Gardens vs Realms: community voting or Solana DAOs? (2026)

Gardens and Realms address different governance needs. Gardens centers on conviction voting: support for a proposal accumulates over time rather than being decided in one short vote. Communities can use funding, signaling and streaming proposals, and an enforceable Covenant is intended to set rules participants agree to follow. It runs across seven networks, giving communities options beyond a single chain.

Realms is built for DAOs on Solana. Its core tools include proposals and instructions, delegated voting and treasury management. A V2 wizard guides DAO setup, and documentation describes ways to integrate SPL Governance into applications. Its TVL is about $14.2 million, compared with roughly $71,000 for Gardens, but that figure alone does not establish which system fits a particular community. The practical choice is between Gardens' multi-chain, conviction-based model and Realms' Solana DAO toolkit.

Gardens' fee schedule is not published. Users should expect normal gas costs on the chain where their Garden operates; any community-level charges should be checked in the app or documentation before confirming a transaction. Gardens lists no token, and no protocol fee schedule is stated.

Realms says it charges no additional platform fees. That does not mean transactions are free: Solana transaction fees and account rent still apply when users create DAO accounts, proposals or votes. Specific amounts are not published. Realms lists EPCT, but public sources do not explain its role or establish that it is required to use the platform. Compare the costs for the actual actions your DAO plans to take, including account creation, rather than treating either platform as cost-free. For both, network costs depend on the transactions the community carries out.

Neither Gardens nor Realms lists audits. Gardens does not mention a security review, bug bounty or past incidents, and its governance pools can hold community funds. Its documentation and community Covenant matter, but they do not replace independent security assurance. Gardens also spans seven networks, which means communities should consider the contracts and chain-specific risks involved in their setup.

Realms describes its code as open-source and has a Safety page in its documentation, but no audit reports are listed. DAO treasury risk also depends on each DAO's voting thresholds and permissions, as well as wallet and Solana smart-contract risks. A single unverified user report describes an expired realm and charges that did not resolve the issue; it should not be treated as proof of a general problem. Review the rules and security details for the specific DAO before placing meaningful funds under governance.

Choose Gardens if your community wants conviction voting, several proposal formats and deployment options across multiple chains. Its grant-tracking visibility and lack of a required token may also suit groups that want to focus on community funding rather than a platform asset. The trade-offs are a less familiar voting model, a small TVL and no listed audits.

Choose Realms if your organization is building or operating on Solana and needs established DAO basics such as proposals, delegation and treasury management. The setup wizard may make DAO creation more approachable, and the stated lack of extra platform fees is useful, although Solana transaction costs and rent remain. Realms is not a fit for a DAO that needs multi-chain deployment. For either option, check the current rules, costs and contract configuration before moving community funds.