We propose the development of an ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard to support ongoing governance initiatives, enhance transparency, and provide comprehensive insights into governance data. The dashboard aims to track voting behavior, safeguard against potential governance attacks, and measure the success of initiatives like Redelegation Week. We are seeking comments and support from the Arbitrum community to develop this analytic dashboard.
The Arbitrum community needs a robust, user-friendly tool to simplify the understanding of complex governance dynamics, track the effectiveness of initiatives, and ensure transparency and accountability. This dashboard will foster inclusive, data-driven decision-making, enhancing community governance effectiveness.
Differentiation from Existing Solutions:
Our Arbitrum Governance Analytics Dashboard aims to fill the gaps in existing platforms by providing more detailed metrics for enhanced understanding and transparency:
1. Concentration of Voting Power Metrics: Our dashboard sheds light on the distribution of voting power among small and large holders, their engagement in delegation, and the source of delegates’ voting power. It identifies potential centralization of power and offers insights into each delegate’s influence.
2. Proposal Metrics: We offer a detailed view of proposal activities, including the ratio of unique proposers to total proposals and the distribution by type. We classify proposal results as contentious, generally accepted, or normal to help stakeholders understand voting dynamics.
3. Participation Metrics: Our focus is on delivering granular metrics on the participation of small and large holders. This comprehensive analysis identifies underrepresented groups and informs strategies for more balanced and inclusive participation.
Our dashboard is an analytical tool designed to provide a comprehensive view of Arbitrum’s governance process, highlighting underrepresented holders or delegates and the overall power structure. We are committed to iterative development, refining our dashboard based on community feedback to ensure it remains valuable and relevant for all stakeholders.
This proposal aligns with the Arbitrum community's mission and guiding values by enhancing transparency, promoting data-driven decision-making, and supporting the effectiveness of governance processes. By providing near real-time monitoring and detailed analytics, the dashboard will help the community make informed decisions and maintain a secure governance framework.
To ensure the success of the Redelegation Week program, our dashboard will monitor delegate change in their voting power and track the overall votable supply.This user-friendly interface will display the number of delegates joining and the increase in delegations, providing clear insights into the program's success.
Our dashboard will help optimize the voting schedule by identifying periods when delegates are most active. By aligning voting schedules with peak voting activity, we can support the predictability proposal from Entropy, adjusting dates based on these insights to enhance participation and predictability.
To safeguard against potential governance attacks, our dashboard will help monitor unusual delegation behavior, such as sudden changes in delegate voting power into their respective delegate’s voting activity for certain proposals, helping to maintain a secure and robust governance framework.
Our dashboard will complement the auditing of the Delegate Incentive program's results. By providing comprehensive analytics and near real-time delegate participation tracking, it ensures transparency and accountability, allowing for accurate assessment and evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
The ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard will be developed by Curia Lab, leveraging our extensive expertise in DAO governance and data analysis. The dashboard will include features:
Concentration of Voting Power Metrics
Proposal Metrics
Participation Metrics Delegate Metrics
Delegated Table: Ranking, Delegate Name, Delegated token (%Voting power), Delegating address, Voting turnout, Most Recent 5 votes. Voter Turnout: Tracking individual participation activeness, refers to their recent proposals participation. Delegate Profile: Voter Behavior:
Trend Voting Period Density: Heat map indicating voting density during various time periods. Voting Momentum: Indicates the distribution of voter activity across the entirety of the proposals’ voting phase, divided into four equal quartiles: ‘early’, ‘normal’, ‘late’, and ‘ending’.
Dashboard Metrics
Holder Metrics
1. Research & Ideation:
2. Design & Mockups:
3. Development Phase 1:
4. Development Phase 2:
5. Testing & Iteration:
6. Launch & Maintenance:
7. Monthly Report:
Infrastructure Costs: This includes all the foundational services needed to support the dashboard’s operation.
Maintenance and Operational Costs: These are ongoing costs required to keep the service up-to-date and running smoothly.
Data Management Costs: Expenses related to handling and storing the data used by the dashboard.
Third-Party Services: Costs for services provided by external entities that enhance the functionality of the dashboard.
Overhead Costs: General administrative and operational expenses not directly tied to specific technical resources.
Data Interpretation and Analysis: Simplify complex metrics into clear insights and identify trends, patterns, and anomalies.
Focus on Key Governance Metrics: Voting patterns, voter performance, proposal outcomes, and voting power shifts.
Actionable Insights: Provide recommendations for increased participation and governance improvements.
Customized Content: Tailor reports to community interests and feedback.
Example of our report from SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread
Curia Lab: Our team brings extensive expertise in research, data analysis, and experience in DAO and decentralized governance. We have actively served as delegates in multiple DAOs, deeply engaging in governance, data analysis, and operational activities. We have built governance data-driven tools for notable projects like the Optimism Collective (Optimism Dashboard) and SafeDAO (SafeDAO Dashboard) and are keen on developing similar tools for ArbitrumDAO as well.
We look forward to your feedback and suggestions!
We propose the development of an ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard to support ongoing governance initiatives, enhance transparency, and provide comprehensive insights into governance data. The dashboard aims to track voting behavior, safeguard against potential governance attacks, and measure the success of initiatives like Redelegation Week. We are seeking comments and support from the Arbitrum community to develop this analytic dashboard.
The Arbitrum community needs a robust, user-friendly tool to simplify the understanding of complex governance dynamics, track the effectiveness of initiatives, and ensure transparency and accountability. This dashboard will foster inclusive, data-driven decision-making, enhancing community governance effectiveness.
Differentiation from Existing Solutions:
Our Arbitrum Governance Analytics Dashboard aims to fill the gaps in existing platforms by providing more detailed metrics for enhanced understanding and transparency:
1. Concentration of Voting Power Metrics: Our dashboard sheds light on the distribution of voting power among small and large holders, their engagement in delegation, and the source of delegates’ voting power. It identifies potential centralization of power and offers insights into each delegate’s influence.
2. Proposal Metrics: We offer a detailed view of proposal activities, including the ratio of unique proposers to total proposals and the distribution by type. We classify proposal results as contentious, generally accepted, or normal to help stakeholders understand voting dynamics.
3. Participation Metrics: Our focus is on delivering granular metrics on the participation of small and large holders. This comprehensive analysis identifies underrepresented groups and informs strategies for more balanced and inclusive participation.
Our dashboard is an analytical tool designed to provide a comprehensive view of Arbitrum’s governance process, highlighting underrepresented holders or delegates and the overall power structure. We are committed to iterative development, refining our dashboard based on community feedback to ensure it remains valuable and relevant for all stakeholders.
This proposal aligns with the Arbitrum community's mission and guiding values by enhancing transparency, promoting data-driven decision-making, and supporting the effectiveness of governance processes. By providing near real-time monitoring and detailed analytics, the dashboard will help the community make informed decisions and maintain a secure governance framework.
To ensure the success of the Redelegation Week program, our dashboard will monitor delegate change in their voting power and track the overall votable supply.This user-friendly interface will display the number of delegates joining and the increase in delegations, providing clear insights into the program's success.
Our dashboard will help optimize the voting schedule by identifying periods when delegates are most active. By aligning voting schedules with peak voting activity, we can support the predictability proposal from Entropy, adjusting dates based on these insights to enhance participation and predictability.
To safeguard against potential governance attacks, our dashboard will help monitor unusual delegation behavior, such as sudden changes in delegate voting power into their respective delegate’s voting activity for certain proposals, helping to maintain a secure and robust governance framework.
Our dashboard will complement the auditing of the Delegate Incentive program's results. By providing comprehensive analytics and near real-time delegate participation tracking, it ensures transparency and accountability, allowing for accurate assessment and evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
The ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard will be developed by Curia Lab, leveraging our extensive expertise in DAO governance and data analysis. The dashboard will include features:
Concentration of Voting Power Metrics
Proposal Metrics
Participation Metrics Delegate Metrics
Delegated Table: Ranking, Delegate Name, Delegated token (%Voting power), Delegating address, Voting turnout, Most Recent 5 votes. Voter Turnout: Tracking individual participation activeness, refers to their recent proposals participation. Delegate Profile: Voter Behavior:
Trend Voting Period Density: Heat map indicating voting density during various time periods. Voting Momentum: Indicates the distribution of voter activity across the entirety of the proposals’ voting phase, divided into four equal quartiles: ‘early’, ‘normal’, ‘late’, and ‘ending’.
Dashboard Metrics
Holder Metrics
1. Research & Ideation:
2. Design & Mockups:
3. Development Phase 1:
4. Development Phase 2:
5. Testing & Iteration:
6. Launch & Maintenance:
7. Monthly Report:
Infrastructure Costs: This includes all the foundational services needed to support the dashboard’s operation.
Maintenance and Operational Costs: These are ongoing costs required to keep the service up-to-date and running smoothly.
Data Management Costs: Expenses related to handling and storing the data used by the dashboard.
Third-Party Services: Costs for services provided by external entities that enhance the functionality of the dashboard.
Overhead Costs: General administrative and operational expenses not directly tied to specific technical resources.
Data Interpretation and Analysis: Simplify complex metrics into clear insights and identify trends, patterns, and anomalies.
Focus on Key Governance Metrics: Voting patterns, voter performance, proposal outcomes, and voting power shifts.
Actionable Insights: Provide recommendations for increased participation and governance improvements.
Customized Content: Tailor reports to community interests and feedback.
Example of our report from SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread
Curia Lab: Our team brings extensive expertise in research, data analysis, and experience in DAO and decentralized governance. We have actively served as delegates in multiple DAOs, deeply engaging in governance, data analysis, and operational activities. We have built governance data-driven tools for notable projects like the Optimism Collective (Optimism Dashboard) and SafeDAO (SafeDAO Dashboard) and are keen on developing similar tools for ArbitrumDAO as well.
We look forward to your feedback and suggestions!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/49?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/49?u=ermia
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/46?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/45
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/4?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/44?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/43?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/19?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/41?u=tane
Proposal should be funded through GP - in favour of the idea and would like to see how they'd execute on it - against the avenue for funding
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/40?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/3?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/36?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/35?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/34?u=frisson
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/24?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/22?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/6
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/19?u=larva
More intuitive tools can simplify the work.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/46?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/45
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/4?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/44?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/43?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/19?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/41?u=tane
Proposal should be funded through GP - in favour of the idea and would like to see how they'd execute on it - against the avenue for funding
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/40?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/3?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/36?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/35?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/34?u=frisson
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/24?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/22?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/6
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrumdao-governance-analytics-dashboard/25869/19?u=larva
More intuitive tools can simplify the work.
I agree with you ..This will help to keep the governance proposal transparent and accurate to some extent
I agree with you ..This will help to keep the governance proposal transparent and accurate to some extent
Interesting proposal. I'm still interested in the $10k per month and how the monthly reports will be structured. Will this be integrated into Tally in some way? Or will the data be spread across different front-ends? I'm asking because I think it's important for the information to be accessible in one place to make it easier for members and interested parties. How is this going to happen? Will we have a way to implement in other front-ends also?
Exciting initiative to enhance transparency with the Governance Analytics Dashboard. How will the dashboard ensure real-time accuracy and user accessibility? Are there any plans to integrate community feedback into its development?
I'm a big fan, thank you very much for the great proposal.
Interesting proposal. I'm still interested in the $10k per month and how the monthly reports will be structured. Will this be integrated into Tally in some way? Or will the data be spread across different front-ends? I'm asking because I think it's important for the information to be accessible in one place to make it easier for members and interested parties. How is this going to happen? Will we have a way to implement in other front-ends also?
Exciting initiative to enhance transparency with the Governance Analytics Dashboard. How will the dashboard ensure real-time accuracy and user accessibility? Are there any plans to integrate community feedback into its development?
I'm a big fan, thank you very much for the great proposal.
@Curia developed a Governance Analytics Dashboard in Safe and its proven very useful. For Arbiturm I will add even more value as the team(governance participants) is much bigger.
Thank you very much for the great proposal. The UX/UI is beautiful. I'm confident that this will help advance governance to some extent.
I'd like to ask a few additional questions:
Thank you very much for the great proposal. The UX/UI is beautiful. I'm confident that this will help advance governance to some extent.
I'd like to ask a few additional questions:
Regarding the current Governance Dashboard, as we understand it, users have quite a variety of choices. How does the team view the advantages and disadvantages of the above proposal compared to other current options?
In terms of numerical targets, such as the number of users, number of transactions, etc., what targets does the team have? What plans are there to reach these goals?
@Curia developed a Governance Analytics Dashboard in Safe and its proven very useful. For Arbiturm I will add even more value as the team(governance participants) is much bigger.
Thank you very much for the great proposal. The UX/UI is beautiful. I'm confident that this will help advance governance to some extent.
I'd like to ask a few additional questions:
Thank you very much for the great proposal. The UX/UI is beautiful. I'm confident that this will help advance governance to some extent.
I'd like to ask a few additional questions:
Regarding the current Governance Dashboard, as we understand it, users have quite a variety of choices. How does the team view the advantages and disadvantages of the above proposal compared to other current options?
In terms of numerical targets, such as the number of users, number of transactions, etc., what targets does the team have? What plans are there to reach these goals?
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/710
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/710
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
Our team voted For this proposal. Data points related to governance activity is very much a hit or miss topic. We’ve personally seen a slew of products released over the past three years regarding this subject matter. Most of them have since been deprecated because nobody wants to pay for these services. The frequency with which delegates review these statistics also varies. They only review such information when conducting a report or review, which means such data only needs to be queried on a periodic basis. That being said, all of this also hinges on one important point: the type of DAO these metrics are being provided for. Dapps usually have smaller delegate bases and therefore don’t need complex datapoints. Most info can be inferred, and the stats are often statistically insignificant. However, with regards to an ecosystem like Arbitrum, we aren’t just dealing with a dapp. There are numerous delegates, lots of votes, various perspectives, and decent dispersion in voting power. The entry for Arb DAO is also lower relative to many other DAOs, so these dashboards are helpful for new folks. To those ends, we are voting For this proposal.
Voted FOR on the temp check. We need multiple sources of solid data on governance.
I'm not sure if this is the right solution, but I do think that this sends the right signal that governance tooling needs to be explored and problems need to be reviewed for better solutions.
I voted against this proposal as I believe it could be addressed through a grants program.
I voted against the proposal because it conflicts with other existing dashboards, including Karma. In general, I oppose creating multiple governance dashboards, as it complicates governance, especially for new delegates. While I find your dashboard complementary to Karma and appreciate its more user-friendly interface, I still voted against the proposal due to the complexity introduced by having multiple dashboards. However, I would like to see the Karma dashboard further developed, potentially in collaboration with you, as I admire your previous designs and work.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integrating with the Unistaker platform and focusing on active delegate scoring.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integrating with the Unistaker platform and focusing on active delegate scoring.
We consider this proposal important for improving Arbitrum's governance security and sustainability.
As the ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, the Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integration with the Unistaker platform and a focus on active delegate scoring. We consider this proposal vital for improving Arbitrum's governance security and sustainability.
I voted against this proposal, agreed that it overlaps with other active tools (such as Karma) and in consequence its benefit decreases. The idea to channel this proposal through existing grant programmes such as PL and QB also seems good.
We want to thanks everyone who engaged in the discussion around our proposal. Your participation and feedback are incredibly important to us, and we truly appreciate your involvement.
Although we didn’t pass the Snapshot vote, we see this as a valuable opportunity to listen and learn from the community. Your feedback has given us clear guidance on how we should move forward. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
We want to thanks everyone who engaged in the discussion around our proposal. Your participation and feedback are incredibly important to us, and we truly appreciate your involvement.
Although we didn’t pass the Snapshot vote, we see this as a valuable opportunity to listen and learn from the community. Your feedback has given us clear guidance on how we should move forward. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
Aligning with Existing Initiatives: Many of you noted that our proposal overlaps with existing tools. We totally get this concern, and we’re now exploring ways to better integrate our ideas with what’s already in place.
Several delegates also suggested that smaller budget requests like ours should go through channels such as the Domain Allocator. We’re planning to explore this route to make sure we can bring our ideas to life and provide real value to the DAO.
Thank you once again for your support, feedback, and engagement. We’re excited to keep working together with the community as we continue to build and contribute to ArbitrumDAO.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Arbitrum DAO Governance Analytics Dashboard.”
In our understanding, the current proposal aims to create a governance-related dashboard that aggregates and elaborates on the on-chain data available from Tally. While some quality-of-life upgrades, such as analysis of voting power concentration or participation metrics, will be included, we do not believe that these proposed features justify the creation of an additional governance dashboard, nor do we think it should be financed by the DAO.
Voting against this proposal because of crossover with Karma services. Think that there are specific use cases for a project like this such as to avoid gov attacks or inspect governance tangential areas like grant usage, rather than the current generalist scope of the project. Some of the individual delegate metrics may be redundant or not particularly useful to many unless they can be integrated into the delegate incentive program rewards calculations, instead of just complementary dashboards as an audit.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
As others have mentioned, this proposal is definitely enticing and the dashboard UI shows promise. Furthermore, we acknowledge that it might be a better time to propose this after the delegate incentive program has ended its trial. And as many have said, there is the concern that this would complicate the current delegate incentive program with our ongoing partnership with Karma. While this could introduce some complexity, it does provide the DAO with more data about voter dynamics that Karma currently does not have implemented, and could be of use in the long run, especially if we approach a path to integrate some of this data into actionable insights with Tally. Voting concentration and participation are important metrics to the DAO, as several of our recent proposal efforts have been geared toward increasing participation. With that in mind, if this proposal does not go through, we would like to see this return but reworked toward the delegate incentive program angle or see Curia go through the Domain Allocator channels.
Voting for this proposal at the temp check stage but really as a sign of support that we need better tooling in this area.
This proposal isn't going to pass but i would still recommend the team approach the various grant programs (Plurality and Questbook) or the foundation to see if there is a more limited initiative that could be taken up while the DAO progresses its thinking on how best to appraoch a unified governance dashboard.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
Our team voted For this proposal. Data points related to governance activity is very much a hit or miss topic. We’ve personally seen a slew of products released over the past three years regarding this subject matter. Most of them have since been deprecated because nobody wants to pay for these services. The frequency with which delegates review these statistics also varies. They only review such information when conducting a report or review, which means such data only needs to be queried on a periodic basis. That being said, all of this also hinges on one important point: the type of DAO these metrics are being provided for. Dapps usually have smaller delegate bases and therefore don’t need complex datapoints. Most info can be inferred, and the stats are often statistically insignificant. However, with regards to an ecosystem like Arbitrum, we aren’t just dealing with a dapp. There are numerous delegates, lots of votes, various perspectives, and decent dispersion in voting power. The entry for Arb DAO is also lower relative to many other DAOs, so these dashboards are helpful for new folks. To those ends, we are voting For this proposal.
Voted FOR on the temp check. We need multiple sources of solid data on governance.
I'm not sure if this is the right solution, but I do think that this sends the right signal that governance tooling needs to be explored and problems need to be reviewed for better solutions.
I voted against this proposal as I believe it could be addressed through a grants program.
I voted against the proposal because it conflicts with other existing dashboards, including Karma. In general, I oppose creating multiple governance dashboards, as it complicates governance, especially for new delegates. While I find your dashboard complementary to Karma and appreciate its more user-friendly interface, I still voted against the proposal due to the complexity introduced by having multiple dashboards. However, I would like to see the Karma dashboard further developed, potentially in collaboration with you, as I admire your previous designs and work.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integrating with the Unistaker platform and focusing on active delegate scoring.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integrating with the Unistaker platform and focusing on active delegate scoring.
We consider this proposal important for improving Arbitrum's governance security and sustainability.
As the ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, the Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integration with the Unistaker platform and a focus on active delegate scoring. We consider this proposal vital for improving Arbitrum's governance security and sustainability.
I voted against this proposal, agreed that it overlaps with other active tools (such as Karma) and in consequence its benefit decreases. The idea to channel this proposal through existing grant programmes such as PL and QB also seems good.
We want to thanks everyone who engaged in the discussion around our proposal. Your participation and feedback are incredibly important to us, and we truly appreciate your involvement.
Although we didn’t pass the Snapshot vote, we see this as a valuable opportunity to listen and learn from the community. Your feedback has given us clear guidance on how we should move forward. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
We want to thanks everyone who engaged in the discussion around our proposal. Your participation and feedback are incredibly important to us, and we truly appreciate your involvement.
Although we didn’t pass the Snapshot vote, we see this as a valuable opportunity to listen and learn from the community. Your feedback has given us clear guidance on how we should move forward. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
Aligning with Existing Initiatives: Many of you noted that our proposal overlaps with existing tools. We totally get this concern, and we’re now exploring ways to better integrate our ideas with what’s already in place.
Several delegates also suggested that smaller budget requests like ours should go through channels such as the Domain Allocator. We’re planning to explore this route to make sure we can bring our ideas to life and provide real value to the DAO.
Thank you once again for your support, feedback, and engagement. We’re excited to keep working together with the community as we continue to build and contribute to ArbitrumDAO.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Arbitrum DAO Governance Analytics Dashboard.”
In our understanding, the current proposal aims to create a governance-related dashboard that aggregates and elaborates on the on-chain data available from Tally. While some quality-of-life upgrades, such as analysis of voting power concentration or participation metrics, will be included, we do not believe that these proposed features justify the creation of an additional governance dashboard, nor do we think it should be financed by the DAO.
Voting against this proposal because of crossover with Karma services. Think that there are specific use cases for a project like this such as to avoid gov attacks or inspect governance tangential areas like grant usage, rather than the current generalist scope of the project. Some of the individual delegate metrics may be redundant or not particularly useful to many unless they can be integrated into the delegate incentive program rewards calculations, instead of just complementary dashboards as an audit.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
As others have mentioned, this proposal is definitely enticing and the dashboard UI shows promise. Furthermore, we acknowledge that it might be a better time to propose this after the delegate incentive program has ended its trial. And as many have said, there is the concern that this would complicate the current delegate incentive program with our ongoing partnership with Karma. While this could introduce some complexity, it does provide the DAO with more data about voter dynamics that Karma currently does not have implemented, and could be of use in the long run, especially if we approach a path to integrate some of this data into actionable insights with Tally. Voting concentration and participation are important metrics to the DAO, as several of our recent proposal efforts have been geared toward increasing participation. With that in mind, if this proposal does not go through, we would like to see this return but reworked toward the delegate incentive program angle or see Curia go through the Domain Allocator channels.
Voting for this proposal at the temp check stage but really as a sign of support that we need better tooling in this area.
This proposal isn't going to pass but i would still recommend the team approach the various grant programs (Plurality and Questbook) or the foundation to see if there is a more limited initiative that could be taken up while the DAO progresses its thinking on how best to appraoch a unified governance dashboard.
Interesting initiative. However, I'd like to see the results of Karma and SeedLatam initiatives first in the mid-term to avoid-double spending on similar cause. Voting abstain
We will be voting "Abstain" as it is our proposal.
This proposal is a smart investment in ArbitrumDAO's future. By creating a dedicated analytics dashboard, it offers a practical tool for better governance, ensuring decisions are backed by clear, actionable data. This approach not only strengthens transparency but also helps the community stay ahead of potential issues, making it a valuable step towards more effective and resilient governance.
The proposal and budget appear reasonable given the size of the DAO. The Curia team seems well-qualified for the task, and I look forward to seeing it implemented.
@Curia thanks for answering my question.
Even though I like this initiative, after consideration I decided to vote against this proposal. I think that for the moment Karma is already providing a good service and your initiative also risks to overlap with other programs, as many others mentioned.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting AGAINST this proposal during the temperature check.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting AGAINST this proposal during the temperature check.
First of all, we'd like to say that we have great respect for the Curia team and their dedication to improving governance processes with more accurate and targeted data. However, in the case of this proposal, we don't fully understand who the target user is and how this data will be consumed. We agree with other voices in this thread that this initiative would only be useful if it were part of another initiative such as a delegate incentive program or staking rewards.
We vote against this proposal, but encourage Curia to try other avenues, such as the Delegated Domain Allocator grant program, to showcase (probably with limited scope) the value you can provide the DAO with this additional data.
While we acknowledge the potential value that the Governance Analytics Dashboard (Curia) could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to vote against the proposal at this time.
Our primary concerns revolve around the following points:
While we acknowledge the potential value that the Governance Analytics Dashboard (Curia) could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to vote against the proposal at this time.
Our primary concerns revolve around the following points:
While we recognize the need for better governance analytics and support the idea of improved transparency and data accessibility, we feel this proposal could benefit from further refinement. We encourage future efforts to focus on making data openly available and ensuring that new tools provide clear, actionable insights that will directly benefit the DAO.
Voting "Against"
I'm for the general idea and see how it can be a complementary piece to the Karma dashboard (instead of being repeat work). However, I think because of that this would be better rolled into the presumable renewal of the incentive program and would prefer to see it there. While I know that sounds a little counter-intuitive, I'd imagine there is a real opportunity for the sum being greater than the parts if all the groups involved with that worked together on that project and learned from each other.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe better understanding of the governance and delegates is critical for the DAO to improve its governance and evaluate the ongoing programs (e.g. Delegate Incentive Program). Regarding the overlap on the tools, we consider the proposed dashboard is more for retroactive analysis on the governance while Karma is to capture snapshots of how the delegates perform, thus they can exist and complement each other.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal during temp check.
We agree with some of the delegates about some of these being redundant (and we also highlighted this). However, we would support this proposal due to our rationale here ⬇️ as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal during temp check.
We agree with some of the delegates about some of these being redundant (and we also highlighted this). However, we would support this proposal due to our rationale here ⬇️ as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
Hi @pedrob, @Pepperoni_Jo3, @ocandocrypto
Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback on our proposal.
Hi @pedrob, @Pepperoni_Jo3, @ocandocrypto
Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback on our proposal.
We understand the concerns about potential overlap with the Karma team's work on delegate incentives. However, we believe our focus is distinct, as we cover broader governance metrics such as Voting Power Concentration, Holder & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Participation Analysis. These insights go beyond delegate incentives, offering a comprehensive view of the overall governance ecosystem in Arbitrum. We see this as a critical step in enhancing transparency and addressing an underserved area in governance.
We’re committed to making our data both actionable and accessible. To achieve this, we are providing monthly reports that distill key insights and trends from the dashboard. In addition, we’re also open to integrating our data into Tally and other platforms. As mentioned in the proposal, we’ll also offer a Public API for broader community use. Our goal is to provide governance data that not only serves as an alternative but also offers an additional source of truth for ArbitrumDAO’s governance.
We align with @JoJo’s view on the growing importance of the delegate incentive program and future governance initiatives, which makes it crucial to have multiple sources of truth regarding governance data eg. delegation, voting, and governance activities. Diversifying data sources for tracking governance metrics ensures a more robust and transparent governance process. Our experience with the Optimism Collective illustrates how having multiple sources can have a positive impact. For instance, while providing similar services for Optimism, we identified inconsistencies in their retro governance participation rewards from the OP Foundation for the past two seasons. Several delegates were not recognized for their contributions, but with our work, we were able to audit these cases and successfully advocate for reevaluation Season 4 & Season 5.
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO’s state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
Regarding the grants program, we chose not to pursue it because we aim to establish a long-term relationship with Arbitrum as a provider of high-quality governance data services. We believe this approach is more sustainable, given the ongoing costs of processing, querying data, and adapting to the upcoming governance initiatives.
We hope this helps clarify our position and would love to explore how we can better align our efforts with the needs of ArbitrumDAO. Thank you again for your feedback, and we hope this builds a strong enough case for you to reconsider your stance on this initiative.
I love the initiative, but I understand that we’ve been using Karma for the past few months within the DAO.
Is it worth replicating these efforts?
Given the amount they’re asking for, shouldn’t this be a domain allocator one?
I voted against this proposal.
I’m all for this proposal. An Arbitrum DAO Governance Analytics Dashboard is exactly what we need to boost transparency and make better decisions. It’ll help us track governance activity, safeguard against attacks, and improve overall participation. This tool will make governance more accessible and effective for everyone in the community.
Hey @Curia , thank you very much for the proposal.
I like the tool and believe it could add value to the DAO in the medium term. However, I agree with @maxlomu that we are not yet at that point, and as it is currently designed, it risks overlapping with other initiatives like the one from @SEEDGov and Karma.
Hey @Curia , thank you very much for the proposal.
I like the tool and believe it could add value to the DAO in the medium term. However, I agree with @maxlomu that we are not yet at that point, and as it is currently designed, it risks overlapping with other initiatives like the one from @SEEDGov and Karma.
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO's state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
For all these reasons, I am voting AGAINST, though I encourage the team to submit the request to the Domain Allocator.
We've worked together with Curia team before and can attest to the quality of their work. We think the overall scope and costs are pretty reasonable given the size of the DAO and the amount of entities they'll review.
The potential overlap of initiatives is certainly a concern, and will see how this plays out over the next few months.
@maxlomu Thanks for taking the time to review the proposal and share your thoughts. We understand your perspective on the current stage of the DAO. However, we believe that the Governance Analytics Dashboard offers an opportunity to proactively equip the community with deeper insights and data-driven tools that can evolve as the DAO grows.
As we move forward and encounter more complex governance challenges, having a robust analytics infrastructure will be crucial. It will allow us to make more informed decisions, identify trends early, and optimize our processes.
I find the proposal quite interesting. The overall goals and benefits have great potential, however the specific KPIs to measure success of the dashboard are not explicitly mentioned. I see the huge benefits of this proposal but I still have some doubts around the evaluation of the dashboard's effectiveness. How will you assess whether it has truly improved transparency and governance within the DAO? What specific KPIs will you track?
I am voting "FOR" on this proposal.
I share the concern of @gauntlet and @maxlomu about potential overlap with other initiatives; but, I will be honest, this is also the reason why we should likely have another source of truth about delegation, voting, activity and all things related to arbitrum governance. The delegate incentive program is becoming a key part of all the DAO, and @seedlatam could potentially see how there could be an integration with this new platform, or even suggest some tailored development to have quality of life upgrade. At the same time, we have live on snapshot the vote about staking arb from Tally. I easily see the potential opposition from some parties, concerned about current karma implementation, and a call for a second source of truth, or just an alternative to their system. And nothing against karma here on my side: just, if delegation and forum activity will become so important, it can make sense to have different parties track governance metrics in different ways.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted AGAINST this proposal.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted AGAINST this proposal.
This was a difficult decision, especially given the high calibre and quality of the Curia team. However, as others have pointed out, we noticed significant overlap with other initiatives. As a result, we were uncertain about the added value this dashboard would bring to inform decision-making.
We also agree strongly with the following observation from @pedrob:
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO’s state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
We extend our warmest wishes to the Curia team and look forward to future opportunities for collaboration when the time feels more right.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov acknowledges that while valid concerns have been raised regarding the overlap of certain information—particularly metrics related to delegates—it is evident that the dashboard proposed by Curia offers other complementary data and visualizations.
Interesting initiative. However, I'd like to see the results of Karma and SeedLatam initiatives first in the mid-term to avoid-double spending on similar cause. Voting abstain
We will be voting "Abstain" as it is our proposal.
This proposal is a smart investment in ArbitrumDAO's future. By creating a dedicated analytics dashboard, it offers a practical tool for better governance, ensuring decisions are backed by clear, actionable data. This approach not only strengthens transparency but also helps the community stay ahead of potential issues, making it a valuable step towards more effective and resilient governance.
The proposal and budget appear reasonable given the size of the DAO. The Curia team seems well-qualified for the task, and I look forward to seeing it implemented.
@Curia thanks for answering my question.
Even though I like this initiative, after consideration I decided to vote against this proposal. I think that for the moment Karma is already providing a good service and your initiative also risks to overlap with other programs, as many others mentioned.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting AGAINST this proposal during the temperature check.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting AGAINST this proposal during the temperature check.
First of all, we'd like to say that we have great respect for the Curia team and their dedication to improving governance processes with more accurate and targeted data. However, in the case of this proposal, we don't fully understand who the target user is and how this data will be consumed. We agree with other voices in this thread that this initiative would only be useful if it were part of another initiative such as a delegate incentive program or staking rewards.
We vote against this proposal, but encourage Curia to try other avenues, such as the Delegated Domain Allocator grant program, to showcase (probably with limited scope) the value you can provide the DAO with this additional data.
While we acknowledge the potential value that the Governance Analytics Dashboard (Curia) could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to vote against the proposal at this time.
Our primary concerns revolve around the following points:
While we acknowledge the potential value that the Governance Analytics Dashboard (Curia) could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to vote against the proposal at this time.
Our primary concerns revolve around the following points:
While we recognize the need for better governance analytics and support the idea of improved transparency and data accessibility, we feel this proposal could benefit from further refinement. We encourage future efforts to focus on making data openly available and ensuring that new tools provide clear, actionable insights that will directly benefit the DAO.
Voting "Against"
I'm for the general idea and see how it can be a complementary piece to the Karma dashboard (instead of being repeat work). However, I think because of that this would be better rolled into the presumable renewal of the incentive program and would prefer to see it there. While I know that sounds a little counter-intuitive, I'd imagine there is a real opportunity for the sum being greater than the parts if all the groups involved with that worked together on that project and learned from each other.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe better understanding of the governance and delegates is critical for the DAO to improve its governance and evaluate the ongoing programs (e.g. Delegate Incentive Program). Regarding the overlap on the tools, we consider the proposed dashboard is more for retroactive analysis on the governance while Karma is to capture snapshots of how the delegates perform, thus they can exist and complement each other.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal during temp check.
We agree with some of the delegates about some of these being redundant (and we also highlighted this). However, we would support this proposal due to our rationale here ⬇️ as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal during temp check.
We agree with some of the delegates about some of these being redundant (and we also highlighted this). However, we would support this proposal due to our rationale here ⬇️ as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
Hi @pedrob, @Pepperoni_Jo3, @ocandocrypto
Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback on our proposal.
Hi @pedrob, @Pepperoni_Jo3, @ocandocrypto
Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback on our proposal.
We understand the concerns about potential overlap with the Karma team's work on delegate incentives. However, we believe our focus is distinct, as we cover broader governance metrics such as Voting Power Concentration, Holder & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Participation Analysis. These insights go beyond delegate incentives, offering a comprehensive view of the overall governance ecosystem in Arbitrum. We see this as a critical step in enhancing transparency and addressing an underserved area in governance.
We’re committed to making our data both actionable and accessible. To achieve this, we are providing monthly reports that distill key insights and trends from the dashboard. In addition, we’re also open to integrating our data into Tally and other platforms. As mentioned in the proposal, we’ll also offer a Public API for broader community use. Our goal is to provide governance data that not only serves as an alternative but also offers an additional source of truth for ArbitrumDAO’s governance.
We align with @JoJo’s view on the growing importance of the delegate incentive program and future governance initiatives, which makes it crucial to have multiple sources of truth regarding governance data eg. delegation, voting, and governance activities. Diversifying data sources for tracking governance metrics ensures a more robust and transparent governance process. Our experience with the Optimism Collective illustrates how having multiple sources can have a positive impact. For instance, while providing similar services for Optimism, we identified inconsistencies in their retro governance participation rewards from the OP Foundation for the past two seasons. Several delegates were not recognized for their contributions, but with our work, we were able to audit these cases and successfully advocate for reevaluation Season 4 & Season 5.
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO’s state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
Regarding the grants program, we chose not to pursue it because we aim to establish a long-term relationship with Arbitrum as a provider of high-quality governance data services. We believe this approach is more sustainable, given the ongoing costs of processing, querying data, and adapting to the upcoming governance initiatives.
We hope this helps clarify our position and would love to explore how we can better align our efforts with the needs of ArbitrumDAO. Thank you again for your feedback, and we hope this builds a strong enough case for you to reconsider your stance on this initiative.
I love the initiative, but I understand that we’ve been using Karma for the past few months within the DAO.
Is it worth replicating these efforts?
Given the amount they’re asking for, shouldn’t this be a domain allocator one?
I voted against this proposal.
I’m all for this proposal. An Arbitrum DAO Governance Analytics Dashboard is exactly what we need to boost transparency and make better decisions. It’ll help us track governance activity, safeguard against attacks, and improve overall participation. This tool will make governance more accessible and effective for everyone in the community.
Hey @Curia , thank you very much for the proposal.
I like the tool and believe it could add value to the DAO in the medium term. However, I agree with @maxlomu that we are not yet at that point, and as it is currently designed, it risks overlapping with other initiatives like the one from @SEEDGov and Karma.
Hey @Curia , thank you very much for the proposal.
I like the tool and believe it could add value to the DAO in the medium term. However, I agree with @maxlomu that we are not yet at that point, and as it is currently designed, it risks overlapping with other initiatives like the one from @SEEDGov and Karma.
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO's state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
For all these reasons, I am voting AGAINST, though I encourage the team to submit the request to the Domain Allocator.
We've worked together with Curia team before and can attest to the quality of their work. We think the overall scope and costs are pretty reasonable given the size of the DAO and the amount of entities they'll review.
The potential overlap of initiatives is certainly a concern, and will see how this plays out over the next few months.
@maxlomu Thanks for taking the time to review the proposal and share your thoughts. We understand your perspective on the current stage of the DAO. However, we believe that the Governance Analytics Dashboard offers an opportunity to proactively equip the community with deeper insights and data-driven tools that can evolve as the DAO grows.
As we move forward and encounter more complex governance challenges, having a robust analytics infrastructure will be crucial. It will allow us to make more informed decisions, identify trends early, and optimize our processes.
I find the proposal quite interesting. The overall goals and benefits have great potential, however the specific KPIs to measure success of the dashboard are not explicitly mentioned. I see the huge benefits of this proposal but I still have some doubts around the evaluation of the dashboard's effectiveness. How will you assess whether it has truly improved transparency and governance within the DAO? What specific KPIs will you track?
I am voting "FOR" on this proposal.
I share the concern of @gauntlet and @maxlomu about potential overlap with other initiatives; but, I will be honest, this is also the reason why we should likely have another source of truth about delegation, voting, activity and all things related to arbitrum governance. The delegate incentive program is becoming a key part of all the DAO, and @seedlatam could potentially see how there could be an integration with this new platform, or even suggest some tailored development to have quality of life upgrade. At the same time, we have live on snapshot the vote about staking arb from Tally. I easily see the potential opposition from some parties, concerned about current karma implementation, and a call for a second source of truth, or just an alternative to their system. And nothing against karma here on my side: just, if delegation and forum activity will become so important, it can make sense to have different parties track governance metrics in different ways.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted AGAINST this proposal.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted AGAINST this proposal.
This was a difficult decision, especially given the high calibre and quality of the Curia team. However, as others have pointed out, we noticed significant overlap with other initiatives. As a result, we were uncertain about the added value this dashboard would bring to inform decision-making.
We also agree strongly with the following observation from @pedrob:
Additionally, I think that initiatives with a low budget request should go through the appropriate channel, such as the Domain Allocator, where someone is responsible for conducting a deeper iteration and working together with the applicant to assess the DAO’s state and the needs to develop the most efficient tool.
We extend our warmest wishes to the Curia team and look forward to future opportunities for collaboration when the time feels more right.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov acknowledges that while valid concerns have been raised regarding the overlap of certain information—particularly metrics related to delegates—it is evident that the dashboard proposed by Curia offers other complementary data and visualizations.
@maxlomu Thanks for taking the time to review the proposal and share your thoughts. We understand your perspective on the current stage of the DAO. However, we believe that the Governance Analytics Dashboard offers an opportunity to proactively equip the community with deeper insights and data-driven tools that can evolve as the DAO grows.
As we move forward and encounter more complex governance challenges, having a robust analytics infrastructure will be crucial. It will allow us to make more informed decisions, identify trends early, and optimize our processes.
Additionally, the dashboard can indeed be tailored to specific needs, such as tracking Redelegation Week, how many people we’ve onboarded to become delegates, how many people have redelegated, and other key metrics that the community deems important. By having this tool in place, we’ll be in a stronger position to adapt to the DAO’s evolving needs without having to start from scratch when the demand for such insights becomes more pressing.
We would appreciate it if you could reconsider your vote in light of these points. We’re also open to discussing how the dashboard can better address specific concerns or needs you might have.
Thanks @JOJO & @danimim for your support and thoughtful feedback on our proposal! We’re open to integrating this data into Tally and other front-ends, as mentioned in our proposal. Additionally, we will offer an API for community use, ensuring that the information can be easily accessed and utilized across various platforms.Our goal is to create a dashboard that not only serves as an alternative but also provides an additional source of truth by tracking governance metrics that supports the ArbitrumDAO’s Governance. We’re excited to work together to make our tools more cohesive and effective for the community!
I’m still interested in the $10k per month and how the monthly reports will be structured.
The $10k budget is allocated for producing six monthly reports, providing detailed insights into governance metrics.
Here is the example of our report for SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytic Report Thread
@DevSwaroop Thank you for your feedback! We're excited to bring this initiative to life and enhance governance data transparency within ArbitrumDAO. The dashboard will update daily to ensure the data is accurate and relevant. We're committed to incorporating community feedback and adjusting metrics based on ongoing initiatives to keep the dashboard valuable and relevant with the needs of the Arbitrum community.
How will you assess whether it has truly improved transparency and governance within the DAO? What specific KPIs will you track?
Thank you @0x_ultra for your interest in the proposal! To evaluate the dashboard’s effectiveness in enhancing transparency and governance within the DAO, we will track specific KPIs, including:
I am voting "FOR" on this proposal.
I share the concern of @gauntlet and @maxlomu about potential overlap with other initiatives; but, I will be honest, this is also the reason why we should likely have another source of truth about delegation, voting, activity and all things related to arbitrum governance. The delegate incentive program is becoming a key part of all the DAO, and @seedlatam could potentially see how there could be an integration with this new platform, or even suggest some tailored development to have quality of life upgrade. At the same time, we have live on snapshot the vote about staking arb from Tally. I easily see the potential opposition from some parties, concerned about current karma implementation, and a call for a second source of truth, or just an alternative to their system. And nothing against karma here on my side: just, if delegation and forum activity will become so important, it can make sense to have different parties track governance metrics in different ways.
So @Curia you got my support here. But please, when you will move to Tally, try to take in account all of the initiative above, to tailor current key initiatives in our dao; try also to have API implemented in a way that is functional to the data other parties might need as well. We are at the point in which we have a lot of good tools in our dao, but we need to make them work together in a better way :slight_smile:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov acknowledges that while valid concerns have been raised regarding the overlap of certain information—particularly metrics related to delegates—it is evident that the dashboard proposed by Curia offers other complementary data and visualizations.
To elaborate, Karma has indeed made significant contributions to the Delegate Incentives Program and will continue to do so during an eventual extension and renewal of the program. However, the reality is that Curia's dashboard incorporates other metrics on Participation, Proposals, and Voting Power that no other service currently contracted by Arbitrum DAO covers. While there is some overlap regarding delegate metrics, the dashboard appears to provide complementary information that could be highly valuable to the DAO.
We would also like to echo @JoJo's sentiment: it would be beneficial for the DAO to have multiple sources of information, as this promotes the diversification of services across different providers.
I think this would add significant value by providing insight into key governance metrics over time. We provide a small slice of this data on Tally, but ultimately have a different focus (governance participation, UX, and incentives).
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage for the reasons outlined here.
gm, thanks for putting out this proposal.
While I think having more and better data is valuable for the DAO, I don’t think we are at a stage where having that type of information can meaningfully help us to make decisions, so voting AGAINST.
gm, thanks for putting out this proposal.
While I think having more and better data is valuable for the DAO, I don’t think we are at a stage where having that type of information can meaningfully help us to make decisions, so voting AGAINST.
The service that Karma provides today feels more than enough - I would encourage dashboard-related initiatives to follow through more specific needs (ex: how are grants used).
This proposal aims to serve a unique dataset currently underserved in the Arbitrum community.
That said, it is also extension upon the data work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive program. This feels like a competitive offer that might be better served as a part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive proposal once it’s extension period has ended and a V2 has shipped.
This proposal aims to serve a unique dataset currently underserved in the Arbitrum community.
That said, it is also extension upon the data work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive program. This feels like a competitive offer that might be better served as a part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive proposal once it’s extension period has ended and a V2 has shipped.
As such, Gauntlet is leaning toward voting against this proposal as a standalone offer to the DAO.
I support the proposal to create the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard. This tool will enhance transparency and data-driven decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem by providing a clear and comprehensive view of governance activities.
Hi everyone, our proposal is now live on Snapshot! We welcome your comments and feedback. If you have any specific concerns you'd like to discuss, feel free to reach out to us. Here's the link: Snapshot: AribtrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard
Commenting Rationale for the [RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard Proposal Below are three recommendations to improve this proposal towards Reducing Redundancy and Increasing Impact.
1. Address Redundancy Concerns:
Commenting Rationale for the [RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard Proposal Below are three recommendations to improve this proposal towards Reducing Redundancy and Increasing Impact.
1. Address Redundancy Concerns:
• Explicitly address community concerns regarding potential overlap with existing tools. Explain how the dashboard will complement rather than duplicate the functionalities of tools like Karma.
2. Actionable Insights and Real-World Application:
• Emphasize how the dashboard will provide actionable insights that can be used in real-world governance decisions. Examples or case studies of how similar tools have impacted other organizations could be beneficial.
3. Cost-Effectiveness and Return on Investment:
• Highlight the cost-effectiveness of the dashboard by comparing it with the benefits and efficiencies it introduces. Discuss the potential return on investment through improved decision-making and increased engagement.
See Voting Rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/4?u=alexlumley
@CoinRuay Thank you for your positive feedback on our proposal and the UX/UI design. Our dashboard offers unique advantages over existing options by
@CoinRuay Thank you for your positive feedback on our proposal and the UX/UI design. Our dashboard offers unique advantages over existing options by
In terms of numerical targets, we aim to have at least 15-20% of Arbitrum's voter base actively using our dashboard. To achieve these goals, we plan to:
Outreach: Conduct demo sessions in Arbitrum community calls to showcase the community on the benefits and functionalities of the dashboard.
Continuous Improvement: Gather user feedback and continuously enhance the dashboard to meet evolving needs and preferences.
We believe these strategies will help us reach our targets and make a meaningful impact on governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here is the example of our report for SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread
Thank you for your support! We're glad you find our dashboards valuable.
@Gauntlet, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand your concern regarding potential overlap with the work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Delegate Incentive program. However, we believe our proposal offers a complementary, rather than competitive, solution. Here’s why:
Our dashboard is designed to provide an expanded and more granular view of governance data, focusing on underrepresented metrics such as the Concentration of Voting Power, Holders & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Detailed Participation Analysis. While Karma’s work is excellent at tracking delegate performance, our solution delves deeper into the broader Arbitrum governance ecosystem, offering insights that extend beyond the scope of delegate incentives alone.
For instance, our concentration of Voting Power metrics are specifically tailored to assess the health and decentralization of governance, which is crucial for identifying centralization risks and fostering a more inclusive decision-making process. We believe these insights would significantly contribute to the integrity of the entire governance framework.
@Gauntlet, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand your concern regarding potential overlap with the work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Delegate Incentive program. However, we believe our proposal offers a complementary, rather than competitive, solution. Here’s why:
Our dashboard is designed to provide an expanded and more granular view of governance data, focusing on underrepresented metrics such as the Concentration of Voting Power, Holders & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Detailed Participation Analysis. While Karma’s work is excellent at tracking delegate performance, our solution delves deeper into the broader Arbitrum governance ecosystem, offering insights that extend beyond the scope of delegate incentives alone.
For instance, our concentration of Voting Power metrics are specifically tailored to assess the health and decentralization of governance, which is crucial for identifying centralization risks and fostering a more inclusive decision-making process. We believe these insights would significantly contribute to the integrity of the entire governance framework.
The Arbitrum community would benefit from having these analytical tools at its disposal, serving different aspects of governance. By offering a specialized tool that provides a comprehensive view of governance data, we can ensure that no aspect of the governance process is overlooked.
Furthermore, our commitment to ongoing maintenance and community-driven iterations ensures that this dashboard will continuously adapt to the evolving needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We respectfully request that you reconsider your stance on this proposal. We believe our Governance Analytics Dashboard can provide significant value to the Arbitrum community, both as a standalone tool and additional complementary tool to existing governance initiatives. We are open to further discussions on how we can align our efforts with the broader goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
One can never say no to more valuable insights and detailed analysis. Thank you for putting this together, Curia!
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
Hey @Frisson, Thank you so much for your feedback! We're big fans of Tally and really appreciate the work you do in Arbitrum!
I think this would add significant value by providing insight into key governance metrics over time. We provide a small slice of this data on Tally, but ultimately have a different focus (governance participation, UX, and incentives).
Hey @cp0x , thank you for your feedback!
To answer your questions, the current visuals are initial mock-ups of our design and can be adjusted based on community feedback. We plan to conduct a research survey to collect this feedback and make updates based on it. Once approved by the DAO, we will start working on the dashboard, which will take roughly 2.5 months or less to complete.
Hey @cp0x , thank you for your feedback!
To answer your questions, the current visuals are initial mock-ups of our design and can be adjusted based on community feedback. We plan to conduct a research survey to collect this feedback and make updates based on it. Once approved by the DAO, we will start working on the dashboard, which will take roughly 2.5 months or less to complete.
Regarding maintenance, there will be costs, including incorporating new metrics based on governance changes to ensure relevance with ArbitrumDAO and their initiatives. We plan to have this proposed budget renewed every six months, covering the governance dashboard for infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, and overhead costs. Additionally, this budget will include the preparation of monthly reports to keep the community informed and ensure the tool stays updated and functional.
Thank you for your feedback and support! We really appreciate your insights.
Sorry for the confusion regarding the budget. The amount will be denominated in 71,000 ARB (at the current ARB price of $0.70).
I'm a big fan of Curia's work, these kinds of dashboards provide valuable insights; tracking voting behavior enhances transparency and accountability within the DAO.
edit: Just voted 'FOR' this proposal because of the reasons already outlined.
I really like the design, the metrics and how simple it is to understand. Will you also add other DAO data to some an overall DAO score? For example I am active in the Aave DAO for a long time already. So my numbers there are pretty high and showing strong activity. Now I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO where my numbers are small which might influence the decision of a user to delegate to me. If both would be aggregated one could see I'm already active in another DAO and will probably be the same here too.
Also I would say it's great too immediately see if a delegate is active or inactive for example which a red button saying "inactive" and green for "active".
I like the analytical approach to the topic of voting and delegation. It seems to me that this is an adequate budget for such work.
I have a couple of questions:
I like the analytical approach to the topic of voting and delegation. It seems to me that this is an adequate budget for such work.
I have a couple of questions:
Thank you, @EzR3aL , for your feedback.
That’s a great idea and something we could do if we expand to more DAOs, but at this stage, we would like to focus on Arbitrum’s data. Regarding the budget, we plan to renew the contract to maintain this dashboard every 6 months for $50k USD. This will cover all governance dashboard needs, including infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, overhead costs, and the monthly report.
@maxlomu Thanks for taking the time to review the proposal and share your thoughts. We understand your perspective on the current stage of the DAO. However, we believe that the Governance Analytics Dashboard offers an opportunity to proactively equip the community with deeper insights and data-driven tools that can evolve as the DAO grows.
As we move forward and encounter more complex governance challenges, having a robust analytics infrastructure will be crucial. It will allow us to make more informed decisions, identify trends early, and optimize our processes.
Additionally, the dashboard can indeed be tailored to specific needs, such as tracking Redelegation Week, how many people we’ve onboarded to become delegates, how many people have redelegated, and other key metrics that the community deems important. By having this tool in place, we’ll be in a stronger position to adapt to the DAO’s evolving needs without having to start from scratch when the demand for such insights becomes more pressing.
We would appreciate it if you could reconsider your vote in light of these points. We’re also open to discussing how the dashboard can better address specific concerns or needs you might have.
Thanks @JOJO & @danimim for your support and thoughtful feedback on our proposal! We’re open to integrating this data into Tally and other front-ends, as mentioned in our proposal. Additionally, we will offer an API for community use, ensuring that the information can be easily accessed and utilized across various platforms.Our goal is to create a dashboard that not only serves as an alternative but also provides an additional source of truth by tracking governance metrics that supports the ArbitrumDAO’s Governance. We’re excited to work together to make our tools more cohesive and effective for the community!
I’m still interested in the $10k per month and how the monthly reports will be structured.
The $10k budget is allocated for producing six monthly reports, providing detailed insights into governance metrics.
Here is the example of our report for SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytic Report Thread
@DevSwaroop Thank you for your feedback! We're excited to bring this initiative to life and enhance governance data transparency within ArbitrumDAO. The dashboard will update daily to ensure the data is accurate and relevant. We're committed to incorporating community feedback and adjusting metrics based on ongoing initiatives to keep the dashboard valuable and relevant with the needs of the Arbitrum community.
How will you assess whether it has truly improved transparency and governance within the DAO? What specific KPIs will you track?
Thank you @0x_ultra for your interest in the proposal! To evaluate the dashboard’s effectiveness in enhancing transparency and governance within the DAO, we will track specific KPIs, including:
I am voting "FOR" on this proposal.
I share the concern of @gauntlet and @maxlomu about potential overlap with other initiatives; but, I will be honest, this is also the reason why we should likely have another source of truth about delegation, voting, activity and all things related to arbitrum governance. The delegate incentive program is becoming a key part of all the DAO, and @seedlatam could potentially see how there could be an integration with this new platform, or even suggest some tailored development to have quality of life upgrade. At the same time, we have live on snapshot the vote about staking arb from Tally. I easily see the potential opposition from some parties, concerned about current karma implementation, and a call for a second source of truth, or just an alternative to their system. And nothing against karma here on my side: just, if delegation and forum activity will become so important, it can make sense to have different parties track governance metrics in different ways.
So @Curia you got my support here. But please, when you will move to Tally, try to take in account all of the initiative above, to tailor current key initiatives in our dao; try also to have API implemented in a way that is functional to the data other parties might need as well. We are at the point in which we have a lot of good tools in our dao, but we need to make them work together in a better way :slight_smile:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov acknowledges that while valid concerns have been raised regarding the overlap of certain information—particularly metrics related to delegates—it is evident that the dashboard proposed by Curia offers other complementary data and visualizations.
To elaborate, Karma has indeed made significant contributions to the Delegate Incentives Program and will continue to do so during an eventual extension and renewal of the program. However, the reality is that Curia's dashboard incorporates other metrics on Participation, Proposals, and Voting Power that no other service currently contracted by Arbitrum DAO covers. While there is some overlap regarding delegate metrics, the dashboard appears to provide complementary information that could be highly valuable to the DAO.
We would also like to echo @JoJo's sentiment: it would be beneficial for the DAO to have multiple sources of information, as this promotes the diversification of services across different providers.
I think this would add significant value by providing insight into key governance metrics over time. We provide a small slice of this data on Tally, but ultimately have a different focus (governance participation, UX, and incentives).
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage for the reasons outlined here.
gm, thanks for putting out this proposal.
While I think having more and better data is valuable for the DAO, I don’t think we are at a stage where having that type of information can meaningfully help us to make decisions, so voting AGAINST.
gm, thanks for putting out this proposal.
While I think having more and better data is valuable for the DAO, I don’t think we are at a stage where having that type of information can meaningfully help us to make decisions, so voting AGAINST.
The service that Karma provides today feels more than enough - I would encourage dashboard-related initiatives to follow through more specific needs (ex: how are grants used).
This proposal aims to serve a unique dataset currently underserved in the Arbitrum community.
That said, it is also extension upon the data work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive program. This feels like a competitive offer that might be better served as a part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive proposal once it’s extension period has ended and a V2 has shipped.
This proposal aims to serve a unique dataset currently underserved in the Arbitrum community.
That said, it is also extension upon the data work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive program. This feels like a competitive offer that might be better served as a part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive proposal once it’s extension period has ended and a V2 has shipped.
As such, Gauntlet is leaning toward voting against this proposal as a standalone offer to the DAO.
I support the proposal to create the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard. This tool will enhance transparency and data-driven decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem by providing a clear and comprehensive view of governance activities.
Hi everyone, our proposal is now live on Snapshot! We welcome your comments and feedback. If you have any specific concerns you'd like to discuss, feel free to reach out to us. Here's the link: Snapshot: AribtrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard
Commenting Rationale for the [RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard Proposal Below are three recommendations to improve this proposal towards Reducing Redundancy and Increasing Impact.
1. Address Redundancy Concerns:
Commenting Rationale for the [RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard Proposal Below are three recommendations to improve this proposal towards Reducing Redundancy and Increasing Impact.
1. Address Redundancy Concerns:
• Explicitly address community concerns regarding potential overlap with existing tools. Explain how the dashboard will complement rather than duplicate the functionalities of tools like Karma.
2. Actionable Insights and Real-World Application:
• Emphasize how the dashboard will provide actionable insights that can be used in real-world governance decisions. Examples or case studies of how similar tools have impacted other organizations could be beneficial.
3. Cost-Effectiveness and Return on Investment:
• Highlight the cost-effectiveness of the dashboard by comparing it with the benefits and efficiencies it introduces. Discuss the potential return on investment through improved decision-making and increased engagement.
See Voting Rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/4?u=alexlumley
@CoinRuay Thank you for your positive feedback on our proposal and the UX/UI design. Our dashboard offers unique advantages over existing options by
@CoinRuay Thank you for your positive feedback on our proposal and the UX/UI design. Our dashboard offers unique advantages over existing options by
In terms of numerical targets, we aim to have at least 15-20% of Arbitrum's voter base actively using our dashboard. To achieve these goals, we plan to:
Outreach: Conduct demo sessions in Arbitrum community calls to showcase the community on the benefits and functionalities of the dashboard.
Continuous Improvement: Gather user feedback and continuously enhance the dashboard to meet evolving needs and preferences.
We believe these strategies will help us reach our targets and make a meaningful impact on governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here is the example of our report for SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread
Thank you for your support! We're glad you find our dashboards valuable.
@Gauntlet, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand your concern regarding potential overlap with the work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Delegate Incentive program. However, we believe our proposal offers a complementary, rather than competitive, solution. Here’s why:
Our dashboard is designed to provide an expanded and more granular view of governance data, focusing on underrepresented metrics such as the Concentration of Voting Power, Holders & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Detailed Participation Analysis. While Karma’s work is excellent at tracking delegate performance, our solution delves deeper into the broader Arbitrum governance ecosystem, offering insights that extend beyond the scope of delegate incentives alone.
For instance, our concentration of Voting Power metrics are specifically tailored to assess the health and decentralization of governance, which is crucial for identifying centralization risks and fostering a more inclusive decision-making process. We believe these insights would significantly contribute to the integrity of the entire governance framework.
@Gauntlet, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand your concern regarding potential overlap with the work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Delegate Incentive program. However, we believe our proposal offers a complementary, rather than competitive, solution. Here’s why:
Our dashboard is designed to provide an expanded and more granular view of governance data, focusing on underrepresented metrics such as the Concentration of Voting Power, Holders & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Detailed Participation Analysis. While Karma’s work is excellent at tracking delegate performance, our solution delves deeper into the broader Arbitrum governance ecosystem, offering insights that extend beyond the scope of delegate incentives alone.
For instance, our concentration of Voting Power metrics are specifically tailored to assess the health and decentralization of governance, which is crucial for identifying centralization risks and fostering a more inclusive decision-making process. We believe these insights would significantly contribute to the integrity of the entire governance framework.
The Arbitrum community would benefit from having these analytical tools at its disposal, serving different aspects of governance. By offering a specialized tool that provides a comprehensive view of governance data, we can ensure that no aspect of the governance process is overlooked.
Furthermore, our commitment to ongoing maintenance and community-driven iterations ensures that this dashboard will continuously adapt to the evolving needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We respectfully request that you reconsider your stance on this proposal. We believe our Governance Analytics Dashboard can provide significant value to the Arbitrum community, both as a standalone tool and additional complementary tool to existing governance initiatives. We are open to further discussions on how we can align our efforts with the broader goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
One can never say no to more valuable insights and detailed analysis. Thank you for putting this together, Curia!
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
Hey @Frisson, Thank you so much for your feedback! We're big fans of Tally and really appreciate the work you do in Arbitrum!
I think this would add significant value by providing insight into key governance metrics over time. We provide a small slice of this data on Tally, but ultimately have a different focus (governance participation, UX, and incentives).
Hey @cp0x , thank you for your feedback!
To answer your questions, the current visuals are initial mock-ups of our design and can be adjusted based on community feedback. We plan to conduct a research survey to collect this feedback and make updates based on it. Once approved by the DAO, we will start working on the dashboard, which will take roughly 2.5 months or less to complete.
Hey @cp0x , thank you for your feedback!
To answer your questions, the current visuals are initial mock-ups of our design and can be adjusted based on community feedback. We plan to conduct a research survey to collect this feedback and make updates based on it. Once approved by the DAO, we will start working on the dashboard, which will take roughly 2.5 months or less to complete.
Regarding maintenance, there will be costs, including incorporating new metrics based on governance changes to ensure relevance with ArbitrumDAO and their initiatives. We plan to have this proposed budget renewed every six months, covering the governance dashboard for infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, and overhead costs. Additionally, this budget will include the preparation of monthly reports to keep the community informed and ensure the tool stays updated and functional.
Thank you for your feedback and support! We really appreciate your insights.
Sorry for the confusion regarding the budget. The amount will be denominated in 71,000 ARB (at the current ARB price of $0.70).
I'm a big fan of Curia's work, these kinds of dashboards provide valuable insights; tracking voting behavior enhances transparency and accountability within the DAO.
edit: Just voted 'FOR' this proposal because of the reasons already outlined.
I really like the design, the metrics and how simple it is to understand. Will you also add other DAO data to some an overall DAO score? For example I am active in the Aave DAO for a long time already. So my numbers there are pretty high and showing strong activity. Now I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO where my numbers are small which might influence the decision of a user to delegate to me. If both would be aggregated one could see I'm already active in another DAO and will probably be the same here too.
Also I would say it's great too immediately see if a delegate is active or inactive for example which a red button saying "inactive" and green for "active".
I like the analytical approach to the topic of voting and delegation. It seems to me that this is an adequate budget for such work.
I have a couple of questions:
I like the analytical approach to the topic of voting and delegation. It seems to me that this is an adequate budget for such work.
I have a couple of questions:
Thank you, @EzR3aL , for your feedback.
That’s a great idea and something we could do if we expand to more DAOs, but at this stage, we would like to focus on Arbitrum’s data. Regarding the budget, we plan to renew the contract to maintain this dashboard every 6 months for $50k USD. This will cover all governance dashboard needs, including infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, overhead costs, and the monthly report.
One can never say no to more valuable insights and detailed analysis. Thank you for putting this together, Curia!
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
For the Delegate Metrics though, a lot of it feels redundant. I would not focus too much on individual delegates' metrics --- Delegate Profile --- but more on broad delegate analysis --- Delegated Table --- as something similar is already available/could be easily implemented with Karma. Delegation Tracking could be added as a column to the table; should come in handy.
Finally, regarding the budget request, please could you denominate cost in either USD or ARB? It’s somewhat confusing as is.
I really like the design, the metrics and how simple it is to understand. Will you also add other DAO data to some an overall DAO score? For example I am active in the Aave DAO for a long time already. So my numbers there are pretty high and showing strong activity. Now I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO where my numbers are small which might influence the decision of a user to delegate to me. If both would be aggregated one could see I'm already active in another DAO and will probably be the same here too.
Also I would say it's great too immediately see if a delegate is active or inactive for example which a red button saying "inactive" and green for "active".
I also think the budget is very fair. What will be the future costs to maintain this dashboard per month?
One can never say no to more valuable insights and detailed analysis. Thank you for putting this together, Curia!
This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.
For the Delegate Metrics though, a lot of it feels redundant. I would not focus too much on individual delegates' metrics --- Delegate Profile --- but more on broad delegate analysis --- Delegated Table --- as something similar is already available/could be easily implemented with Karma. Delegation Tracking could be added as a column to the table; should come in handy.
Finally, regarding the budget request, please could you denominate cost in either USD or ARB? It’s somewhat confusing as is.
I really like the design, the metrics and how simple it is to understand. Will you also add other DAO data to some an overall DAO score? For example I am active in the Aave DAO for a long time already. So my numbers there are pretty high and showing strong activity. Now I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO where my numbers are small which might influence the decision of a user to delegate to me. If both would be aggregated one could see I'm already active in another DAO and will probably be the same here too.
Also I would say it's great too immediately see if a delegate is active or inactive for example which a red button saying "inactive" and green for "active".
I also think the budget is very fair. What will be the future costs to maintain this dashboard per month?
