

• For DAOs: Could lead to new governance templates separating treasury management (execution) from mission-direction votes (judgment).
• For Developers: Creates a clear research agenda for building and auditing the two distinct layers.
• For Regulators: Presents a more structured, accountable model of decentralized decision-making.

However, significant challenges remain. Designing a genuinely pluralistic and collusion-resistant judgment layer involves unsolved problems in identity, sybil resistance, and social consensus. The execution layer also requires highly reliable oracle systems and prediction market designs. Therefore, Buterin’s vision sets a direction, not an immediate specification.

Conclusion

Vitalik Buterin’s articulation of a dual-layer structure for on-chain mechanisms provides a crucial conceptual breakthrough for blockchain governance. By rigorously separating execution based on prediction markets from decentralized, pluralistic value judgment, the framework addresses core vulnerabilities in current models. This vision emphasizes that robust on-chain mechanisms require more than technical cleverness; they need thoughtful political and economic architecture. As the ecosystem builds toward this future, Buterin’s blueprint will likely serve as a key reference point for creating more legitimate, effective, and resilient decentralized organizations.

FAQs

Q1: What are the two layers in Vitalik Buterin’s proposed structure?
A1: The two layers are the execution layer, which functions like a prediction market for implementing decisions, and the value judgment layer, which handles ethical and preference-based decisions in a decentralized, non-token-weighted manner.

Q2: Why is separating these layers important for on-chain governance?
A2: Separation prevents the corruption of community values by pure financial incentives. It ensures decisions about a protocol’s direction (value judgment) aren’t simply auctioned to the highest token holder, while still allowing efficient execution of clear tasks.

Q3: What is MACI, and how does it relate to this proposal?
A3: MACI (Minimal Anti-Collusion Infrastructure) is a cryptographic system mentioned by Buterin. It enables anonymous voting where users cannot prove their vote to others, thus preventing vote buying and coercion in the value judgment layer.

Q4: How does this differ from current DAO voting models?
A4: Most current DAO models use token-weighted voting for all decisions, blending execution and judgment. Buterin’s model splits them, using market mechanisms for execution and potentially identity or reputation-based systems for judgment, to avoid wealth-based dominance.

Q5: Could this dual-layer structure be applied to existing blockchains like Ethereum?
A5: Yes, conceptually. It would require building new smart contract standards and governance modules. The structure is a design philosophy that could guide upgrades to Ethereum’s own governance or the design of new applications and Layer 2 protocols built on top of it.