This proposal will transfer the proposer and canceller roles from the current Arbitrum Core Governor and Arbitrum Treasury Governor to newly deployed Governor contracts. This roles transfer is a crucial step in upgrading the Arbitrum DAO's governance infrastructure.
This upgrade to the Arbitrum DAO's governance system was initially discussed as part of the 'Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO' proposal here. The community recognized the need for enhanced governance features, including proposal cancellation and flexible voting mechanisms.
As a result of these discussions, new Governor contracts have been developed and deployed with these improvements. To activate these enhancements and complete the upgrade process, we now need to transfer the proposer role to these new contracts.
This proposal will:
0x7796F378B3c56ceD57350B938561D8c52256456b0x4fd1216c8b5E72b22785169Ae5C1e8f3b30C19E4The rationale for upgrading the Governors by granting and revoking roles on the Timelock contract instead of using the proxy upgradeable contract pattern is discussed in detail in this forum post.
If this proposal passes, the transfer will be executed immediately after the Timelock delay.
By approving this proposal, the Arbitrum DAO will upgrade its governance infrastructure, enabling new features and improvements in the governance process.
This proposal will transfer the proposer and canceller roles from the current Arbitrum Core Governor and Arbitrum Treasury Governor to newly deployed Governor contracts. This roles transfer is a crucial step in upgrading the Arbitrum DAO's governance infrastructure.
This upgrade to the Arbitrum DAO's governance system was initially discussed as part of the 'Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO' proposal here. The community recognized the need for enhanced governance features, including proposal cancellation and flexible voting mechanisms.
As a result of these discussions, new Governor contracts have been developed and deployed with these improvements. To activate these enhancements and complete the upgrade process, we now need to transfer the proposer role to these new contracts.
This proposal will:
0x7796F378B3c56ceD57350B938561D8c52256456b0x4fd1216c8b5E72b22785169Ae5C1e8f3b30C19E4The rationale for upgrading the Governors by granting and revoking roles on the Timelock contract instead of using the proxy upgradeable contract pattern is discussed in detail in this forum post.
If this proposal passes, the transfer will be executed immediately after the Timelock delay.
By approving this proposal, the Arbitrum DAO will upgrade its governance infrastructure, enabling new features and improvements in the governance process.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The proposal has been retracted by the author
This proposal was withdrawn by its creator.
See rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/64?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/63?u=krst
I'll continue to support this proposal and vote FOR it on Tally. Expanding Tally's support will have a positive impact on the DAO governance experience.
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-7: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-7
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/61?u=ocandocrypto
It is a good initiative from Tally. DAOPlomats supported the proposal on Snapshot and supports here as well.
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally’s listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of: Creating Tally proposals from forum links Tally Discourse bot Proposal cancel functionality Late quorum extensions Flexible voting Karma integration to see delegate metrics Overall, we support the Tally team and their efforts in streamlining and enhancing the governance process for Arbitrum. We appreciate their work and hope to see these features implemented for other DAOs as well.
Excited to see such upgrades and hopefully more in the future, giving the DAO more robust tooling to express and vote on implementation of DAO actions with greater ease.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/58?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/55?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/37?u=jojo
My rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/54?u=mcfly
We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
Arbitrum 是世界上最大、最去中心化的 DAO。 Tally 对 Arbitrum DAO 和整个 Arbitrum 社区的成功投入了大量资金。作为 Arbitrum 治理服务提供商、生态系统构建者和代表，我们拥有良好的记录。 Tally 不断对 Arbitrum DAO 进行改进，包括转移操作、改进的安全支持、提案协作以及安理会选举的提名人选择阶段。该提案将使我们能够向 Arbitrum DAO 投入更多资源并扩大我们的影响力。
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/45?u=krst
These additional supports from Tally will make proposal processes much more seamless. DAOplomats are in favor of this proposal
The changes are meaningful and I am excited to see more integration with Karma which is increasingly becoming an important tool for the Arbi
These upgrades all make sense & are reasonable. Thank you Tally for the great work managing the chaos of owning an executable DAO platform!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/39?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/34?u=bob-rossi
I would have voted in favour. Full support for the proposal
Abstaining because this proposal directly benefits Tally, my primary employer
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/31?u=mcfly
Tally has been a critical Infra provider and we need to support them.
We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
Would prefer to accelerate the timeline, however still supportive in current form.
I've already expressed my opinion in the forum. I support Tally.
The proposal has been retracted by the author
This proposal was withdrawn by its creator.
See rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/64?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/63?u=krst
I'll continue to support this proposal and vote FOR it on Tally. Expanding Tally's support will have a positive impact on the DAO governance experience.
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-7: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-7
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/61?u=ocandocrypto
It is a good initiative from Tally. DAOPlomats supported the proposal on Snapshot and supports here as well.
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally’s listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of: Creating Tally proposals from forum links Tally Discourse bot Proposal cancel functionality Late quorum extensions Flexible voting Karma integration to see delegate metrics Overall, we support the Tally team and their efforts in streamlining and enhancing the governance process for Arbitrum. We appreciate their work and hope to see these features implemented for other DAOs as well.
Excited to see such upgrades and hopefully more in the future, giving the DAO more robust tooling to express and vote on implementation of DAO actions with greater ease.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/58?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/55?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/37?u=jojo
My rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/54?u=mcfly
We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
Arbitrum 是世界上最大、最去中心化的 DAO。 Tally 对 Arbitrum DAO 和整个 Arbitrum 社区的成功投入了大量资金。作为 Arbitrum 治理服务提供商、生态系统构建者和代表，我们拥有良好的记录。 Tally 不断对 Arbitrum DAO 进行改进，包括转移操作、改进的安全支持、提案协作以及安理会选举的提名人选择阶段。该提案将使我们能够向 Arbitrum DAO 投入更多资源并扩大我们的影响力。
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/45?u=krst
These additional supports from Tally will make proposal processes much more seamless. DAOplomats are in favor of this proposal
The changes are meaningful and I am excited to see more integration with Karma which is increasingly becoming an important tool for the Arbi
These upgrades all make sense & are reasonable. Thank you Tally for the great work managing the chaos of owning an executable DAO platform!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/39?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/34?u=bob-rossi
I would have voted in favour. Full support for the proposal
Abstaining because this proposal directly benefits Tally, my primary employer
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/expand-tally-support-for-the-arbitrum-dao/22387/31?u=mcfly
Tally has been a critical Infra provider and we need to support them.
We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
Would prefer to accelerate the timeline, however still supportive in current form.
I've already expressed my opinion in the forum. I support Tally.
OpenZeppelin, as the Security Member of the ARDC, is proposing a Rollout Plan of the Arbitrum Governance Upgrade (technical details here), based on the recommendations of ScopeLift, to prevent new proposal submissions during key stages of the Upgrade.
We propose a moratorium for proposal submissions up until the end of voting for the Upgrade (Sept 2nd to Sept 19th) along with a preliminary submission period when proposals may be submitted prior to the execution of the Upgrade (Sept 19th to Oct 4th). It's important that all delegates review and adhere to the given timeline to avoid their proposals from being disrupted during the Upgrade and requiring resubmission.
OpenZeppelin, as the Security Member of the ARDC, is proposing a Rollout Plan of the Arbitrum Governance Upgrade (technical details here), based on the recommendations of ScopeLift, to prevent new proposal submissions during key stages of the Upgrade.
We propose a moratorium for proposal submissions up until the end of voting for the Upgrade (Sept 2nd to Sept 19th) along with a preliminary submission period when proposals may be submitted prior to the execution of the Upgrade (Sept 19th to Oct 4th). It's important that all delegates review and adhere to the given timeline to avoid their proposals from being disrupted during the Upgrade and requiring resubmission.
You can see more details on the timeline in our full post:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-governance-upgrade-rollout-timeline/26462
Based on the technical comments from Offchain Labs and other community members, we have made changes to our original Upgrade Rollout post.
There is now no proposal moratorium with the upgrade proposal planned to be submitted on Sept 9th, 2024. The main takeaway is that on Sept 26th, the end of the Upgrade voting period, delegates should begin making submissions to the new Governor contracts, assuming the Upgrade proposal has passed.
Hey all, I just wanted to drop a link to my forum post expanding on the technical details of the Governor upgrades, which were funded as a subset of this proposal. The work is under way, but I'm sharing this summary for transparency and as an opportunity for community members to share feedback or ask questions. Thanks!
I liked your questions.
I have one doubt: wouldn't it be worthwhile to expose that Arbitrum financed the initiative? Even though the tech is used by all other DAOs, wouldn't it make sense to consider a scenario where it's evident that this can be utilized by all BECAUSE Arbitrum funded it? Or some sort of marketing and community action as "collateral"? I'm not sure how Tally views this, but personally, I appreciate the work they've been doing.
OpenZeppelin, as the Security Member of the ARDC, is proposing a Rollout Plan of the Arbitrum Governance Upgrade (technical details here), based on the recommendations of ScopeLift, to prevent new proposal submissions during key stages of the Upgrade.
We propose a moratorium for proposal submissions up until the end of voting for the Upgrade (Sept 2nd to Sept 19th) along with a preliminary submission period when proposals may be submitted prior to the execution of the Upgrade (Sept 19th to Oct 4th). It's important that all delegates review and adhere to the given timeline to avoid their proposals from being disrupted during the Upgrade and requiring resubmission.
OpenZeppelin, as the Security Member of the ARDC, is proposing a Rollout Plan of the Arbitrum Governance Upgrade (technical details here), based on the recommendations of ScopeLift, to prevent new proposal submissions during key stages of the Upgrade.
We propose a moratorium for proposal submissions up until the end of voting for the Upgrade (Sept 2nd to Sept 19th) along with a preliminary submission period when proposals may be submitted prior to the execution of the Upgrade (Sept 19th to Oct 4th). It's important that all delegates review and adhere to the given timeline to avoid their proposals from being disrupted during the Upgrade and requiring resubmission.
You can see more details on the timeline in our full post:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-governance-upgrade-rollout-timeline/26462
Based on the technical comments from Offchain Labs and other community members, we have made changes to our original Upgrade Rollout post.
There is now no proposal moratorium with the upgrade proposal planned to be submitted on Sept 9th, 2024. The main takeaway is that on Sept 26th, the end of the Upgrade voting period, delegates should begin making submissions to the new Governor contracts, assuming the Upgrade proposal has passed.
Hey all, I just wanted to drop a link to my forum post expanding on the technical details of the Governor upgrades, which were funded as a subset of this proposal. The work is under way, but I'm sharing this summary for transparency and as an opportunity for community members to share feedback or ask questions. Thanks!
I liked your questions.
I have one doubt: wouldn't it be worthwhile to expose that Arbitrum financed the initiative? Even though the tech is used by all other DAOs, wouldn't it make sense to consider a scenario where it's evident that this can be utilized by all BECAUSE Arbitrum funded it? Or some sort of marketing and community action as "collateral"? I'm not sure how Tally views this, but personally, I appreciate the work they've been doing.
Mahesh from Karma here. I'm excited to collaborate with Tally's team on this initiative. We have been building in the DAO contributor reputation space for a long time and have contributed to Arbitrum through the experimental incentive program as well. If anyone has questions regarding Delegate discovery component proposed, I will be happy to answer.
Mahesh from Karma here. I'm excited to collaborate with Tally's team on this initiative. We have been building in the DAO contributor reputation space for a long time and have contributed to Arbitrum through the experimental incentive program as well. If anyone has questions regarding Delegate discovery component proposed, I will be happy to answer.
Hey @Bobbay, sure! Would be happy to.
As you mentioned, we've done a number of governance related work for Uniswap DAO over the years, most recently, we built out the UniStaker contracts which—if adopted by the DAO—will allow those who actively stake and delegate in governance to earn fee rewards.
Hey @Bobbay, sure! Would be happy to.
As you mentioned, we've done a number of governance related work for Uniswap DAO over the years, most recently, we built out the UniStaker contracts which—if adopted by the DAO—will allow those who actively stake and delegate in governance to earn fee rewards.
We also contributed heavily to the development Seatbelt, an automated tool for checking governance proposal safety, which is used by many DAOs.
We originally developed Flexible Voting with a grant from the Uniswap Foundation as well, and have recently helped PoolTogether and Gitcoin upgrade to Flexible Voting compatible Governors. We're also working on a Governor upgrade for Radworks.
We've also done a bunch of work related to cross chain voting funded by the Ethereum Foundation and Wormhole. There's a beta version of this that will ship for Gitcoin and PoolTogether soon, with a much more comprehensive version currently under development in conjunction with Tally and Wormhole that will ship later this year.
There's more that I could add but I think this is good for a quick summary. There are a few other projects in the works I can't yet talk about, but with any luck you'll hear about them later this year as well! Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Hi all, Ben from ScopeLift here. I just want to jump in and say that we are excited to contribute on the smart contract development side of this proposal. We're big fans of Arbitrum generally, and in particular the work the team has done around governance to make protocol upgrades for the network truly controlled by DAO in a safe way. We're looking forward to helping continue the trend. Please let me know if you have any questions about this proposal.
I echo the sentiment Joseph shared.
Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to your answers to cp0x, for me to be able to make up my mind.
Lastly, I'd like to see a more detailed breakdown of the costs. I think it's important to walk the delegates through how you got to these specific USD amounts. Is this based on a predicted amount of hours you're expecting to need?
Hey @Bobbay, sure! Would be happy to.
As you mentioned, we've done a number of governance related work for Uniswap DAO over the years, most recently, we built out the UniStaker contracts which—if adopted by the DAO—will allow those who actively stake and delegate in governance to earn fee rewards.
Hey @Bobbay, sure! Would be happy to.
As you mentioned, we've done a number of governance related work for Uniswap DAO over the years, most recently, we built out the UniStaker contracts which—if adopted by the DAO—will allow those who actively stake and delegate in governance to earn fee rewards.
We also contributed heavily to the development Seatbelt, an automated tool for checking governance proposal safety, which is used by many DAOs.
We originally developed Flexible Voting with a grant from the Uniswap Foundation as well, and have recently helped PoolTogether and Gitcoin upgrade to Flexible Voting compatible Governors. We're also working on a Governor upgrade for Radworks.
We've also done a bunch of work related to cross chain voting funded by the Ethereum Foundation and Wormhole. There's a beta version of this that will ship for Gitcoin and PoolTogether soon, with a much more comprehensive version currently under development in conjunction with Tally and Wormhole that will ship later this year.
There's more that I could add but I think this is good for a quick summary. There are a few other projects in the works I can't yet talk about, but with any luck you'll hear about them later this year as well! Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Hi all, Ben from ScopeLift here. I just want to jump in and say that we are excited to contribute on the smart contract development side of this proposal. We're big fans of Arbitrum generally, and in particular the work the team has done around governance to make protocol upgrades for the network truly controlled by DAO in a safe way. We're looking forward to helping continue the trend. Please let me know if you have any questions about this proposal.
I echo the sentiment Joseph shared.
Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to your answers to cp0x, for me to be able to make up my mind.
Lastly, I'd like to see a more detailed breakdown of the costs. I think it's important to walk the delegates through how you got to these specific USD amounts. Is this based on a predicted amount of hours you're expecting to need?
The results are in for the Upgrade Governor Contracts by Transfering Timelock Roles to the New Governors on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1362
The results are in for the Upgrade Governor Contracts by Transfering Timelock Roles to the New Governors on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1362
Offchain Labs has some technical comments on the flexible voting implementation which we'd like to raise to the DAO's attention. You can see more details in our reply to the upgrade rollout and timeline post:
Offchain Labs has some technical comments on the flexible voting implementation which we'd like to raise to the DAO's attention. You can see more details in our reply to the upgrade rollout and timeline post:
Vertex voted FOR on Snapshot
Tally has consistently provided value to governance programs across the space and serves as one of the major pieces of Arbitrum's governance process. Given their track record and expertise, we are excited to see these and future improvements made to help governance flows. We are especially interested in seeing the results of work done on flexible voting, shielded voting, and partial delegation.
Vertex voted FOR on Snapshot
Tally has consistently provided value to governance programs across the space and serves as one of the major pieces of Arbitrum's governance process. Given their track record and expertise, we are excited to see these and future improvements made to help governance flows. We are especially interested in seeing the results of work done on flexible voting, shielded voting, and partial delegation.
I am in favour of this proposal.
WIth the DAO moving fast and the participation rate increasing, there is a need for our governance tooling to iterate and improve and all the proposed items that are covered here are useful for the DAO and given the Tally team's contribution from the start of the DAO, this is a fairly small ask.
I am in favour of this proposal.
WIth the DAO moving fast and the participation rate increasing, there is a need for our governance tooling to iterate and improve and all the proposed items that are covered here are useful for the DAO and given the Tally team's contribution from the start of the DAO, this is a fairly small ask.
Appreciate the follow up @cp0x. Sorting by Karma Score is on our roadmap. I agree it would be a valuable thing to include.
Hey Arbitrum Delegates,
I’m back with a progress update on our proposal to Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO. We’ve shipped most of the items in our proposal and are on track to deliver the rest. Below, I provide a detailed report on the status of each deliverable.
Hey Arbitrum Delegates,
I’m back with a progress update on our proposal to Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO. We’ve shipped most of the items in our proposal and are on track to deliver the rest. Below, I provide a detailed report on the status of each deliverable.
We see this proposal as just one step on our journey of building a best-in-class governance experience for Arbitrum. We’re currently putting together a v2 proposal. We’ve compiled a list of features on the Tally Arbitrum Roadmap that have been requested by DAO contributors. If you have thoughts on what we should build, please comment on the Tally Arbitrum Roadmap forum post or dm me directly on Telegram @zeroxfrisson. Cheers!
Improve the proposal process
Link forum proposal posts and Tally proposals so that delegates can create Tally proposals from forum posts, see forum proposal comments directly on Tally, and be updated by a Tally Discourse bot when onchain proposals are created. Development of this set of features is complete. We’re in the process of rolling it out for all new proposals going forward. The last remaining step is to get permission for the Tally Discourse bot to post in the Arbitrum forum, which is in progress.
Build a diff checker into Tally proposals This feature is complete and will be included on all new proposals going forward. Proposal creators should include a link to the Snapshot proposal when they create a proposal on Tally, which will then enable voters to “view diff” on the proposal page.
Enable cancel functionality on Tally proposals The integration of this feature on Tally is complete, but it will not be enabled until the Governor upgrade is implemented via DAO proposal (see “Upgrade Governor Contracts” section below).
Develop full proposal execution integration including prevent late quorum extension Development of this feature is complete and is included on all new Tally proposals going forward. Below is an example of the proposal status timeline on Tally for a Constitutional proposal. Proposals that have a prevent late quorum extension will have that step automatically included in the status timeline.
Fully integrate the quorum of each Governor Development of this feature is complete. All proposals will dynamically update going forward with the correct quorum from each governor. Also, we included both quorums on the delegates page on Tally going forward.
Show Security Council transactions
This feature is in development and will be complete soon. When a new Security Council transaction is created, we will automatically display an alert at the top of the Arbitrum DAO page that includes a link to the transaction.
Upgrade Governor contracts Development and audit of an upgrade to the Arbitrum Governor contracts that includes the ability to cancel proposals and adds Flexible Voting are complete. The next step is to create an onchain proposal to implement the upgrades, which is coming soon.
Highlight delegate contributions We shipped our integration of Karma’s Delegate Score and contributor metrics, which can now be viewed on the Tally’s Arbitrum Delegates page.
Research to set the DAO up for long-term success Research reports about how the Arbitrum DAO can implement partial delegation and shielded voting are in progress and will be delivered soon.
Hey there @Frisson!
This proposal was passed onchain and the money was paid to Tally and Scopelift 394 days ago.
So, when can we expect to have cancellable onchain proposals in Arbitrum DAO?
Hi! As I asked earlier, I would like to see a sorting by Carma Score. Please, it's not so hard to add this function.
Hey Arbitrum friends,
Work on this proposal is progressing well.
Hey Arbitrum friends,
Work on this proposal is progressing well.
As always, please reach out if you have any feedback or suggestions for Tally. Cheers!
Thank you, good work! I would like to add one (or two) more thing, if it is not difficult:
Thank you again to everyone for your feedback and support! This proposal has passed onchain.
Based on feedback from this proposal, I facilitated an open discussion on governance tools and mechanisms, then I included many items that were surfaced in that discussion into a new, comprehensive Tally Arbitrum Roadmap. The comprehensive roadmap includes both the items we committed to in this proposal and items we plan to fund via a future proposal. Please feel free to comment with feedback on the roadmap post. Cheers!
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the code in these new contracts is not openly audited yet.
Cross-posting an update about the proposal to upgrade the Governor contracts.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-governance-upgrade-rollout-timeline/26462/13?u=frisson
Appreciate the follow up @cp0x. Sorting by Karma Score is on our roadmap. I agree it would be a valuable thing to include.
Hey Arbitrum Delegates,
I’m back with a progress update on our proposal to Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO. We’ve shipped most of the items in our proposal and are on track to deliver the rest. Below, I provide a detailed report on the status of each deliverable.
Hey Arbitrum Delegates,
I’m back with a progress update on our proposal to Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO. We’ve shipped most of the items in our proposal and are on track to deliver the rest. Below, I provide a detailed report on the status of each deliverable.
We see this proposal as just one step on our journey of building a best-in-class governance experience for Arbitrum. We’re currently putting together a v2 proposal. We’ve compiled a list of features on the Tally Arbitrum Roadmap that have been requested by DAO contributors. If you have thoughts on what we should build, please comment on the Tally Arbitrum Roadmap forum post or dm me directly on Telegram @zeroxfrisson. Cheers!
Improve the proposal process
Link forum proposal posts and Tally proposals so that delegates can create Tally proposals from forum posts, see forum proposal comments directly on Tally, and be updated by a Tally Discourse bot when onchain proposals are created. Development of this set of features is complete. We’re in the process of rolling it out for all new proposals going forward. The last remaining step is to get permission for the Tally Discourse bot to post in the Arbitrum forum, which is in progress.
Build a diff checker into Tally proposals This feature is complete and will be included on all new proposals going forward. Proposal creators should include a link to the Snapshot proposal when they create a proposal on Tally, which will then enable voters to “view diff” on the proposal page.
Enable cancel functionality on Tally proposals The integration of this feature on Tally is complete, but it will not be enabled until the Governor upgrade is implemented via DAO proposal (see “Upgrade Governor Contracts” section below).
Develop full proposal execution integration including prevent late quorum extension Development of this feature is complete and is included on all new Tally proposals going forward. Below is an example of the proposal status timeline on Tally for a Constitutional proposal. Proposals that have a prevent late quorum extension will have that step automatically included in the status timeline.
Fully integrate the quorum of each Governor Development of this feature is complete. All proposals will dynamically update going forward with the correct quorum from each governor. Also, we included both quorums on the delegates page on Tally going forward.
Show Security Council transactions
This feature is in development and will be complete soon. When a new Security Council transaction is created, we will automatically display an alert at the top of the Arbitrum DAO page that includes a link to the transaction.
Upgrade Governor contracts Development and audit of an upgrade to the Arbitrum Governor contracts that includes the ability to cancel proposals and adds Flexible Voting are complete. The next step is to create an onchain proposal to implement the upgrades, which is coming soon.
Highlight delegate contributions We shipped our integration of Karma’s Delegate Score and contributor metrics, which can now be viewed on the Tally’s Arbitrum Delegates page.
Research to set the DAO up for long-term success Research reports about how the Arbitrum DAO can implement partial delegation and shielded voting are in progress and will be delivered soon.
Hey there @Frisson!
This proposal was passed onchain and the money was paid to Tally and Scopelift 394 days ago.
So, when can we expect to have cancellable onchain proposals in Arbitrum DAO?
Hi! As I asked earlier, I would like to see a sorting by Carma Score. Please, it's not so hard to add this function.
Hey Arbitrum friends,
Work on this proposal is progressing well.
Hey Arbitrum friends,
Work on this proposal is progressing well.
As always, please reach out if you have any feedback or suggestions for Tally. Cheers!
Thank you, good work! I would like to add one (or two) more thing, if it is not difficult:
Thank you again to everyone for your feedback and support! This proposal has passed onchain.
Based on feedback from this proposal, I facilitated an open discussion on governance tools and mechanisms, then I included many items that were surfaced in that discussion into a new, comprehensive Tally Arbitrum Roadmap. The comprehensive roadmap includes both the items we committed to in this proposal and items we plan to fund via a future proposal. Please feel free to comment with feedback on the roadmap post. Cheers!
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the code in these new contracts is not openly audited yet.
Cross-posting an update about the proposal to upgrade the Governor contracts.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-governance-upgrade-rollout-timeline/26462/13?u=frisson
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally's listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of:
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally's listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of:
Overall, we support the Tally team and their efforts in streamlining and enhancing the governance process for Arbitrum. We appreciate their work and hope to see these features implemented for other DAOs as well.
Savvy DAO votes FOR the proposal.
See our rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/13?u=savvydao
The below response 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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp check and we’ll also be voting in its favor during the on-chain vote.
The below response 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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp check and we’ll also be voting in its favor during the on-chain vote.
On top of the proposed changes, Tally conducted a workshop to invite delegates to share their feedback and request features. The proposal passing means Tally will be funded, but it doesn’t mean the proposed changes are set in stone. We urge delegates to get involved in the process of upgrading Tally and actively provide their feedback to Tally’s team for their consi
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
I'm excited about the proposed upgrades from Tally, enhancing the DAO's tooling, making it easier for members to express their views and vote on DAO actions.
Tally's track record as a proactive partner, alongside their commitment to ongoing improvements in proposal processes and governance, is invaluable for Arbitrum's ecosystem development.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
I'm excited about the proposed upgrades from Tally, enhancing the DAO's tooling, making it easier for members to express their views and vote on DAO actions.
Tally's track record as a proactive partner, alongside their commitment to ongoing improvements in proposal processes and governance, is invaluable for Arbitrum's ecosystem development.
These enhancements significantly contribute to the optimization and growth of delegate engagement, promising a brighter future for the DAO's operational effectiveness.
I'll continue to support this proposal and vote FOR it on Tally. Expanding Tally's support will have a positive impact on the DAO governance experience.
DAOPlomats (previous DAOStewards) maintained our support of the proposal from Snapshot onto Tally.
We are also in support of limiting the cancel() func to the three-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. Thank you for putting this together, Frisson.
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to hop in and reiterate my support FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO, now that we've moved to an on-chain vote. My stance hasn't changed since the previous off-chain vote on Snapshot.
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to hop in and reiterate my support FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO, now that we've moved to an on-chain vote. My stance hasn't changed since the previous off-chain vote on Snapshot.
Tally has been consistently killing it when it comes to improving our DAO's governance processes. They've proposed awesome upgrades to the proposal process, Governor contracts, and initiatives to showcase the hard work of our delegates. Plus, they're looking into some really cool future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. All of these changes will make it way easier for delegates and contributors to get involved in governance, keep things transparent, and set our DAO up for long-term success.
On top of that, the proposal has a clear timeline and a reasonable cost breakdown, which shows that Tally has really thought this through.
As a delegate representing the Arbitrum community members who have trusted me with their voting power, I'm sticking with my vote FOR this proposal. I truly believe that expanding Tally support will be a game-changer for the Arbitrum DAO and our governance processes, helping us build a stronger, more inclusive, and more effective community-driven ecosystem.
Let's get this bread! 🚀
My opinion on the proposal is unchanged from the Snapshot vote, which can be found above. I will be voting "For" this on Tally.
I appreciate the foresight of Frisson / Tally to continually look to improve the on-chain governance process. I really think any way we can make governance easier to participate in (both delegators and delegates) as well as more transparent is a win. I'll also add that since the Snapshot vote Frisson has already setup the forum post for governance tooling ideas, which gives me confidence Tally understands the importance of these types of improvements. I look forward to what kind of tooling will come of this, both specific to Arbitrum's DAO but also the trickle-down effects of other DAOs that may benefit.
Blockworks Research has voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally has proven itself as an invaluable service provider for the DAO, and the scope of the expansion work is rational. Overall, DAOs are still a relatively young concept, and well-documented frictions for governance participation across crypto notoriously include the complexity of large DAOs, the opaqueness of certain DAOs, as well as the difficulties of motivating a significant share of token holders to stay updated on developments. We see any upgrades to minimize the aforementioned frictions as extremely beneficial, especially since the requested budget is sensible.
After reading the proposal, comments, and feedback, I voted in favour of the proposal in Snapshot and will be doing so in Tally as well. Given the extended use that delegates and DAO give to Tally, it makes sense to support this proposal and I believe the cost is reasonable.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is maintaining our support of Tally's proposal on Tally for the same reasons as previously mentioned!
Excited to see this move to the on chain vote. We are in full favor of this proposal. Tally has done a great job in the past and we look forward to their expanded and continued support.
The budget is very reasonable and we think well deserved. Overall we would like to see some continued upgrades on the front end as there seem to have been some recent issues with votes (not) showing up and pending submissions.
Hi Frisson, thank you for the proposal. I'll vote in favor of it. The budget and timeline appear reasonable, but a breakdown of costs associated with each milestone within the design/development, testing, and deployment phases would provide even better transparency.
@jengajojo's suggestion is great. Maybe we can fork Gnosis contracts and save some ARB. pls check it out.
This proposal is on Tally and will go live for voting tomorrow https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/105661716969503353468484651547476341487744471176330694566006767279895911370354
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of this proposal for the following reasons:
Thank you for your comments @krst and @Sinkas. We are aligned with everything you shared. A few specific points in response:
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally's listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of:
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally. Tally's listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of:
Overall, we support the Tally team and their efforts in streamlining and enhancing the governance process for Arbitrum. We appreciate their work and hope to see these features implemented for other DAOs as well.
Savvy DAO votes FOR the proposal.
See our rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/13?u=savvydao
The below response 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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp check and we’ll also be voting in its favor during the on-chain vote.
The below response 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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp check and we’ll also be voting in its favor during the on-chain vote.
On top of the proposed changes, Tally conducted a workshop to invite delegates to share their feedback and request features. The proposal passing means Tally will be funded, but it doesn’t mean the proposed changes are set in stone. We urge delegates to get involved in the process of upgrading Tally and actively provide their feedback to Tally’s team for their consi
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
I'm excited about the proposed upgrades from Tally, enhancing the DAO's tooling, making it easier for members to express their views and vote on DAO actions.
Tally's track record as a proactive partner, alongside their commitment to ongoing improvements in proposal processes and governance, is invaluable for Arbitrum's ecosystem development.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
I'm excited about the proposed upgrades from Tally, enhancing the DAO's tooling, making it easier for members to express their views and vote on DAO actions.
Tally's track record as a proactive partner, alongside their commitment to ongoing improvements in proposal processes and governance, is invaluable for Arbitrum's ecosystem development.
These enhancements significantly contribute to the optimization and growth of delegate engagement, promising a brighter future for the DAO's operational effectiveness.
I'll continue to support this proposal and vote FOR it on Tally. Expanding Tally's support will have a positive impact on the DAO governance experience.
DAOPlomats (previous DAOStewards) maintained our support of the proposal from Snapshot onto Tally.
We are also in support of limiting the cancel() func to the three-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. Thank you for putting this together, Frisson.
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to hop in and reiterate my support FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO, now that we've moved to an on-chain vote. My stance hasn't changed since the previous off-chain vote on Snapshot.
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to hop in and reiterate my support FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO, now that we've moved to an on-chain vote. My stance hasn't changed since the previous off-chain vote on Snapshot.
Tally has been consistently killing it when it comes to improving our DAO's governance processes. They've proposed awesome upgrades to the proposal process, Governor contracts, and initiatives to showcase the hard work of our delegates. Plus, they're looking into some really cool future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. All of these changes will make it way easier for delegates and contributors to get involved in governance, keep things transparent, and set our DAO up for long-term success.
On top of that, the proposal has a clear timeline and a reasonable cost breakdown, which shows that Tally has really thought this through.
As a delegate representing the Arbitrum community members who have trusted me with their voting power, I'm sticking with my vote FOR this proposal. I truly believe that expanding Tally support will be a game-changer for the Arbitrum DAO and our governance processes, helping us build a stronger, more inclusive, and more effective community-driven ecosystem.
Let's get this bread! 🚀
My opinion on the proposal is unchanged from the Snapshot vote, which can be found above. I will be voting "For" this on Tally.
I appreciate the foresight of Frisson / Tally to continually look to improve the on-chain governance process. I really think any way we can make governance easier to participate in (both delegators and delegates) as well as more transparent is a win. I'll also add that since the Snapshot vote Frisson has already setup the forum post for governance tooling ideas, which gives me confidence Tally understands the importance of these types of improvements. I look forward to what kind of tooling will come of this, both specific to Arbitrum's DAO but also the trickle-down effects of other DAOs that may benefit.
Blockworks Research has voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally has proven itself as an invaluable service provider for the DAO, and the scope of the expansion work is rational. Overall, DAOs are still a relatively young concept, and well-documented frictions for governance participation across crypto notoriously include the complexity of large DAOs, the opaqueness of certain DAOs, as well as the difficulties of motivating a significant share of token holders to stay updated on developments. We see any upgrades to minimize the aforementioned frictions as extremely beneficial, especially since the requested budget is sensible.
After reading the proposal, comments, and feedback, I voted in favour of the proposal in Snapshot and will be doing so in Tally as well. Given the extended use that delegates and DAO give to Tally, it makes sense to support this proposal and I believe the cost is reasonable.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is maintaining our support of Tally's proposal on Tally for the same reasons as previously mentioned!
Excited to see this move to the on chain vote. We are in full favor of this proposal. Tally has done a great job in the past and we look forward to their expanded and continued support.
The budget is very reasonable and we think well deserved. Overall we would like to see some continued upgrades on the front end as there seem to have been some recent issues with votes (not) showing up and pending submissions.
Hi Frisson, thank you for the proposal. I'll vote in favor of it. The budget and timeline appear reasonable, but a breakdown of costs associated with each milestone within the design/development, testing, and deployment phases would provide even better transparency.
@jengajojo's suggestion is great. Maybe we can fork Gnosis contracts and save some ARB. pls check it out.
This proposal is on Tally and will go live for voting tomorrow https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/105661716969503353468484651547476341487744471176330694566006767279895911370354
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of this proposal for the following reasons:
Thank you for your comments @krst and @Sinkas. We are aligned with everything you shared. A few specific points in response:
Blockworks Research has voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally has proven itself as an invaluable service provider for the DAO, and the scope of the expansion work is rational. Overall, DAOs are still a relatively young concept, and well-documented frictions for governance participation across crypto notoriously include the complexity of large DAOs, the opaqueness of certain DAOs, as well as the difficulties of motivating a significant share of token holders to stay updated on developments. We see any upgrades to minimize the aforementioned frictions as extremely beneficial, especially since the requested budget is sensible.
As some food for thought, since Tally has proven itself as a high-quality service provider, it might make sense for the entity to request long-term funding in the future, with payments based on milestones, such that the time spent on, e.g., drafting proposals and associated back-and-forth communication, can be minimized.
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of this proposal for the following reasons:
Cheers @SavvyDAO. Looking forward to collaborating on future improvements. I'll be in touch to get your thoughts.
Thanks for your support @WinVerse.
Our current plan is to limit cancel() to the 3-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. We anticipate that the most common use case will be someone noticing a mistake soon after the proposal is put onchain. We are open to feedback on this point.
The below response 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 in favor of the proposal as we value Tally’s work in supporting the governance mechanisms of Arbitrum DAO.
The below response 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 in favor of the proposal as we value Tally’s work in supporting the governance mechanisms of Arbitrum DAO.
We see the Tally improvements as quality-of-life improvements that make the voting process smoother and as a result delegates’ lives easier. We support all of the improvements outlined withing the proposal, on top of that we’d like to add some of our own ideas:
We are pretty sure that other delegates might have their own list of features on their wishlist, and as such it might be a good idea to run some kind of workshops before jumping on development to establish what are the most needed changes.
We support both proposed changes to the Governor contracts. However, we would like to emphasise that this vote only funds the development of the desired Governor changes. There needs to be a separate vote to implement those changes on-chain, which should be preceded by a broad discussion about the consequences of implementing those changes.
On the occasion of this proposal, we’d like to state that we’d like to see more long-term support being established for key projects in Arbitrum’s ecosystem. Governance mechanisms are the core of the DAO and we should be funding work and research around it. Tally already proved their commitment to Arbitrum, they are present first-hand in the DAO’s everyday life and they are well-networked within the DAO and proved that they have a decent understanding of the DAO's needs. On the other hand, the DAO is becoming more and more dependent on Tally's ongoing support. Therefore, it would make sense to have this proposal as a first step in what could become a long-term governance research and development fund, with Tally as an obvious initial partner.
@SavvyDAO votes FOR https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1204041955b729052b9adb4da9e3fa9a03c415ca45aeefd5c41da4d9d45ea851
COMMENTARY: We heard about the difficulties with the governor contracts and this is a perfect example of relatively minor pain point that we can fix quickly. We applaud Tally for their work in moving quickly to create a small improvement.
@SavvyDAO votes FOR https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1204041955b729052b9adb4da9e3fa9a03c415ca45aeefd5c41da4d9d45ea851
COMMENTARY: We heard about the difficulties with the governor contracts and this is a perfect example of relatively minor pain point that we can fix quickly. We applaud Tally for their work in moving quickly to create a small improvement.
We disagree with exactly their recommendations on the proposal process, but we are happy to user test.
Additionally, we ask Tally to ask for MORE funds and work with other experts to improve the voting participation vector in Arbitrum (such as working with @EventHorizonDAO :smile: ).
See delegate thread here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/9?u=savvydao
This is a good initiative from Tally.
These suggested upgrades especially in the proposal process is very much welcome as it ensures a more seamless navigation between Forum and Tally.
DAOplomats (previous DAOStewards) voted in favor of this proposal.
This is a good initiative from Tally.
These suggested upgrades especially in the proposal process is very much welcome as it ensures a more seamless navigation between Forum and Tally.
DAOplomats (previous DAOStewards) voted in favor of this proposal.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe Tally plays a vital role in our governance infrastructure, and we have been impressed by the Tally team's proactive engagement and alignment with the DAO over the last year.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe Tally plays a vital role in our governance infrastructure, and we have been impressed by the Tally team's proactive engagement and alignment with the DAO over the last year.
The improvement suggested within the well thought through and logical framework would clearly benefit Arbitrum's governance process. In aggregate, we believe these changes will greatly enhance the accessibility, transparency, efficiency and usability of the DAOs core governance processes. We look forward to this partnership continuing into the future.
After considering the proposal and community feedback, We decided to support this proposal due to its potential to significantly enhance the Arbitrum DAO's governance toolings by making it more accessible, transparent, and user-friendly.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of expanding Tally's support for the DAO.
The Tally team has been consistently shipping new improvements to their UI and made significant contributions throughout the first year of the Arbitrum DAO. (As a team that uses Gnosis Safes for governance, improvements to multisig support have been greatly appreciated!)
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of expanding Tally's support for the DAO.
The Tally team has been consistently shipping new improvements to their UI and made significant contributions throughout the first year of the Arbitrum DAO. (As a team that uses Gnosis Safes for governance, improvements to multisig support have been greatly appreciated!)
All these proposed upgrades would be great to have, and would reduce some annoyances (like all of the [OLD] proposal spam).
The part about researching solutions for shielded onchain voting is pretty important - perhaps this is worth more than $10k in funding? Having Shutter for Snapshot has been nice, but we've really been lacking a usable onchain solution. Would be a huge improvement for future Security Council elections if we can get this done!
Thank you for your kind words JoJo! We do have more ideas about how to improve Arbitrum governance. We're going to start by soliciting additional input from the community per the suggestion of @dk3 and @krst, then we'll likely come back with another proposal that would be something of a phase 2.
Voting Yes on this proposal.
The QOL improvements are severals. Specifically i really like the inclusion of discourse comment in tally because all the knowledge about the proposal is technically in here, and we want a deeper and deeper integration. As well as the karma integration. And the flexible voting is cool as well.
Voting Yes on this proposal.
The QOL improvements are severals. Specifically i really like the inclusion of discourse comment in tally because all the knowledge about the proposal is technically in here, and we want a deeper and deeper integration. As well as the karma integration. And the flexible voting is cool as well.
TBH i think all of the innovation provided here are very very good, and I think tally is becoming an essential product for our governance. We want to integrate it as much as possible with both established tools (discourse) and new tools (karma) we are using, we want to diminish friction as much as possible for voters to both act and access info, and for automatic tools to fetch what delegates are doing.
Strong yes for @Frisson and his team, hoping that after this integration is complete they will come back to us with a new proposal to address what they had to left out (i am pretty sure they had more ideas they couldn't lay down in here due to time constraints) and also the new capabilities we will eventually need in future.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a
canceledstatus that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
Perfect! And thank you for clarifying. My only suggestion would be the ideal would be that the user can opt to filter / sort out the canceled status somehow on the Tally page. As I think that would make it cleaner for the end users who may be looking to choose a delegate or view their delegates voting history.
Thank you for your comments and support @Bob-Rossi! The thoughts you shared are very insightful. We are generally aligned with all of your suggestions.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a canceled status that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
I will be voting "For".
Tally has been huge in regards to both Arbitrum itself and the broad governance space. I think that anything we can do to make projects like Tally or Snapshot better is a win-win, as it should improve our governance goals as well.
Specific to the proposal:
I will be voting "For".
Tally has been huge in regards to both Arbitrum itself and the broad governance space. I think that anything we can do to make projects like Tally or Snapshot better is a win-win, as it should improve our governance goals as well.
Specific to the proposal:
A question however - Will the cancel function be cut-off at a certain point of the proposal? i.e., only before voting started? I see a lot of value in this, but I also know we ran into issues of proposers deleting Snapshot votes that already started. I see the value in being able to cancel once something starts (incase there is an error found by the community not found by the proposer) but I think I'd like to see this functionality where it doesn't get deleted but moved to a specific 'canceled proposals' section. If possible of course. I think there is value in cleaning up the main voting page but also value in having the full history.
And as a final comment, I think that even though these projects are specific to Arbitrum I would like to see these types of things be expanded out to other DAOs. I did see the comment that this is a Arb-specific item due to the way our governance works, however my hope is that some of these things (like say shielded voting and canceling erroneous proposals) could be expanded to all projects. Whether Arbitrum has to front that entire bill or not, I think the greater DAO space can benefit from things like this and I'd rather see the broad benefit subsidized by Arbitrum then not see it implemented at all. Any improvement system-wide should benefit Arbitrm in the long run.
We’ve voted for! Tally is a very critical infrastructure for governance smoothness. Happy to see you continue supporting the Arbitrum DAO.
Having read the proposal and the additional insights that @Frisson provided, I am voting in favor of this proposal.
The changes are meaningful and I am excited to see more integration with Karma which is increasingly becoming an important tool for the Arbitrum DAO.
On behalf of the UADP, we are very excited to see this proposal and are fully in favor of the DAO expanding support for Tally. We think what they have done in the past few months customized for Arbitrum is great and the team is very helpful to work with. The budget ask is reasonable in our opinions.
Blockworks Research has voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally has proven itself as an invaluable service provider for the DAO, and the scope of the expansion work is rational. Overall, DAOs are still a relatively young concept, and well-documented frictions for governance participation across crypto notoriously include the complexity of large DAOs, the opaqueness of certain DAOs, as well as the difficulties of motivating a significant share of token holders to stay updated on developments. We see any upgrades to minimize the aforementioned frictions as extremely beneficial, especially since the requested budget is sensible.
As some food for thought, since Tally has proven itself as a high-quality service provider, it might make sense for the entity to request long-term funding in the future, with payments based on milestones, such that the time spent on, e.g., drafting proposals and associated back-and-forth communication, can be minimized.
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of this proposal for the following reasons:
Cheers @SavvyDAO. Looking forward to collaborating on future improvements. I'll be in touch to get your thoughts.
Thanks for your support @WinVerse.
Our current plan is to limit cancel() to the 3-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. We anticipate that the most common use case will be someone noticing a mistake soon after the proposal is put onchain. We are open to feedback on this point.
The below response 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 in favor of the proposal as we value Tally’s work in supporting the governance mechanisms of Arbitrum DAO.
The below response 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 in favor of the proposal as we value Tally’s work in supporting the governance mechanisms of Arbitrum DAO.
We see the Tally improvements as quality-of-life improvements that make the voting process smoother and as a result delegates’ lives easier. We support all of the improvements outlined withing the proposal, on top of that we’d like to add some of our own ideas:
We are pretty sure that other delegates might have their own list of features on their wishlist, and as such it might be a good idea to run some kind of workshops before jumping on development to establish what are the most needed changes.
We support both proposed changes to the Governor contracts. However, we would like to emphasise that this vote only funds the development of the desired Governor changes. There needs to be a separate vote to implement those changes on-chain, which should be preceded by a broad discussion about the consequences of implementing those changes.
On the occasion of this proposal, we’d like to state that we’d like to see more long-term support being established for key projects in Arbitrum’s ecosystem. Governance mechanisms are the core of the DAO and we should be funding work and research around it. Tally already proved their commitment to Arbitrum, they are present first-hand in the DAO’s everyday life and they are well-networked within the DAO and proved that they have a decent understanding of the DAO's needs. On the other hand, the DAO is becoming more and more dependent on Tally's ongoing support. Therefore, it would make sense to have this proposal as a first step in what could become a long-term governance research and development fund, with Tally as an obvious initial partner.
@SavvyDAO votes FOR https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1204041955b729052b9adb4da9e3fa9a03c415ca45aeefd5c41da4d9d45ea851
COMMENTARY: We heard about the difficulties with the governor contracts and this is a perfect example of relatively minor pain point that we can fix quickly. We applaud Tally for their work in moving quickly to create a small improvement.
@SavvyDAO votes FOR https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1204041955b729052b9adb4da9e3fa9a03c415ca45aeefd5c41da4d9d45ea851
COMMENTARY: We heard about the difficulties with the governor contracts and this is a perfect example of relatively minor pain point that we can fix quickly. We applaud Tally for their work in moving quickly to create a small improvement.
We disagree with exactly their recommendations on the proposal process, but we are happy to user test.
Additionally, we ask Tally to ask for MORE funds and work with other experts to improve the voting participation vector in Arbitrum (such as working with @EventHorizonDAO :smile: ).
See delegate thread here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/9?u=savvydao
This is a good initiative from Tally.
These suggested upgrades especially in the proposal process is very much welcome as it ensures a more seamless navigation between Forum and Tally.
DAOplomats (previous DAOStewards) voted in favor of this proposal.
This is a good initiative from Tally.
These suggested upgrades especially in the proposal process is very much welcome as it ensures a more seamless navigation between Forum and Tally.
DAOplomats (previous DAOStewards) voted in favor of this proposal.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe Tally plays a vital role in our governance infrastructure, and we have been impressed by the Tally team's proactive engagement and alignment with the DAO over the last year.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe Tally plays a vital role in our governance infrastructure, and we have been impressed by the Tally team's proactive engagement and alignment with the DAO over the last year.
The improvement suggested within the well thought through and logical framework would clearly benefit Arbitrum's governance process. In aggregate, we believe these changes will greatly enhance the accessibility, transparency, efficiency and usability of the DAOs core governance processes. We look forward to this partnership continuing into the future.
After considering the proposal and community feedback, We decided to support this proposal due to its potential to significantly enhance the Arbitrum DAO's governance toolings by making it more accessible, transparent, and user-friendly.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of expanding Tally's support for the DAO.
The Tally team has been consistently shipping new improvements to their UI and made significant contributions throughout the first year of the Arbitrum DAO. (As a team that uses Gnosis Safes for governance, improvements to multisig support have been greatly appreciated!)
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of expanding Tally's support for the DAO.
The Tally team has been consistently shipping new improvements to their UI and made significant contributions throughout the first year of the Arbitrum DAO. (As a team that uses Gnosis Safes for governance, improvements to multisig support have been greatly appreciated!)
All these proposed upgrades would be great to have, and would reduce some annoyances (like all of the [OLD] proposal spam).
The part about researching solutions for shielded onchain voting is pretty important - perhaps this is worth more than $10k in funding? Having Shutter for Snapshot has been nice, but we've really been lacking a usable onchain solution. Would be a huge improvement for future Security Council elections if we can get this done!
Thank you for your kind words JoJo! We do have more ideas about how to improve Arbitrum governance. We're going to start by soliciting additional input from the community per the suggestion of @dk3 and @krst, then we'll likely come back with another proposal that would be something of a phase 2.
Voting Yes on this proposal.
The QOL improvements are severals. Specifically i really like the inclusion of discourse comment in tally because all the knowledge about the proposal is technically in here, and we want a deeper and deeper integration. As well as the karma integration. And the flexible voting is cool as well.
Voting Yes on this proposal.
The QOL improvements are severals. Specifically i really like the inclusion of discourse comment in tally because all the knowledge about the proposal is technically in here, and we want a deeper and deeper integration. As well as the karma integration. And the flexible voting is cool as well.
TBH i think all of the innovation provided here are very very good, and I think tally is becoming an essential product for our governance. We want to integrate it as much as possible with both established tools (discourse) and new tools (karma) we are using, we want to diminish friction as much as possible for voters to both act and access info, and for automatic tools to fetch what delegates are doing.
Strong yes for @Frisson and his team, hoping that after this integration is complete they will come back to us with a new proposal to address what they had to left out (i am pretty sure they had more ideas they couldn't lay down in here due to time constraints) and also the new capabilities we will eventually need in future.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a
canceledstatus that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
Perfect! And thank you for clarifying. My only suggestion would be the ideal would be that the user can opt to filter / sort out the canceled status somehow on the Tally page. As I think that would make it cleaner for the end users who may be looking to choose a delegate or view their delegates voting history.
Thank you for your comments and support @Bob-Rossi! The thoughts you shared are very insightful. We are generally aligned with all of your suggestions.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a canceled status that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
I will be voting "For".
Tally has been huge in regards to both Arbitrum itself and the broad governance space. I think that anything we can do to make projects like Tally or Snapshot better is a win-win, as it should improve our governance goals as well.
Specific to the proposal:
I will be voting "For".
Tally has been huge in regards to both Arbitrum itself and the broad governance space. I think that anything we can do to make projects like Tally or Snapshot better is a win-win, as it should improve our governance goals as well.
Specific to the proposal:
A question however - Will the cancel function be cut-off at a certain point of the proposal? i.e., only before voting started? I see a lot of value in this, but I also know we ran into issues of proposers deleting Snapshot votes that already started. I see the value in being able to cancel once something starts (incase there is an error found by the community not found by the proposer) but I think I'd like to see this functionality where it doesn't get deleted but moved to a specific 'canceled proposals' section. If possible of course. I think there is value in cleaning up the main voting page but also value in having the full history.
And as a final comment, I think that even though these projects are specific to Arbitrum I would like to see these types of things be expanded out to other DAOs. I did see the comment that this is a Arb-specific item due to the way our governance works, however my hope is that some of these things (like say shielded voting and canceling erroneous proposals) could be expanded to all projects. Whether Arbitrum has to front that entire bill or not, I think the greater DAO space can benefit from things like this and I'd rather see the broad benefit subsidized by Arbitrum then not see it implemented at all. Any improvement system-wide should benefit Arbitrm in the long run.
We’ve voted for! Tally is a very critical infrastructure for governance smoothness. Happy to see you continue supporting the Arbitrum DAO.
Having read the proposal and the additional insights that @Frisson provided, I am voting in favor of this proposal.
The changes are meaningful and I am excited to see more integration with Karma which is increasingly becoming an important tool for the Arbitrum DAO.
On behalf of the UADP, we are very excited to see this proposal and are fully in favor of the DAO expanding support for Tally. We think what they have done in the past few months customized for Arbitrum is great and the team is very helpful to work with. The budget ask is reasonable in our opinions.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a
canceledstatus that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
Perfect! And thank you for clarifying. My only suggestion would be the ideal would be that the user can opt to filter / sort out the canceled status somehow on the Tally page. As I think that would make it cleaner for the end users who may be looking to choose a delegate or view their delegates voting history.
Thanks and look forward to see what can be done with this.
cp0x voted in favor of this proposal.
We are glad to see such usefull upgrades in voting. We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
This proposal is live on Snapshot.
I will vote abstain because this proposal directly benefits Tally.
On behalf of the Arbitrum community members who entrusted me with their voting power, I am voting FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO. Tally has demonstrated their commitment to improving the DAO's governance processes by proposing enhancements to the proposal process, upgrading Governor contracts, highlighting delegate contributions, and researching future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. The proposed changes will make it easier for delegates and contributors to engage with governance activities, promote transparency, and set the DAO up for long-term success. The clear timeline and reasonable cost breakdown further support the viability of this proposal.
Thanks for your comments @dk3! I think the Governor upgrades in this proposal would be a great use case for the ARDC security resources. I like the idea of an open discussion period for DAO tooling - dm'd you to coordinate.
I used the Snapshot --> Proposal tool when making my last onchain proposal, and it was silky smooth, also this is a good potential opportunity to use the ARDC security resources to review the smart contracts for the upgrade. Whatever we can do to take on more ownership from OCL I am supportive of, if only we could speed up that delivery time 4mo is a lifetime.
Maybe not the right proposal for this, but I think an open discussion period where people can submit Ease of Use or Quality of Life improvements to streamline Karma, Discourse, Snapshot, & Tally integration would be beneficial down the line, but this is def a step in the right direction.
@cp0x the issue you highlighted about delegations being displayed differently in different parts of the site has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks for your comments @Englandzz_Curia!
I think the primary security concerns would arise from the smart contract upgrades (let me know if there are other particular concerns you foresee). We plan to address smart contract upgrade security by 1. working with the team most experienced with these kinds of upgrades (Scopelift) and 2. auditing the upgrades. The audit is not currently included in the cost of the proposal, which is one thing we will need to address.
Thanks for your comments @Englandzz_Curia!
I think the primary security concerns would arise from the smart contract upgrades (let me know if there are other particular concerns you foresee). We plan to address smart contract upgrade security by 1. working with the team most experienced with these kinds of upgrades (Scopelift) and 2. auditing the upgrades. The audit is not currently included in the cost of the proposal, which is one thing we will need to address.
The budget is based on both predicted work required and predicted value to the DAO. We spent time scoping the work to try to identify potential complexities. It's important to note that we are already quite familiar with the Arbitrum DAO smart contracts due to our past work, I don't expect anything to arise that would materially affect the budget.
Thank you for your answer. I wish you good luck in your work! :saluting_face:
Thank you for this comprehensive proposal. The integration of forum posts and the introduction of a cancel function for proposals stand out as particularly beneficial features. However, could you elaborate on how the team plans to address potential security concerns associated with these new features? Additionally, how was the budget estimated, and does it account for unforeseen complexities that might arise during implementation?
I added this item to the Improve the Proposal Process specification because it was suggested by an Arbitrum delegate and I think it's a fantastic idea.
- Build a diff checker into Tally proposals that shows what text has changed from Snapshot without having to click back over to Snapshot, to help delegates understand any relevant changes from the temp check phase to the onchain governance phase.
Thanks for your feedback, Harold! I replied to cp0x in the thread. The costs are based on both predicted work required and predicted value to the DAO. We believe the costs outlined in the proposal are a great value for the scope of the project and quality of the service providers delivering the work. Our goal was not to maximize the amount of money Tally can make off this proposal, but rather to request enough funding to enable us to allocate the resources required to expand support for Arbitrum and create a differentiated, best-in-class experience for governance stakeholders.
Thank you for your questions cp0x.
Thank you for your support JoJo! Happy to answer any questions you may have as you dig into the numbers.
That's a nice offer. I think Tally will only get better, more functional and more convenient. However, I would like to make a suggestion. Let's make a roadmap with milestones. Each milestone will include a budget and a deadlines. If all tasks are completed on time and with quality - you get paid. I think this option will be more suitable as you will be motivated to do all the work quickly and efficiently. What do you think?
Hello, @Frisson Great changes, I like them. However, I have a several questions )
And the third comment not about these changes: I noticed that our delegations are displayed differently in different parts of the site.
I will just comment on the merit and not the numbers cause I didn't had the time to look more in depth into them.
I strongly support this initiative. We have one of the most prolific DAO, automate partially the experience by having a deeper connection between our forum, the activity of delegates and Tally would be a very good move forward and likely improve the quality of life for most. And when that happens usually people can better focus on doing what they would actually need to do (which is not fighting against technology to keep everything aligned, like what might happen today with the current fragmentation we have).
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a
canceledstatus that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
Perfect! And thank you for clarifying. My only suggestion would be the ideal would be that the user can opt to filter / sort out the canceled status somehow on the Tally page. As I think that would make it cleaner for the end users who may be looking to choose a delegate or view their delegates voting history.
Thanks and look forward to see what can be done with this.
cp0x voted in favor of this proposal.
We are glad to see such usefull upgrades in voting. We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
This proposal is live on Snapshot.
I will vote abstain because this proposal directly benefits Tally.
On behalf of the Arbitrum community members who entrusted me with their voting power, I am voting FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO. Tally has demonstrated their commitment to improving the DAO's governance processes by proposing enhancements to the proposal process, upgrading Governor contracts, highlighting delegate contributions, and researching future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. The proposed changes will make it easier for delegates and contributors to engage with governance activities, promote transparency, and set the DAO up for long-term success. The clear timeline and reasonable cost breakdown further support the viability of this proposal.
Thanks for your comments @dk3! I think the Governor upgrades in this proposal would be a great use case for the ARDC security resources. I like the idea of an open discussion period for DAO tooling - dm'd you to coordinate.
I used the Snapshot --> Proposal tool when making my last onchain proposal, and it was silky smooth, also this is a good potential opportunity to use the ARDC security resources to review the smart contracts for the upgrade. Whatever we can do to take on more ownership from OCL I am supportive of, if only we could speed up that delivery time 4mo is a lifetime.
Maybe not the right proposal for this, but I think an open discussion period where people can submit Ease of Use or Quality of Life improvements to streamline Karma, Discourse, Snapshot, & Tally integration would be beneficial down the line, but this is def a step in the right direction.
@cp0x the issue you highlighted about delegations being displayed differently in different parts of the site has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks for your comments @Englandzz_Curia!
I think the primary security concerns would arise from the smart contract upgrades (let me know if there are other particular concerns you foresee). We plan to address smart contract upgrade security by 1. working with the team most experienced with these kinds of upgrades (Scopelift) and 2. auditing the upgrades. The audit is not currently included in the cost of the proposal, which is one thing we will need to address.
Thanks for your comments @Englandzz_Curia!
I think the primary security concerns would arise from the smart contract upgrades (let me know if there are other particular concerns you foresee). We plan to address smart contract upgrade security by 1. working with the team most experienced with these kinds of upgrades (Scopelift) and 2. auditing the upgrades. The audit is not currently included in the cost of the proposal, which is one thing we will need to address.
The budget is based on both predicted work required and predicted value to the DAO. We spent time scoping the work to try to identify potential complexities. It's important to note that we are already quite familiar with the Arbitrum DAO smart contracts due to our past work, I don't expect anything to arise that would materially affect the budget.
Thank you for your answer. I wish you good luck in your work! :saluting_face:
Thank you for this comprehensive proposal. The integration of forum posts and the introduction of a cancel function for proposals stand out as particularly beneficial features. However, could you elaborate on how the team plans to address potential security concerns associated with these new features? Additionally, how was the budget estimated, and does it account for unforeseen complexities that might arise during implementation?
I added this item to the Improve the Proposal Process specification because it was suggested by an Arbitrum delegate and I think it's a fantastic idea.
- Build a diff checker into Tally proposals that shows what text has changed from Snapshot without having to click back over to Snapshot, to help delegates understand any relevant changes from the temp check phase to the onchain governance phase.
Thanks for your feedback, Harold! I replied to cp0x in the thread. The costs are based on both predicted work required and predicted value to the DAO. We believe the costs outlined in the proposal are a great value for the scope of the project and quality of the service providers delivering the work. Our goal was not to maximize the amount of money Tally can make off this proposal, but rather to request enough funding to enable us to allocate the resources required to expand support for Arbitrum and create a differentiated, best-in-class experience for governance stakeholders.
Thank you for your questions cp0x.
Thank you for your support JoJo! Happy to answer any questions you may have as you dig into the numbers.
That's a nice offer. I think Tally will only get better, more functional and more convenient. However, I would like to make a suggestion. Let's make a roadmap with milestones. Each milestone will include a budget and a deadlines. If all tasks are completed on time and with quality - you get paid. I think this option will be more suitable as you will be motivated to do all the work quickly and efficiently. What do you think?
Hello, @Frisson Great changes, I like them. However, I have a several questions )
And the third comment not about these changes: I noticed that our delegations are displayed differently in different parts of the site.
I will just comment on the merit and not the numbers cause I didn't had the time to look more in depth into them.
I strongly support this initiative. We have one of the most prolific DAO, automate partially the experience by having a deeper connection between our forum, the activity of delegates and Tally would be a very good move forward and likely improve the quality of life for most. And when that happens usually people can better focus on doing what they would actually need to do (which is not fighting against technology to keep everything aligned, like what might happen today with the current fragmentation we have).
Thank you for your questions cp0x.
I'm working with the team on a fix for the voting power issue you shared and will follow up here with updates. Thanks for surfacing!
Hello, @Frisson Great changes, I like them. However, I have a several questions )
And the third comment not about these changes: I noticed that our delegations are displayed differently in different parts of the site.
But here I see 2 lines and incorrect values
Can you fix this?
I will just comment on the merit and not the numbers cause I didn't had the time to look more in depth into them.
I strongly support this initiative. We have one of the most prolific DAO, automate partially the experience by having a deeper connection between our forum, the activity of delegates and Tally would be a very good move forward and likely improve the quality of life for most. And when that happens usually people can better focus on doing what they would actually need to do (which is not fighting against technology to keep everything aligned, like what might happen today with the current fragmentation we have).
Thanks for the update @Frisson !
Thank you for your support Tane! Noted on the cancel functionality - that's a great point.
Hi @Frisson and other contributors to the proposal. We appreciate all the work and features that Tally has provided for the Arbitrum DAO and the DAO governance world in general.
We'd like to express full support of the initiative and echo @Immutablelawyer that the proposal covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.
Hi @Frisson and other contributors to the proposal. We appreciate all the work and features that Tally has provided for the Arbitrum DAO and the DAO governance world in general.
We'd like to express full support of the initiative and echo @Immutablelawyer that the proposal covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.
Enable cancel functionality on Tally proposals so proposal creators can cancel onchain proposals if there are mistakes.
A small comment on the cancel functionality; it may have already been considered but to prevent accidental cancelations of proposals in the middle or the final phase of voting, it would be better to only make it available for the first X hours or 1 day after the proposal creation (like flight ticket free cancelation.)
Thanks jengajojo. Appreciate you flagging the split delegation contracts, we'll include that in our research!
Thanks for your suggestion @ruslanklinkov! The timeline section of the proposal lays out the milestones and timelines for delivering them. We'll apply specific dates to each milestone if/when the proposal passes temp check. Tally is a high-profile company in the governance space and our reputation would be permanently and severely damaged to an extent greater than the cost of this proposal if we were to fail to execute for our largest client/user base (the Arbitrum DAO). We will deliver 😊. With that said, we will of course return the funds if some catastrophic, unforseen issue comes up that somehow prevents us from finishing the project.
Thank you for the kind words Joseph! We're excited to continue collaborating with you to move Arbitrum governance forward.
Hey @bendi I remember seeing scopelift doing some great work for other DAOs like Uniswap but I don't remember where else. Do you mind sharing some of your prev experience here? More for curiosity's sake here.
Regarding the proposal, I believe it's a small ask in the grand scheme and I am in favour of it.
I am personally in favour of this proposal.
Over the past few months, we've had several discussions and debates on improving governance tooling within the Ecosystem so as to holistically optimise the process. Our governance framework (technical and otherwise), underpins each and every aspect of what we currently execute and what we intend to execute on in the foreseeable future. In this regard, funding Tally so as to ensure a more seamless experience for the DAO is in my opinion a no-brainer.
I am personally in favour of this proposal.
Over the past few months, we've had several discussions and debates on improving governance tooling within the Ecosystem so as to holistically optimise the process. Our governance framework (technical and otherwise), underpins each and every aspect of what we currently execute and what we intend to execute on in the foreseeable future. In this regard, funding Tally so as to ensure a more seamless experience for the DAO is in my opinion a no-brainer.
Most notably, I am naturally looking forward to the cancel function due to some mishaps that we had in submitting the ARDC Proposal. Hence, inputting this function, which is minor in nature, ensures a longer-term value-add.
The above aside (which emanates from a personal experience), I think another important facet of this proposal is the Flexible Voting mechanism especially re. shielded voting (a topic that has been discussed even quite recently due to the Security Council elections).
All in all, this proposal represents a list of necessary optimisations that we need by a service provider that has shown commitment and full alignment to the DAO's longer term vision and current term objectives.
I'd also like to mention that for an Optimistic Governance Module grant that we're working on, Tally also offered integration support to the Tally Frontend for the ArbitrumDAO fully free of charge. Hence, the proposal's merits aside, Tally has also shown its commitment to participating actively within our community (this can also be seen by the large amount of proposals that are actually put up by Frisson - who is always ready and willing to dedicate time for proposers).
I look forward to seeing this come to fruition!
Kind regards, Immutablelawyer Axis Advisory
Thanks for the proposal @Frisson and appreciate the Tally teams' continued support with helping the DAO grow. I am generally in favor of the proposal but would like to urge you to look at the split delegation contracts being built by Gnosis and check if this can be forked/built up instead of a brand new solution.
Thank you for your questions cp0x.
I'm working with the team on a fix for the voting power issue you shared and will follow up here with updates. Thanks for surfacing!
Hello, @Frisson Great changes, I like them. However, I have a several questions )
And the third comment not about these changes: I noticed that our delegations are displayed differently in different parts of the site.
But here I see 2 lines and incorrect values
Can you fix this?
I will just comment on the merit and not the numbers cause I didn't had the time to look more in depth into them.
I strongly support this initiative. We have one of the most prolific DAO, automate partially the experience by having a deeper connection between our forum, the activity of delegates and Tally would be a very good move forward and likely improve the quality of life for most. And when that happens usually people can better focus on doing what they would actually need to do (which is not fighting against technology to keep everything aligned, like what might happen today with the current fragmentation we have).
Thanks for the update @Frisson !
Thank you for your support Tane! Noted on the cancel functionality - that's a great point.
Hi @Frisson and other contributors to the proposal. We appreciate all the work and features that Tally has provided for the Arbitrum DAO and the DAO governance world in general.
We'd like to express full support of the initiative and echo @Immutablelawyer that the proposal covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.
Hi @Frisson and other contributors to the proposal. We appreciate all the work and features that Tally has provided for the Arbitrum DAO and the DAO governance world in general.
We'd like to express full support of the initiative and echo @Immutablelawyer that the proposal covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.
Enable cancel functionality on Tally proposals so proposal creators can cancel onchain proposals if there are mistakes.
A small comment on the cancel functionality; it may have already been considered but to prevent accidental cancelations of proposals in the middle or the final phase of voting, it would be better to only make it available for the first X hours or 1 day after the proposal creation (like flight ticket free cancelation.)
Thanks jengajojo. Appreciate you flagging the split delegation contracts, we'll include that in our research!
Thanks for your suggestion @ruslanklinkov! The timeline section of the proposal lays out the milestones and timelines for delivering them. We'll apply specific dates to each milestone if/when the proposal passes temp check. Tally is a high-profile company in the governance space and our reputation would be permanently and severely damaged to an extent greater than the cost of this proposal if we were to fail to execute for our largest client/user base (the Arbitrum DAO). We will deliver 😊. With that said, we will of course return the funds if some catastrophic, unforseen issue comes up that somehow prevents us from finishing the project.
Thank you for the kind words Joseph! We're excited to continue collaborating with you to move Arbitrum governance forward.
Hey @bendi I remember seeing scopelift doing some great work for other DAOs like Uniswap but I don't remember where else. Do you mind sharing some of your prev experience here? More for curiosity's sake here.
Regarding the proposal, I believe it's a small ask in the grand scheme and I am in favour of it.
I am personally in favour of this proposal.
Over the past few months, we've had several discussions and debates on improving governance tooling within the Ecosystem so as to holistically optimise the process. Our governance framework (technical and otherwise), underpins each and every aspect of what we currently execute and what we intend to execute on in the foreseeable future. In this regard, funding Tally so as to ensure a more seamless experience for the DAO is in my opinion a no-brainer.
I am personally in favour of this proposal.
Over the past few months, we've had several discussions and debates on improving governance tooling within the Ecosystem so as to holistically optimise the process. Our governance framework (technical and otherwise), underpins each and every aspect of what we currently execute and what we intend to execute on in the foreseeable future. In this regard, funding Tally so as to ensure a more seamless experience for the DAO is in my opinion a no-brainer.
Most notably, I am naturally looking forward to the cancel function due to some mishaps that we had in submitting the ARDC Proposal. Hence, inputting this function, which is minor in nature, ensures a longer-term value-add.
The above aside (which emanates from a personal experience), I think another important facet of this proposal is the Flexible Voting mechanism especially re. shielded voting (a topic that has been discussed even quite recently due to the Security Council elections).
All in all, this proposal represents a list of necessary optimisations that we need by a service provider that has shown commitment and full alignment to the DAO's longer term vision and current term objectives.
I'd also like to mention that for an Optimistic Governance Module grant that we're working on, Tally also offered integration support to the Tally Frontend for the ArbitrumDAO fully free of charge. Hence, the proposal's merits aside, Tally has also shown its commitment to participating actively within our community (this can also be seen by the large amount of proposals that are actually put up by Frisson - who is always ready and willing to dedicate time for proposers).
I look forward to seeing this come to fruition!
Kind regards, Immutablelawyer Axis Advisory
Thanks for the proposal @Frisson and appreciate the Tally teams' continued support with helping the DAO grow. I am generally in favor of the proposal but would like to urge you to look at the split delegation contracts being built by Gnosis and check if this can be forked/built up instead of a brand new solution.
