This proposal is originally a GovHack submission, posted previously in the "GovHack Brussels" category. This is a repost for more visibility.
Constitutional / Non-Constitutional - Could be either, depending on execution (see details below)
ARDC's review: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-daouri-proposal-security-review/26938
Abstract
We propose that the Arbitrum DAO takes control of its metadata by publishing a daoURI onchain. The daoURI, following EIP-4824, will create a single source of truth on the DAO, that cannot be altered by external agencies, is fully manageable via governance, bringing helpful context on the DAO onchain. This will be helpful for newcomers, tooling providers, and experienced governooors alike.
Adopting EIP-4824 requires no additional spend from the DAO treasury, and it makes no change to its smart contracts or governance structure.
Background
EIP-4824 is a DAO metadata standard, akin to ERC-721 for NFTs. It has already been adopted by Snapshot, Aragon, Treasure, 1inch, Optimism Collective (through the Optimism Foundation), and multiple frameworks and DAOs. The adoption efforts are supported through grants from the Ethereum Foundation, Optimism Collective, ENS, Gnosis, Solana and many other stakeholders of the web3 ecosystem.
DAOstar is also an Arbitrum Foundation grantee. The grant aims to improve the adoption of EIP-4824 within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We are allocating a portion of that grant to steward this proposal, and are requesting no additional funds from the DAO.
Rationale
The Arbitrum DAO is one of the largest DAOs. It has one of the most active governances, in terms of number participants as well as community-led initiatives. All of this activity, along with the scale and complexity of the Arbitrum DAO breeds a lot of metadata. This dataset grows with every new initiative and has multiple components that may not be very visible from the “outside”. For example, consider the following questions:
For an active participant, these answers might not be very hard to find. But for the majority of people who are not active participants of the DAO, and even for tooling providers, collecting this information requires a painstaking amount of manual effort. This leads to inconsistencies, errors and outdated information.
The same concern echoes over the entire DAO ecosystem. There are over 200 DAOs at the moment with a treasury size of over $1M, and collecting information on them manually is becoming an exponentially difficult task. EIP-4824 was authored by DAOstar with the support from the Ethereum Foundation, Gnosis, Etherscan, DeepDAO, Snapshot, and a large number of DAO tooling companies, to create a better infrastructure for DAO data.
Adopting EIP-4824 essentially means that the DAO publishes a daoURI onchain. daoURIs have a standard JSON-LD format:
{
"@context": "http://www.daostar.org/schemas",
"type": "DAO",
"name": "<name of the DAO>",
"description": "<description>",
"membersURI": "<URI>",
"proposalsURI": "<URI>",
"activityLogURI": "<URI>",
"governanceURI": "<URI>",
"contractsRegistryURI": "<URI>"
}
It contains information on governance, members, activities and contracts by default. Outside of the endpoints mentioned above, a DAO can also choose to publish information that is specifically important to it. For Arbitrum, this could be information about orbit chains, different multi-sigs and councils, spending, sequencer fees, link to its constitution, etc. Essentially, the daoURI creates an “official repository” of information on the DAO.
Here are some examples of how the daoURI could be used:
to this:
For example, Arbitrum DAO’s current DeepDAO profile misses a ton of info - contracts, or revenue, or governance guardrails (councils and multi-sigs), etc. Messari’s Arbitrum DAO dashboard requires a paid membership to access, which could also be due to the difficulty of collecting and presenting DAO data (thus making it too valuable to give away for free). By making access to this information easy, we can greatly improve the DAO’s transparency. i.e, go from:
to this:
A specific example that surfaced during Arbitrum GovHack (thanks to Paulo Fonseca): onchain proposals at Arbitrum DAO (or any DAO for that matter) do not reference a forum discussion. This takes away a lot of available information. If we wanted to change this, we could achieve it easily by enforcing a discussionURI field inside the proposalURI (which is a standard component of daoURI). Tally, Aragon, Snapshot X, and most governance tooling providers are members of DAOstar. Extending the standard will create an easy upgrade pathway for them and this change would reflect the change across the ecosystem.
To summarize, a daoURI creates a source of truth that is easily accessible by onchain and offchain tools. This proposal carries no additional cost, or changes to any existing smart contract or process. It’s a step in the right direction with no downside.
Specifications
As mentioned above, adopting EIP-4824 essentially means that the DAO publishes a daoURI onchain. There are various ways to do this:
Based on Arbitrum DAO's characteristics, we suggest the following adoption pathways:
Executing a simple contract call to the EIP-4824 Registration Factory which'll deploys a new registration contract to store the daoURI. The registration will be on Arbitrum One network, setting the DAO’s governor timelock as admin, and a manager as the DAO decides. This would require a constitutional proposal.
Set a new 'daoURI' txt record on arbitrumfoundation.eth. Arbitrum Foundation will have complete edit access to this daoURI as they own arbitrumfoundation.eth. A daoURI published through this method will not be editable via an onchain vote. However, this method is in some sense easier than the previous, and it requires no onchain vote. This would be a non-constitutional proposal. When the time comes, the DAO can also adopt EIP-4824 through method 1 to have full control over its data.
Transactions for reference: Unlock Protocol, Treasure and 1inch
Steps to Implement
Create a daoURI for Arbitrum DAO: Based on conversations during the Arbitrum GovHack, and feedback from various delegates and contributors over the past 4 weeks, we have built this daoURI for Arbitrum:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUrBuJLBCZKnnEebwRe2Yqh3fk39H2mtqPQjMPUwVC1Ap
It is presently stored on IPFS, and uses APIs from Tally, Snapshot for governance data. We recommend that if the Arbitrum Foundation ends up being the manager, the daoURI be stored in their GitHub for ease of editing, and higher transparency. DAOstar will work with the Foundation on implementation.
Note that this is a starting point. The daoURI of Arbitrum DAO will continuously evolve and become more comprehensive over time.
Publish the daoURI onchain: As detailed in the execution summary above, this will either be a smart contract call to deploy a new contract, or setting a new txt record on arbitrumfoundation.eth
Maintain the daoURI: (Pathway 1) Though daoURI is fully manageable through governance, it is not practical to initiate an onchain vote for every upgrade. To solve this, the DAO can set one or many managers to manage its daoURI. The Arbitrum Foundation has agreed to take on this role if the DAO decides so. DAOstar will commit to maintaining Arbitrum DAO’s daoURI for a year for at additional cost. Note that managers can be added or removed easily by the DAO.
(Pathway 2) The DAO will not have the capability to change the daoURI through governance. However, it can instruct the Arbitrum Foundation to do so.
Irrespective of the adoption pathway, we would like to see the daoURI maintained through a community-led effort. We suggest that whoever is set as a manager maintain a forum discussion to discuss updates. That way, any Arbitrum DAO member can publicly request to add a missing piece of info to the daoURI.
Timeline
Unless the DAO has any feedback on the daoURI above, this proposal is ready for execution.
Overall Cost This proposal does not require any transfer of funds from the DAO treasury.
Special thanks to @Bobbay, @Matt_StableLab, @raam, @coolhorsegirl, @Srijith-Questbook, @Sinkas, Hayden (BlockworksResearch) and Nick Nahaghi (Hats) for feedback and edits; @krst, @AlexLumley, @Frisson, @dk3, and George Beall (Gauntlet) for the expert sessions, and to Klaus and the rest of the GovHack team for making an awesome event happen at Brussels!
This proposal is originally a GovHack submission, posted previously in the "GovHack Brussels" category. This is a repost for more visibility.
Constitutional / Non-Constitutional - Could be either, depending on execution (see details below)
ARDC's review: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-daouri-proposal-security-review/26938
Abstract
We propose that the Arbitrum DAO takes control of its metadata by publishing a daoURI onchain. The daoURI, following EIP-4824, will create a single source of truth on the DAO, that cannot be altered by external agencies, is fully manageable via governance, bringing helpful context on the DAO onchain. This will be helpful for newcomers, tooling providers, and experienced governooors alike.
Adopting EIP-4824 requires no additional spend from the DAO treasury, and it makes no change to its smart contracts or governance structure.
Background
EIP-4824 is a DAO metadata standard, akin to ERC-721 for NFTs. It has already been adopted by Snapshot, Aragon, Treasure, 1inch, Optimism Collective (through the Optimism Foundation), and multiple frameworks and DAOs. The adoption efforts are supported through grants from the Ethereum Foundation, Optimism Collective, ENS, Gnosis, Solana and many other stakeholders of the web3 ecosystem.
DAOstar is also an Arbitrum Foundation grantee. The grant aims to improve the adoption of EIP-4824 within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We are allocating a portion of that grant to steward this proposal, and are requesting no additional funds from the DAO.
Rationale
The Arbitrum DAO is one of the largest DAOs. It has one of the most active governances, in terms of number participants as well as community-led initiatives. All of this activity, along with the scale and complexity of the Arbitrum DAO breeds a lot of metadata. This dataset grows with every new initiative and has multiple components that may not be very visible from the “outside”. For example, consider the following questions:
For an active participant, these answers might not be very hard to find. But for the majority of people who are not active participants of the DAO, and even for tooling providers, collecting this information requires a painstaking amount of manual effort. This leads to inconsistencies, errors and outdated information.
The same concern echoes over the entire DAO ecosystem. There are over 200 DAOs at the moment with a treasury size of over $1M, and collecting information on them manually is becoming an exponentially difficult task. EIP-4824 was authored by DAOstar with the support from the Ethereum Foundation, Gnosis, Etherscan, DeepDAO, Snapshot, and a large number of DAO tooling companies, to create a better infrastructure for DAO data.
Adopting EIP-4824 essentially means that the DAO publishes a daoURI onchain. daoURIs have a standard JSON-LD format:
{
"@context": "http://www.daostar.org/schemas",
"type": "DAO",
"name": "<name of the DAO>",
"description": "<description>",
"membersURI": "<URI>",
"proposalsURI": "<URI>",
"activityLogURI": "<URI>",
"governanceURI": "<URI>",
"contractsRegistryURI": "<URI>"
}
It contains information on governance, members, activities and contracts by default. Outside of the endpoints mentioned above, a DAO can also choose to publish information that is specifically important to it. For Arbitrum, this could be information about orbit chains, different multi-sigs and councils, spending, sequencer fees, link to its constitution, etc. Essentially, the daoURI creates an “official repository” of information on the DAO.
Here are some examples of how the daoURI could be used:
to this:
For example, Arbitrum DAO’s current DeepDAO profile misses a ton of info - contracts, or revenue, or governance guardrails (councils and multi-sigs), etc. Messari’s Arbitrum DAO dashboard requires a paid membership to access, which could also be due to the difficulty of collecting and presenting DAO data (thus making it too valuable to give away for free). By making access to this information easy, we can greatly improve the DAO’s transparency. i.e, go from:
to this:
A specific example that surfaced during Arbitrum GovHack (thanks to Paulo Fonseca): onchain proposals at Arbitrum DAO (or any DAO for that matter) do not reference a forum discussion. This takes away a lot of available information. If we wanted to change this, we could achieve it easily by enforcing a discussionURI field inside the proposalURI (which is a standard component of daoURI). Tally, Aragon, Snapshot X, and most governance tooling providers are members of DAOstar. Extending the standard will create an easy upgrade pathway for them and this change would reflect the change across the ecosystem.
To summarize, a daoURI creates a source of truth that is easily accessible by onchain and offchain tools. This proposal carries no additional cost, or changes to any existing smart contract or process. It’s a step in the right direction with no downside.
Specifications
As mentioned above, adopting EIP-4824 essentially means that the DAO publishes a daoURI onchain. There are various ways to do this:
Based on Arbitrum DAO's characteristics, we suggest the following adoption pathways:
Executing a simple contract call to the EIP-4824 Registration Factory which'll deploys a new registration contract to store the daoURI. The registration will be on Arbitrum One network, setting the DAO’s governor timelock as admin, and a manager as the DAO decides. This would require a constitutional proposal.
Set a new 'daoURI' txt record on arbitrumfoundation.eth. Arbitrum Foundation will have complete edit access to this daoURI as they own arbitrumfoundation.eth. A daoURI published through this method will not be editable via an onchain vote. However, this method is in some sense easier than the previous, and it requires no onchain vote. This would be a non-constitutional proposal. When the time comes, the DAO can also adopt EIP-4824 through method 1 to have full control over its data.
Transactions for reference: Unlock Protocol, Treasure and 1inch
Steps to Implement
Create a daoURI for Arbitrum DAO: Based on conversations during the Arbitrum GovHack, and feedback from various delegates and contributors over the past 4 weeks, we have built this daoURI for Arbitrum:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUrBuJLBCZKnnEebwRe2Yqh3fk39H2mtqPQjMPUwVC1Ap
It is presently stored on IPFS, and uses APIs from Tally, Snapshot for governance data. We recommend that if the Arbitrum Foundation ends up being the manager, the daoURI be stored in their GitHub for ease of editing, and higher transparency. DAOstar will work with the Foundation on implementation.
Note that this is a starting point. The daoURI of Arbitrum DAO will continuously evolve and become more comprehensive over time.
Publish the daoURI onchain: As detailed in the execution summary above, this will either be a smart contract call to deploy a new contract, or setting a new txt record on arbitrumfoundation.eth
Maintain the daoURI: (Pathway 1) Though daoURI is fully manageable through governance, it is not practical to initiate an onchain vote for every upgrade. To solve this, the DAO can set one or many managers to manage its daoURI. The Arbitrum Foundation has agreed to take on this role if the DAO decides so. DAOstar will commit to maintaining Arbitrum DAO’s daoURI for a year for at additional cost. Note that managers can be added or removed easily by the DAO.
(Pathway 2) The DAO will not have the capability to change the daoURI through governance. However, it can instruct the Arbitrum Foundation to do so.
Irrespective of the adoption pathway, we would like to see the daoURI maintained through a community-led effort. We suggest that whoever is set as a manager maintain a forum discussion to discuss updates. That way, any Arbitrum DAO member can publicly request to add a missing piece of info to the daoURI.
Timeline
Unless the DAO has any feedback on the daoURI above, this proposal is ready for execution.
Overall Cost This proposal does not require any transfer of funds from the DAO treasury.
Special thanks to @Bobbay, @Matt_StableLab, @raam, @coolhorsegirl, @Srijith-Questbook, @Sinkas, Hayden (BlockworksResearch) and Nick Nahaghi (Hats) for feedback and edits; @krst, @AlexLumley, @Frisson, @dk3, and George Beall (Gauntlet) for the expert sessions, and to Klaus and the rest of the GovHack team for making an awesome event happen at Brussels!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/35
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/35
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-38: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/closed/ehARB-38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/32?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-38: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/30
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/28?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/36?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/25?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/54?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/23?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/20?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/19?u=euphoria
No cost and improves our ability to use and understand data
Highlights of the Proposal Enhanced Transparency: By publishing a daoURI on-chain, the Arbitrum DAO can provide a transparent source of inf
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/16?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/15?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/11?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/10?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/3?u=larva
Voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. Resubmit following proper process.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/34?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/43
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/42?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/41?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/37?u=tane
Generally supportive, but followed an invalid governance process
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/26?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/24?u=tekr0x.eth
Hope this can benefit transparency and maintain the integrity of the whole dataset.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/23?u=whizwang
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/22?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/21?u=0x_ultra
upport this proposal as it aligns with our community’s goals and contributes to the long-term growth and stability of the Arbitrum ecosystem
Reviewed this at gov hack with the proposing team, its more cosmetic than anything functional.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/20?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/17?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/15?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/10?u=blockworksresearch
Vote should ideally first be posted for 7 days on the Proposal section of the Forum for discussion pre-snapshot vote.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-38: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/closed/ehARB-38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/32?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-38: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/30
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/28?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/36?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/25?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/54?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/23?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/20?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/19?u=euphoria
No cost and improves our ability to use and understand data
Highlights of the Proposal Enhanced Transparency: By publishing a daoURI on-chain, the Arbitrum DAO can provide a transparent source of inf
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/16?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/15?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/11?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/10?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-arbitrum-dao/26386/3?u=larva
Voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. Resubmit following proper process.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/34?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/43
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/42?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/41?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/37?u=tane
Generally supportive, but followed an invalid governance process
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/26?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/24?u=tekr0x.eth
Hope this can benefit transparency and maintain the integrity of the whole dataset.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/23?u=whizwang
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/22?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/21?u=0x_ultra
upport this proposal as it aligns with our community’s goals and contributes to the long-term growth and stability of the Arbitrum ecosystem
Reviewed this at gov hack with the proposing team, its more cosmetic than anything functional.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/20?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/17?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/15?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/10?u=blockworksresearch
Vote should ideally first be posted for 7 days on the Proposal section of the Forum for discussion pre-snapshot vote.
Update: we are working with the Arbitrum Foundation on executing this proposal. A guide on how to create, maintain, and deploy the daoURI for Arbitrum DAO as an ENS txt record has been shared with the Foundation. They are currently evaluating it. I will provide implementation updates in this thread. Meanwhile, if you have any data you'd like to add to the daoURI, feel free to reach out!
cc: @raam, @cliffton.eth, @stonecoldpat
Update: we are working with the Arbitrum Foundation on executing this proposal. A guide on how to create, maintain, and deploy the daoURI for Arbitrum DAO as an ENS txt record has been shared with the Foundation. They are currently evaluating it. I will provide implementation updates in this thread. Meanwhile, if you have any data you'd like to add to the daoURI, feel free to reach out!
cc: @raam, @cliffton.eth, @stonecoldpat
Thank you for the support, and review @PGov! I acknowledge that these concerns are valid. Coordinating different managers simultaneously is not an easy task. One way to address this is to give each manager a specific subURI to maintain, depending on their expertise and service provided to the DAO.
Also agree that there is a reliance on tooling at this stage. I believe that Snapshot and Tally make a good starting point - these are services the DAO ecosystem relies on heavily, and they are incentivized to supply accurate data. However, the end goal is a state without dependencies. DAOstar is a completely open-source, non-profit that is dedicated to developing DAO standards. Please come and join the 90+ organizations to work towards this state, on EIP-4824 and other standards!
That is a good summary, @JoJo. In terms of the frequency of updates - yes, I do not envision this being a regular event. Only once new data comes up, in the form of a new multi-sig, or a new grant program, or a series of artefacts that are important to the DAO will the daoURI need to be updated. But we are still in the discovery phase so the frequency will need to be monitored over time.
Great question! daoURI updates will go through the manager. So, they need to be an entity that is receptive to community feedback and unbiased, ensuring that only relevant information is added to the daoURI.
How exactly it is managed depends on the execution. If daoURI is implemented as an ENS TXT record, then the Foundation will have sole edit access. However, working groups (and others) can periodically request new data to be added, which the Foundation will need to review and update in the daoURI. This can easily be done through pull requests or via a forum thread/category (similar to how anyone can publicly communicate with the ARDC through the forum). This is open to discussion. Tagging @stonecoldpat and @raam for their feedback as well.
Great question! daoURI updates will go through the manager. So, they need to be an entity that is receptive to community feedback and unbiased, ensuring that only relevant information is added to the daoURI.
How exactly it is managed depends on the execution. If daoURI is implemented as an ENS TXT record, then the Foundation will have sole edit access. However, working groups (and others) can periodically request new data to be added, which the Foundation will need to review and update in the daoURI. This can easily be done through pull requests or via a forum thread/category (similar to how anyone can publicly communicate with the ARDC through the forum). This is open to discussion. Tagging @stonecoldpat and @raam for their feedback as well.
If daoURI is implemented as a smart contract (giving the DAO full edit access and the power to set as many managers as it wishes), then management becomes a bit more flexible. Each working group multisig could theoretically be added as a manager, assuming there will be no conflicts about which version of daoURI they consider valid. Or, as in the previous case, the Foundation could be the sole manager, with everyone else going through them for updates.
Sure thing, sharing the code below @paulofonseca:
Sure thing, sharing the code below @paulofonseca:
We are presently using Tally's and Snapshot's APIs for fetching members and proposals. If you or others have comments or suggestions on the implementation, feel free to share them here! We are open to new methods that reduces dependencies. Also, as DAOstar is completely open-source, you can open a PR to directly suggest improvements.
Note that who ever is selected as the manager of the daoURI (lets assume that this is the Arbitrum Foundation) is free to utilize our code above to implement the daoURI. They can also swap out the pieces they want to implement differently.
Hey @cp0x, we reposted it because most delegates wanted us to. If you refer to the previous forum post https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371, you'll see that most people voted AGAINST/ABSTAIN because the proposal was in the wrong category, even though they were aligned with the idea. So this time around, we have rectified that mistake.
Looking forward to your continued support!
Thank you for the support, and review @PGov! I acknowledge that these concerns are valid. Coordinating different managers simultaneously is not an easy task. One way to address this is to give each manager a specific subURI to maintain, depending on their expertise and service provided to the DAO.
Also agree that there is a reliance on tooling at this stage. I believe that Snapshot and Tally make a good starting point - these are services the DAO ecosystem relies on heavily, and they are incentivized to supply accurate data. However, the end goal is a state without dependencies. DAOstar is a completely open-source, non-profit that is dedicated to developing DAO standards. Please come and join the 90+ organizations to work towards this state, on EIP-4824 and other standards!
That is a good summary, @JoJo. In terms of the frequency of updates - yes, I do not envision this being a regular event. Only once new data comes up, in the form of a new multi-sig, or a new grant program, or a series of artefacts that are important to the DAO will the daoURI need to be updated. But we are still in the discovery phase so the frequency will need to be monitored over time.
Great question! daoURI updates will go through the manager. So, they need to be an entity that is receptive to community feedback and unbiased, ensuring that only relevant information is added to the daoURI.
How exactly it is managed depends on the execution. If daoURI is implemented as an ENS TXT record, then the Foundation will have sole edit access. However, working groups (and others) can periodically request new data to be added, which the Foundation will need to review and update in the daoURI. This can easily be done through pull requests or via a forum thread/category (similar to how anyone can publicly communicate with the ARDC through the forum). This is open to discussion. Tagging @stonecoldpat and @raam for their feedback as well.
Great question! daoURI updates will go through the manager. So, they need to be an entity that is receptive to community feedback and unbiased, ensuring that only relevant information is added to the daoURI.
How exactly it is managed depends on the execution. If daoURI is implemented as an ENS TXT record, then the Foundation will have sole edit access. However, working groups (and others) can periodically request new data to be added, which the Foundation will need to review and update in the daoURI. This can easily be done through pull requests or via a forum thread/category (similar to how anyone can publicly communicate with the ARDC through the forum). This is open to discussion. Tagging @stonecoldpat and @raam for their feedback as well.
If daoURI is implemented as a smart contract (giving the DAO full edit access and the power to set as many managers as it wishes), then management becomes a bit more flexible. Each working group multisig could theoretically be added as a manager, assuming there will be no conflicts about which version of daoURI they consider valid. Or, as in the previous case, the Foundation could be the sole manager, with everyone else going through them for updates.
Sure thing, sharing the code below @paulofonseca:
Sure thing, sharing the code below @paulofonseca:
We are presently using Tally's and Snapshot's APIs for fetching members and proposals. If you or others have comments or suggestions on the implementation, feel free to share them here! We are open to new methods that reduces dependencies. Also, as DAOstar is completely open-source, you can open a PR to directly suggest improvements.
Note that who ever is selected as the manager of the daoURI (lets assume that this is the Arbitrum Foundation) is free to utilize our code above to implement the daoURI. They can also swap out the pieces they want to implement differently.
Hey @cp0x, we reposted it because most delegates wanted us to. If you refer to the previous forum post https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371, you'll see that most people voted AGAINST/ABSTAIN because the proposal was in the wrong category, even though they were aligned with the idea. So this time around, we have rectified that mistake.
Looking forward to your continued support!
The results are in for the An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1392
The results are in for the An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1392
I fully support this proposal, as it presents multiple key benefits without requiring additional funding, plus it comes from DAOstar, which is completely open-source and already the recipient of an Arbitrum grant. This proposal significantly improves governance transparency and simplicity by providing a standardized interface, facilitating interaction across different tools, and enhancing integration with other EIP-4824 DAOs, especially from the perspective of a everyday non-technical user.
I echo the concerns about the exact implementations for the management of the daoURI, the one manager per subURI proposal is potentially worth exploring.
I fully support this proposal, as it presents multiple key benefits without requiring additional funding, plus it comes from DAOstar, which is completely open-source and already the recipient of an Arbitrum grant. This proposal significantly improves governance transparency and simplicity by providing a standardized interface, facilitating interaction across different tools, and enhancing integration with other EIP-4824 DAOs, especially from the perspective of a everyday non-technical user.
I echo the concerns about the exact implementations for the management of the daoURI, the one manager per subURI proposal is potentially worth exploring.
I have voted for this proposal on Snapshot. Making sure that newcomers can easily find a source of truth about information on the DAO is one of the best remedies against capture. Happy to see we're leveraging ENS as well, it's the staple for a reason and this initiative will further bring it the lindy it deserves!
I have voted for this proposal on Snapshot. Making sure that newcomers can easily find a source of truth about information on the DAO is one of the best remedies against capture. Happy to see we're leveraging ENS as well, it's the staple for a reason and this initiative will further bring it the lindy it deserves!
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
An official repository of information on the DAO is net-positive and would certainly provide people with a reliable location of verified onchain information. There are no additional costs to the DAO and with the ARDC seeing no issues with it, we were happy to vote in favor.
Voted for to this proposal. From the two options, chose ENS. This is a good way to manage a single source of truth -"official repository"- for daoURI metadata, and managed by governance, at no additional cost.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal for the same reasons we supported it in the past.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal for the same reasons we supported it in the past.
The previous vote for this proposal was defeated simply because of a hiccup in the governance process. The proposal has now followed the proper procedure and has also received a security review from the ARDC, which raised no significant concerns. Given that, we see no reason to vote against it.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We just wanted to provide transparency regarding why we voted For this proposal. The reasoning essentially stands the same from our previous comment on this post but is updated based on proper procedure :
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We just wanted to provide transparency regarding why we voted For this proposal. The reasoning essentially stands the same from our previous comment on this post but is updated based on proper procedure :
Unfortunately, due to issues surrounding the procedure, we voted against this proposal. We will vote For a revised proposal though.
We vote for Use ENS txt records on Snapshot.
This change leads to a better accessibility of the metadata for the toolings in the ecosystem, without additional cost. We believe it's acceptable to utilize the ENS records for the information.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR - Use ENS txt records” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
As we expressed during the previous vote, we support this initiative as it significantly improves information accessibility, enabling external parties to learn about various DAO details in one centralized location and at no cost to the DAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR - Use ENS txt records” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
As we expressed during the previous vote, we support this initiative as it significantly improves information accessibility, enabling external parties to learn about various DAO details in one centralized location and at no cost to the DAO.
However, when selecting between the two options, we opted for the ENS txt records, prioritizing simplicity. Although we generally prefer the DAO to maintain as much autonomy as possible, keeping the information updated could prove challenging without a dedicated manager.
I voted YES. Making open and accessible data more transparent with no additional costs is only a a benefit to this industry.
Just voted FOR
It's a simple and effective way to improve access to Arbitrum DAO’s data without needing extra funding or major changes to the existing smart contracts. Plus, it keeps things flexible—using text records allows for easy updates without requiring an on-chain vote every time. This feels like a practical move to help streamline how we manage important DAO information while keeping it transparent and decentralized.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/29
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted for the ENS Text Record option. We chose this option because its streamlined and efficient compared to a Constitutional Proposal. This is beneficial to all delegates and we're looking forward to the integrations with DeepDAO, ArbScan, Snapshot, etc.
We're voting FOR the ENS text record option. We definitely need a single source of truth for Arbitrum DAO's metadata to improve accessibility and tooling integration. It's a low-risk, no-cost improvement that aligns with best practices in the DAO ecosystem.
gm, voted FOR this proposal. Adding more transparency to our processes is always useful, would be great to understand how many people will actually look into that. Chose the ENS option as the simplest one.
We are supporting the proposal with the ENS text record option as it aligns with our goal of enhancing the DAO’s accessibility. It’s a straightforward, no-cost solution to improve transparency and accessibility for ArbitrumDAO.
Voted For - Use ENS TXT records: Picking up good practices from other DAOs makes sense. Putting as much info as possible on-chain is necessary for open and transparent governance. I support this kind of standard being adopted by all major DAOs. I agree that we should set the daoURI record on Arbitrum’s ENS. Also, it’s great that this upgrade doesn’t require any payment from the treasury.
I'm voting in favor for the option "FOR - Use ENS txt records". I think that this proposal is a nice accessibility improvement, it fosters transparency and has no extra costs. Concerning the option, the reason behind my decision is that this will basically make things easier and won't require an on-chain vote for every single change, which can be time-consuming. At the same time, this option allows changes to be made if the community requires them.
I voted FOR.
Proper information/data is mandatory, and this proposal helps to enhance the one available for ArbitrumDAO.
Voting For this proposal and using ENS txt records
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
An official repository of information on the DAO is net-positive and would certainly provide people with a reliable location of verified onchain information. There are no additional costs to the DAO and with the ARDC seeing no issues with it, we were happy to vote in favor.
Voted for to this proposal. From the two options, chose ENS. This is a good way to manage a single source of truth -"official repository"- for daoURI metadata, and managed by governance, at no additional cost.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal for the same reasons we supported it in the past.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal for the same reasons we supported it in the past.
The previous vote for this proposal was defeated simply because of a hiccup in the governance process. The proposal has now followed the proper procedure and has also received a security review from the ARDC, which raised no significant concerns. Given that, we see no reason to vote against it.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We just wanted to provide transparency regarding why we voted For this proposal. The reasoning essentially stands the same from our previous comment on this post but is updated based on proper procedure :
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We just wanted to provide transparency regarding why we voted For this proposal. The reasoning essentially stands the same from our previous comment on this post but is updated based on proper procedure :
Unfortunately, due to issues surrounding the procedure, we voted against this proposal. We will vote For a revised proposal though.
We vote for Use ENS txt records on Snapshot.
This change leads to a better accessibility of the metadata for the toolings in the ecosystem, without additional cost. We believe it's acceptable to utilize the ENS records for the information.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR - Use ENS txt records” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
As we expressed during the previous vote, we support this initiative as it significantly improves information accessibility, enabling external parties to learn about various DAO details in one centralized location and at no cost to the DAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR - Use ENS txt records” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
As we expressed during the previous vote, we support this initiative as it significantly improves information accessibility, enabling external parties to learn about various DAO details in one centralized location and at no cost to the DAO.
However, when selecting between the two options, we opted for the ENS txt records, prioritizing simplicity. Although we generally prefer the DAO to maintain as much autonomy as possible, keeping the information updated could prove challenging without a dedicated manager.
I voted YES. Making open and accessible data more transparent with no additional costs is only a a benefit to this industry.
Just voted FOR
It's a simple and effective way to improve access to Arbitrum DAO’s data without needing extra funding or major changes to the existing smart contracts. Plus, it keeps things flexible—using text records allows for easy updates without requiring an on-chain vote every time. This feels like a practical move to help streamline how we manage important DAO information while keeping it transparent and decentralized.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/29
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted for the ENS Text Record option. We chose this option because its streamlined and efficient compared to a Constitutional Proposal. This is beneficial to all delegates and we're looking forward to the integrations with DeepDAO, ArbScan, Snapshot, etc.
We're voting FOR the ENS text record option. We definitely need a single source of truth for Arbitrum DAO's metadata to improve accessibility and tooling integration. It's a low-risk, no-cost improvement that aligns with best practices in the DAO ecosystem.
gm, voted FOR this proposal. Adding more transparency to our processes is always useful, would be great to understand how many people will actually look into that. Chose the ENS option as the simplest one.
We are supporting the proposal with the ENS text record option as it aligns with our goal of enhancing the DAO’s accessibility. It’s a straightforward, no-cost solution to improve transparency and accessibility for ArbitrumDAO.
Voted For - Use ENS TXT records: Picking up good practices from other DAOs makes sense. Putting as much info as possible on-chain is necessary for open and transparent governance. I support this kind of standard being adopted by all major DAOs. I agree that we should set the daoURI record on Arbitrum’s ENS. Also, it’s great that this upgrade doesn’t require any payment from the treasury.
I'm voting in favor for the option "FOR - Use ENS txt records". I think that this proposal is a nice accessibility improvement, it fosters transparency and has no extra costs. Concerning the option, the reason behind my decision is that this will basically make things easier and won't require an on-chain vote for every single change, which can be time-consuming. At the same time, this option allows changes to be made if the community requires them.
I voted FOR.
Proper information/data is mandatory, and this proposal helps to enhance the one available for ArbitrumDAO.
Voting For this proposal and using ENS txt records
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/29
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
I support the proposal to implement an EIP-4824-powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO, specifically opting for the ENS txt records approach as suggested by several delegates. This method is straightforward and effective, allowing the DAO to establish a single source of truth on-chain without any additional costs. Utilizing ENS txt records ensures the metadata remains accessible and easily updatable without needing constant governance interventions, which enhances transparency and usability for newcomers, tooling providers, and current DAO members.
While this solution provides a robust foundation for maintaining important DAO information, I agree with other delegates that a clear, streamlined process for managing updates will be beneficial. As the DAO grows, an established structure for managing and updating the ENS records will be essential to maintain accuracy and utility. This setup not only offers transparency but also sets the groundwork for future improvements in data accessibility.
Voting "For", should bring a lot of value. I indicated in the original thread that I would support this, but just voted against for procedural reasons (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/43?u=bob-rossi)
Simply put - this will add value to the DAO at no cost, I don't really see a reason to vote against.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal to use ENS txt records.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal to use ENS txt records.
Initially, we voted Against it when it was on Snapshot after GovHack Brussels, but based on the security report by ARDC Security Member, there are no risks, and this will improve on-chain transparency of DAO data.
EIP-4824 is a well-designed standard for managing DAO data, making it easier for participants and tooling providers to access recommended sources. This has been a challenge for us in our Chora Club development.
We suggest clarifying the additional costs related to Pathway 1 before the Tally proposal. If the foundation manages updates, the costs should be made transparent to the DAO, possibly by adding the role to an existing council.
The ENS txt record updates are a good starting point, with the option to deploy a contract later if needed.
voting For – Use registration contract in the current offchain proposal because this information should be under the control of the DAO not the Arbitrum Foundation. the other option of using "ENS txt records" would update the ENS arbitrumfoundation.eth which is not even the name of our DAO, which is "Arbitrum DAO". Our Arbitrum DAO is not the ENS name arbitrumfoundation.eth, it is the set of onchain governor contracts that control our protocol and network, so that's what should be updated to hold this information. Also, my vote is conditional to the fact that we should use as few dependencies as possible for the members and proposals dynamic URIs, so that the onchain representation of the DAO is not relying on private companies APIs, especially for publicly available onchain governance data.
The vote is "FOR" I am not a coder or technician, I just show what I see from a common user:
The vote is "FOR" I am not a coder or technician, I just show what I see from a common user:
Flexibility of the Update Mechanism: While the proposal states that the management of the daoURI can be handled through community governance, relying on voting mechanisms for frequent updates and maintenance may prove insufficiently flexible.
Support for the proposal
The proposal has no capital cost, does not change existing smart contracts, and is a good option for improving transparency and governance efficiency, and is worth pursuing. daoURI provides an “official repository” for centralized management of DAO metadata, reducing inconsistencies and errors and improving efficiency. This is very helpful for both the community and external participants. Recommendations Maintenance of daoURI could be community-driven, ensuring that any important updates are discussed and added in a timely manner.
Just voted in favor of using ENS txt records on Snapshot. EIP-4824 is a solid and useful standard, and it’s great to see it getting implemented on Arbitrum. Having a reliable source for trusted info will definitely help newcomers and anyone diving deeper into Arbitrum. Plus, no additional funding needed for this proposal is a huge bonus.
kuiqian.eth supports the proposal on snapshot. There was a focus on the first proposal before, this shouldn't make a difference because of that. Seems like a very valuable proposal, this proposal improves the transparency of the DAO, promotes better and more efficient governance, and deserves to be adopted! Basic reasoning:
I voted For - Use ENS text records on this proposal at the temp check stage. This seems like a valuable way to improve access to Arbitrum DAO data in the ecosystem. I chose the ENS text records option because we should only gate high-risk technical upgrades behind constitutional proposals.
While the contract could be better more flexible, I think is fine going for the simplest solution, AKA a txt file in the ens. And I think that when we will want to update info in a meaningful way, a discussion + a sentiment check vote could be done and the foundation could take care of it, especially because my guess is that this operation shouldn't happen too often. @amanwithwings pls let me know if i am missing something here.
I vote in favor of this proposal. @amanwithwings I appreciate that it was done correctly in the "Proposal" section using the usual process. I believe it will help us gather all the necessary information to make a more informed decision.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This is a very interesting idea and perfect for keeping a source of truth/aggregated stored history for the DAO. As for managing the daoURI, are there any specific expectations/powers that come from this? Should this be delegated to the foundation for management, or elsewhere (onboarding working groups would stand to benefit from this because it would keep track of ongoing initiatives of the DAO universally).
Nice to see this live! =) Thank you for all the work on this!
One question @amanwithwings, could you share the github repos with the code that is collecting and updating the information in these 2 endpoints that are listed in the proposed daoURI on IPFS?
Nice to see this live! =) Thank you for all the work on this!
One question @amanwithwings, could you share the github repos with the code that is collecting and updating the information in these 2 endpoints that are listed in the proposed daoURI on IPFS?
https://proposalsuri.daostar.org/proposals/arbitrumfoundation.eth?onchain=arbitrum https://membersuri.daostar.org/members/arbitrumfoundation.eth?onchain=arbitrum
This will bring substantial transparency and organization to the network. Using EIP-4824, this daoURI would establish a single source of truth that cannot be altered by external parties and would be fully manageable by the DAO itself. By making this metadata readily available, Arbitrum can streamline governance and provide clarity on aspects like delegate performance, multisig addresses, and DAO spending.
Maybe some concerns:
This will bring substantial transparency and organization to the network. Using EIP-4824, this daoURI would establish a single source of truth that cannot be altered by external parties and would be fully manageable by the DAO itself. By making this metadata readily available, Arbitrum can streamline governance and provide clarity on aspects like delegate performance, multisig addresses, and DAO spending.
Maybe some concerns:
This is exactly what Arbitrum DAO urgently needs. Being able to describe its operational mechanism and governance processes in a transparent and standardized way is a sign of a DAO's maturity. For instance, from the beginning, ANDAO has emphasized openness and transparency. All of our decisions require voting, and profits are shared among all community members. Of course, many of our decisions haven’t been put on-chain due to a lack of funding. But Arbitrum DAO is different. Arbitrum DAO has both the ability and the necessity to put all rules and information on-chain, achieving full decentralization. This will greatly enhance the DAO’s transparency and the trust of its participants. So I totally support this proposal!
I supported your proposal last time. Can you explain what the change is? And if there is none, then why did you send it to a vote again, even though the last one did not go in your favor?
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/29
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
I support the proposal to implement an EIP-4824-powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO, specifically opting for the ENS txt records approach as suggested by several delegates. This method is straightforward and effective, allowing the DAO to establish a single source of truth on-chain without any additional costs. Utilizing ENS txt records ensures the metadata remains accessible and easily updatable without needing constant governance interventions, which enhances transparency and usability for newcomers, tooling providers, and current DAO members.
While this solution provides a robust foundation for maintaining important DAO information, I agree with other delegates that a clear, streamlined process for managing updates will be beneficial. As the DAO grows, an established structure for managing and updating the ENS records will be essential to maintain accuracy and utility. This setup not only offers transparency but also sets the groundwork for future improvements in data accessibility.
Voting "For", should bring a lot of value. I indicated in the original thread that I would support this, but just voted against for procedural reasons (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/43?u=bob-rossi)
Simply put - this will add value to the DAO at no cost, I don't really see a reason to vote against.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal to use ENS txt records.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal to use ENS txt records.
Initially, we voted Against it when it was on Snapshot after GovHack Brussels, but based on the security report by ARDC Security Member, there are no risks, and this will improve on-chain transparency of DAO data.
EIP-4824 is a well-designed standard for managing DAO data, making it easier for participants and tooling providers to access recommended sources. This has been a challenge for us in our Chora Club development.
We suggest clarifying the additional costs related to Pathway 1 before the Tally proposal. If the foundation manages updates, the costs should be made transparent to the DAO, possibly by adding the role to an existing council.
The ENS txt record updates are a good starting point, with the option to deploy a contract later if needed.
voting For – Use registration contract in the current offchain proposal because this information should be under the control of the DAO not the Arbitrum Foundation. the other option of using "ENS txt records" would update the ENS arbitrumfoundation.eth which is not even the name of our DAO, which is "Arbitrum DAO". Our Arbitrum DAO is not the ENS name arbitrumfoundation.eth, it is the set of onchain governor contracts that control our protocol and network, so that's what should be updated to hold this information. Also, my vote is conditional to the fact that we should use as few dependencies as possible for the members and proposals dynamic URIs, so that the onchain representation of the DAO is not relying on private companies APIs, especially for publicly available onchain governance data.
The vote is "FOR" I am not a coder or technician, I just show what I see from a common user:
The vote is "FOR" I am not a coder or technician, I just show what I see from a common user:
Flexibility of the Update Mechanism: While the proposal states that the management of the daoURI can be handled through community governance, relying on voting mechanisms for frequent updates and maintenance may prove insufficiently flexible.
Support for the proposal
The proposal has no capital cost, does not change existing smart contracts, and is a good option for improving transparency and governance efficiency, and is worth pursuing. daoURI provides an “official repository” for centralized management of DAO metadata, reducing inconsistencies and errors and improving efficiency. This is very helpful for both the community and external participants. Recommendations Maintenance of daoURI could be community-driven, ensuring that any important updates are discussed and added in a timely manner.
Just voted in favor of using ENS txt records on Snapshot. EIP-4824 is a solid and useful standard, and it’s great to see it getting implemented on Arbitrum. Having a reliable source for trusted info will definitely help newcomers and anyone diving deeper into Arbitrum. Plus, no additional funding needed for this proposal is a huge bonus.
kuiqian.eth supports the proposal on snapshot. There was a focus on the first proposal before, this shouldn't make a difference because of that. Seems like a very valuable proposal, this proposal improves the transparency of the DAO, promotes better and more efficient governance, and deserves to be adopted! Basic reasoning:
I voted For - Use ENS text records on this proposal at the temp check stage. This seems like a valuable way to improve access to Arbitrum DAO data in the ecosystem. I chose the ENS text records option because we should only gate high-risk technical upgrades behind constitutional proposals.
While the contract could be better more flexible, I think is fine going for the simplest solution, AKA a txt file in the ens. And I think that when we will want to update info in a meaningful way, a discussion + a sentiment check vote could be done and the foundation could take care of it, especially because my guess is that this operation shouldn't happen too often. @amanwithwings pls let me know if i am missing something here.
I vote in favor of this proposal. @amanwithwings I appreciate that it was done correctly in the "Proposal" section using the usual process. I believe it will help us gather all the necessary information to make a more informed decision.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This is a very interesting idea and perfect for keeping a source of truth/aggregated stored history for the DAO. As for managing the daoURI, are there any specific expectations/powers that come from this? Should this be delegated to the foundation for management, or elsewhere (onboarding working groups would stand to benefit from this because it would keep track of ongoing initiatives of the DAO universally).
Nice to see this live! =) Thank you for all the work on this!
One question @amanwithwings, could you share the github repos with the code that is collecting and updating the information in these 2 endpoints that are listed in the proposed daoURI on IPFS?
Nice to see this live! =) Thank you for all the work on this!
One question @amanwithwings, could you share the github repos with the code that is collecting and updating the information in these 2 endpoints that are listed in the proposed daoURI on IPFS?
https://proposalsuri.daostar.org/proposals/arbitrumfoundation.eth?onchain=arbitrum https://membersuri.daostar.org/members/arbitrumfoundation.eth?onchain=arbitrum
This will bring substantial transparency and organization to the network. Using EIP-4824, this daoURI would establish a single source of truth that cannot be altered by external parties and would be fully manageable by the DAO itself. By making this metadata readily available, Arbitrum can streamline governance and provide clarity on aspects like delegate performance, multisig addresses, and DAO spending.
Maybe some concerns:
This will bring substantial transparency and organization to the network. Using EIP-4824, this daoURI would establish a single source of truth that cannot be altered by external parties and would be fully manageable by the DAO itself. By making this metadata readily available, Arbitrum can streamline governance and provide clarity on aspects like delegate performance, multisig addresses, and DAO spending.
Maybe some concerns:
This is exactly what Arbitrum DAO urgently needs. Being able to describe its operational mechanism and governance processes in a transparent and standardized way is a sign of a DAO's maturity. For instance, from the beginning, ANDAO has emphasized openness and transparency. All of our decisions require voting, and profits are shared among all community members. Of course, many of our decisions haven’t been put on-chain due to a lack of funding. But Arbitrum DAO is different. Arbitrum DAO has both the ability and the necessity to put all rules and information on-chain, achieving full decentralization. This will greatly enhance the DAO’s transparency and the trust of its participants. So I totally support this proposal!
I supported your proposal last time. Can you explain what the change is? And if there is none, then why did you send it to a vote again, even though the last one did not go in your favor?
