Shib holders can vote through DAO strategies while Bury 2.0 beta grants voting power without staking rewards.

Shib holders can access SHIB DAO voting through eligible token holdings or voting power created by Bury 2.0 locks. The proposal selects which voting strategy applies. Bury 2.0 locks supported tokens on Shibarium and creates vote-escrowed tokens, or veTokens, representing voting power. Its beta does not pay staking rewards. For the same token amount, longer locks create greater initial voting weight, while early withdrawal carries a 30% penalty on the stake. Identity-based and quadratic voting provide additional strategies. Comparing these methods means matching the proposal’s rule with the balance or identity it accepts, then considering token availability, lock expiry and transaction costs.

Updated - Oct 12th, 2026

SHIB DAO methods and other token-based votes

SHIB DAO supports holdings-based, vote-escrowed, identity-based and quadratic voting, while the other Doggy DAOs use their respective tokens for governance within their own areas of responsibility.

The other DAOs also support multiple voting strategies. Their token-based entries establish which holdings support their own decisions; they do not describe every method each DAO offers. Holding SHIB therefore answers a different eligibility question from holding BONE, TREAT or LEASH.

Token approval and a confirmed lock represent different states

A token approval gives the staking contract a spending allowance, while a successful stake transaction establishes the lock and creates its associated vote-escrowed voting balance.

The staking interface selects the token, amount and lock period before requesting approval where necessary. Bury 2.0 supports SHIB, TREAT, LEASH and BONE on Shibarium. A wallet balance on another network does not become a Shibarium staking balance merely because both networks display the same ticker.

After the stake transaction succeeds, the interface displays a success screen and the staking dashboard lists the position. Those records distinguish an established lock from an outstanding request. The amount committed and its end date describe the position; the associated veToken describes its governance weight.

The Transactions tab records staking activity. An approval entry alone does not establish a completed lock.

Proposal rules determine whether a balance can vote

The proposer chooses the voting strategy, so a holdings balance, a veSHIB balance and an identity satisfy different inputs for a particular SHIB DAO proposal. A token-weighted proposal calculates influence from eligible holdings. A vote-escrowed proposal uses the power attached to locked tokens. Identity-based and quadratic proposals apply different counting rules. These choices change how the proposal calculates a vote, even when its subject remains a community initiative or partnership. Voting power alone also does not establish an accepted ballot. The governance interface displays vote weight; its vote record establishes participation.

Lock length changes the voting power a stake creates

Bury 2.0 derives initial voting power from the amount locked and the lock duration, with its maximum four-year term providing full weight for that amount. Shorter commitments receive proportionally less initial weight. Voting power decays linearly as a Bury 2.0 lock approaches expiry. At expiry, its voting power reaches zero. The underlying stake and the current voting balance consequently measure different things: committed tokens and their remaining governance influence.

The platform recalculates voting power every Thursday. Its staking interface also aligns available expiry dates to Thursdays. A duration label alone does not establish the exact time the position will expire.

Early withdrawal changes the tokens returned

Exiting a Bury 2.0 beta lock before its end date reduces the principal returned.

Bury 2.0 beta applies a 30% early-withdrawal penalty to the staked tokens. The withdrawal mechanism returns the remaining 70% of the stake. The deduction scales with the staked amount, so a larger position loses more tokens under the same percentage rule.

The penalty concerns staked tokens. Network gas covers transaction execution and remains a separate cost.

Waiting until the lock ends avoids this early-withdrawal deduction. It also allows voting power to decay to zero. The same expiry date therefore determines both the end of governance weight and the boundary for the early-exit charge.

Does Bury 2.0 beta pay staking rewards?

Bury 2.0 beta provides voting power only and does not pay staking rewards. A longer lock does not change that status. Its veToken balance represents governance influence, not accumulated interest. ShibaSwap liquidity provision and version-specific reward features concern separate positions with separate requirements. Their earning mechanisms do not establish an APY or reward entitlement for a Bury 2.0 governance lock.

View image file

Transaction inputs determine the cost of a lock

The cost of establishing or changing a Bury 2.0 position follows the on-chain actions required and their gas consumption, alongside the network’s transaction pricing. Shibarium uses BONE for ordinary gas payments. Token approval, staking and withdrawal perform different contract actions, so their costs need not match. An existing sufficient allowance can remove the need for another approval. The number of necessary actions therefore follows the chosen operation and its authorization state.

SHIB DAO processes voting and proposal creation off-chain without gas fees. That governance arrangement does not cover the on-chain transactions used to create a Bury 2.0 lock.

A spending allowance adds a specific contract permission

Approving a staking contract authorizes that spender to move the selected token within its allowance, creating a permission separate from the decision to lock tokens. The relevant details are the token contract, spender and permitted amount. An ERC-20 allowance concerns that token and spender, rather than every asset in the wallet. A larger allowance expands the amount the spender can access; it does not increase the voting power an unstaked balance creates.

Locked tokens also remain exposed to the staking contract’s operation throughout the commitment. Bury 2.0 carries smart contract risk. Withdrawals require the staking contract to execute successfully, so contract faults can interfere with access even when the interface offers withdrawal.

Voting terminology separates weight from proposal acceptance

A veToken balance measures governance weight, while identity rules and quorum requirements determine how a proposal counts participants and whether participation meets its minimum participation requirement.

Balances and the way votes scale

veSHIB identifies vote-escrowed SHIB

The prefix ve means vote escrow. veSHIB identifies voting power associated with a SHIB lock, allowing governance to distinguish that power from ordinary SHIB holdings. A voting balance describes influence under an applicable strategy; it is not a cash reward balance.

Quadratic weight follows a different relationship

Quadratic voting scales weight with the square root of tokens. Increasing the eligible token amount therefore raises influence less rapidly than proportional token voting. The weighting remains token-based even though its scale differs from proportional voting.

Identities and participation thresholds

Identity-based voting gives equal weight per identity regardless of token holdings. Quorum concerns the minimum participation a proposal needs for approval. A proposal can have a defined counting method and still require enough participation before it passes.

Liquid holdings and locked voting power serve different priorities

Unlocked SHIB preserves token availability for holdings-based proposals, while a Bury 2.0 lock commits principal to create time-dependent voting power for proposals using that strategy. The commitment changes both availability and influence. More tokens or a longer term can raise initial vote-escrowed weight, yet the end date governs its decay and early-access terms. A proposal’s selected strategy remains a separate condition: creating veSHIB does not make every proposal accept it.

Identity-based voting removes token amount from its weighting rule, while quadratic voting changes how eligible holdings scale. Neither supplies a universal substitute for the strategy a proposal selects. Where ordinary SHIB holdings satisfy that strategy, keeping them unlocked avoids the additional commitment of a Bury 2.0 lock.

Shib: reader questions