Non-Constitutional
TogetherCrew is a project, incubated in RnDAO, that aims to empower communities with their data. With a team of network scientists, TogetherCrew is researching how Web3 social networks behave, with a special emphasis on retaining new community members and community health.
TogetherCrew is requesting read access to Arbitrum’s Discourse and Discord API to run an analysis with our partners (researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara) and present it to the community for research purposes.
For clarity, this analysis ONLY uses data that is already publicly available. No private data will be collected. No data will be sold to third parties nor used without consent.
This proposal also allows us to test Hivemind, a bot that reads public data from Discourse and Discord and allows community members to ask questions: e.g. "has anyone discussed the topic of Treasury management before?" or "What were the most common objections to proposals related to incentives?".
No budget is required as this research has already been funded through other sources (academic grants and previous Web3 grants from Aave, Aragon, Celo, Pocket Network and MetaCartel to develop the data pipelines, infrastructure, and previous research on community helath).
Our understanding of Web3 social networks is still in its infancy. Studying the configuration of a social network and its impact on member retention could yield valuable insights to improve the resilience of Web3 communities.
Additionally, the social network mapping analysis gives us a potential tool to identify high-context community members (e.g. a recent analysis of Optimism’s community enabled their community team to identify potential community ambassadors who had been missed). This analysis could be used to suggest members to invite to the offsite (non-binding, just as an exploratory analysis).
We care about data privacy. We only collect data that is already in the public domain (e.g. public discourse posts yes, but not the email addresses associated with their account). Feedback was provided by the Arbiturm Foundation on our privacy policy and terms of service.
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc. The permissions are configured to be low-risk (no admin permission, no managing channels, etc. so even if the bot was hacked, the discord and discourse servers wouldn't be compromised) and we have battle-tested for scalability and reliability.
The analyses of the data are performed by the TogetherCrew team of scientists and our research partners at the University of California Santa Barbara. Those handling the data have undergone ethical data management training and could lose their academic credentials for unethical conduct.
The architecture has been developed by our tech lead who’s ex-Accenture and built a data startup in the medical industry. So although the data we manage is low risk (no private data, only public handles, etc.) we’re still investing in data security progressively.
We don’t use the data to train any AI models. Some analyses might use AI, in which case we favour open-source models that don’t feed on user data.
Changes to the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy: TogetherCrew currently has no changes planed, but should a change be planned, TogetherCrew will give a minimum of 2 weeks' notice to the DAO, via a new proposal post, before such changes take effect. Thus allowing any delegate to submit a snapshot vote to suspend the service if desired.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels. No further actions are required. We'll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months). Additionally, we'll run a pilot of Hivemidn which uses this same data to answer community questions.
No budget requested
We do hope in the future to develop additional functionalities communities would pay for. E.g.:
In parnterhip with SingulairtyNET we’ve been developing Hivemind - an AI-powered Q&A bot that acts as a research assistant enabling community members to ask questions such as:
And funded by the Arbitrum questbook program we’re also developing Dynamic Reputation NFTs, where members who desire to do so can mint their context score onchain. Thos who don’t desire it, don’t need to take any action, the NFTs are opt-in only.
For now, the solution is made available free of charge.
Had there been a previous proposal? We had posted about this some time ago but didn’t move forward with it. Now with the discussion around context we’re curious to explore that and see if we can provide a solution to the DAO.
Non-Constitutional
TogetherCrew is a project, incubated in RnDAO, that aims to empower communities with their data. With a team of network scientists, TogetherCrew is researching how Web3 social networks behave, with a special emphasis on retaining new community members and community health.
TogetherCrew is requesting read access to Arbitrum’s Discourse and Discord API to run an analysis with our partners (researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara) and present it to the community for research purposes.
For clarity, this analysis ONLY uses data that is already publicly available. No private data will be collected. No data will be sold to third parties nor used without consent.
This proposal also allows us to test Hivemind, a bot that reads public data from Discourse and Discord and allows community members to ask questions: e.g. "has anyone discussed the topic of Treasury management before?" or "What were the most common objections to proposals related to incentives?".
No budget is required as this research has already been funded through other sources (academic grants and previous Web3 grants from Aave, Aragon, Celo, Pocket Network and MetaCartel to develop the data pipelines, infrastructure, and previous research on community helath).
Our understanding of Web3 social networks is still in its infancy. Studying the configuration of a social network and its impact on member retention could yield valuable insights to improve the resilience of Web3 communities.
Additionally, the social network mapping analysis gives us a potential tool to identify high-context community members (e.g. a recent analysis of Optimism’s community enabled their community team to identify potential community ambassadors who had been missed). This analysis could be used to suggest members to invite to the offsite (non-binding, just as an exploratory analysis).
We care about data privacy. We only collect data that is already in the public domain (e.g. public discourse posts yes, but not the email addresses associated with their account). Feedback was provided by the Arbiturm Foundation on our privacy policy and terms of service.
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc. The permissions are configured to be low-risk (no admin permission, no managing channels, etc. so even if the bot was hacked, the discord and discourse servers wouldn't be compromised) and we have battle-tested for scalability and reliability.
The analyses of the data are performed by the TogetherCrew team of scientists and our research partners at the University of California Santa Barbara. Those handling the data have undergone ethical data management training and could lose their academic credentials for unethical conduct.
The architecture has been developed by our tech lead who’s ex-Accenture and built a data startup in the medical industry. So although the data we manage is low risk (no private data, only public handles, etc.) we’re still investing in data security progressively.
We don’t use the data to train any AI models. Some analyses might use AI, in which case we favour open-source models that don’t feed on user data.
Changes to the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy: TogetherCrew currently has no changes planed, but should a change be planned, TogetherCrew will give a minimum of 2 weeks' notice to the DAO, via a new proposal post, before such changes take effect. Thus allowing any delegate to submit a snapshot vote to suspend the service if desired.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels. No further actions are required. We'll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months). Additionally, we'll run a pilot of Hivemidn which uses this same data to answer community questions.
No budget requested
We do hope in the future to develop additional functionalities communities would pay for. E.g.:
In parnterhip with SingulairtyNET we’ve been developing Hivemind - an AI-powered Q&A bot that acts as a research assistant enabling community members to ask questions such as:
And funded by the Arbitrum questbook program we’re also developing Dynamic Reputation NFTs, where members who desire to do so can mint their context score onchain. Thos who don’t desire it, don’t need to take any action, the NFTs are opt-in only.
For now, the solution is made available free of charge.
Had there been a previous proposal? We had posted about this some time ago but didn’t move forward with it. Now with the discussion around context we’re curious to explore that and see if we can provide a solution to the DAO.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/65?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/64
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/65?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/64
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/60
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/58?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/56?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-39: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/active/ehARB-39
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-39: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/49
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/44?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/47?u=0x_ultra
An often overlooked aspect of web3! Looking forward to seeing the data results
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/40?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/37?u=euphoria
Abstaining due to conflict of interest (it's my proposal)
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/38?u=tekr0x.eth
This will unlock insights and is low risk
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/35?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/34?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/33?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/29?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/26?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/24?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/60
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/58?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/56?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-39: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/active/ehARB-39
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-39: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/49
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/44?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/47?u=0x_ultra
An often overlooked aspect of web3! Looking forward to seeing the data results
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/40?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/37?u=euphoria
Abstaining due to conflict of interest (it's my proposal)
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/38?u=tekr0x.eth
This will unlock insights and is low risk
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/35?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/34?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/33?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/29?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/26?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/24?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
it was integrated a month or so ago
it was integrated a month or so ago
We support initiatives that improve community access to governance information. This proposal's focus on analyzing public data to enhance member retention and provide easier access to historical discussions could significantly reduce barriers to participation in Arbitrum's governance.
We support initiatives that improve community access to governance information. This proposal's focus on analyzing public data to enhance member retention and provide easier access to historical discussions could significantly reduce barriers to participation in Arbitrum's governance.
This is very interesting. I want to know if the tool is open source. Where can I see the detailed report of TogetherCrew on the op chain?
Q3: IF any of these possibilities were true, wouldn’t it be akin to having a constituency list, with each voting block mapped and their interactions visible? Wouldn’t any politician, pay a hand or a leg to access this goldmine of a database?
As cool as this sounds, it would be a highly incomplete map as a lot of the governance occur offchain and across other communication platforms
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc.
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc.
Q1: Is there a single report on the study (conducted in over 100 communities I read) available to publish as a sample ?
Q2: I went through the link embedded in "research on community health". The document defines community health as the following-
" Our definition of Community Health includes five aspects:
Does this mean that these are the things that would be measured as part of this study? If so, is there even a minute possibility that this bot would enable someone to use that publicly available data to map -
Q3: IF any of these possibilities were true, wouldn't it be akin to having a constituency list, with each voting block mapped and their interactions visible? Wouldn't any politician, pay a hand or a leg to access this goldmine of a database?
Disclaimer: I highlight these concerns with no privileged information other than what is provided in the discussion thread. I claim no knowledge of the process involved in the suggested meta-study. All these questions I ask, I seek to learn.
Thank you, I'll go take a look
The first stage of the project consisted of an exploratory analysis of community dynamics at Optimism, which yielded various interesting preliminary findings.
Maybe share the findings, since all study was consensual and public. Would make it easier for all on the forum to gauge what they are signing up for !
Appreciate the reply and sharing the lab and PI. I look forward to reviewing the IRB and the final research. I just wanted to note for you, usually IRB should be approved before data collection or analysis in human subjects research, even if the risks are de minimis.
I think this is a no-brainer assuming that all the necessary precautions, ethical considerations around data usage, privacy and so on are dealt with and deemed fine. I really like what Danielo and the RnDAO team are doing around improving social organisation and coordination across DAOs, and believe it is much more important than the attention it is currently receiving would suggest.
Going over the terms of service / privacy policy, one thing that caught my eye was the paragraphs saying that the ToS and PP may be modified without notice (wouldn't this be non-compliant with GDPR?) - here I think it'd be reasonable to include a requirement to notify (in this case) the DAO of any changes involving the use of this data.
I think this is a no-brainer assuming that all the necessary precautions, ethical considerations around data usage, privacy and so on are dealt with and deemed fine. I really like what Danielo and the RnDAO team are doing around improving social organisation and coordination across DAOs, and believe it is much more important than the attention it is currently receiving would suggest.
Going over the terms of service / privacy policy, one thing that caught my eye was the paragraphs saying that the ToS and PP may be modified without notice (wouldn't this be non-compliant with GDPR?) - here I think it'd be reasonable to include a requirement to notify (in this case) the DAO of any changes involving the use of this data.
Kudos to you and team @danielo
Please do note that the data is publicly available already, anyone could scrape it. We’re choosing to get community consent as a general principle
Wouldn't it be illegal (or in the very least highly unethical) to scrape such data without consent ? To seek consent is not a general principle, it's a legal prerequisite..
Could you please identify the researchers at UCSB and provide a copy of their IRB submission and IRB board approval? Assuming this research is sanctioned by the University, they should be able to provide the DAO with these documents which will, among other things, identify the research questions, responsible parties, the risks, and how they intend to utilize the data (along with their privacy policy, etc.).
If not sanctioned, or they are unable to provide the IRB approval, please indicate why not.
This is very interesting. I want to know if the tool is open source. Where can I see the detailed report of TogetherCrew on the op chain?
Q3: IF any of these possibilities were true, wouldn’t it be akin to having a constituency list, with each voting block mapped and their interactions visible? Wouldn’t any politician, pay a hand or a leg to access this goldmine of a database?
As cool as this sounds, it would be a highly incomplete map as a lot of the governance occur offchain and across other communication platforms
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc.
The solution is based on an (open-source) bot that will get read access to selected community platforms (for now Discourse and public channels in Discord). This bot has already been deployed in 100+ communities, including Optimism, Celo, Aave, Aragon, Shardeum, etc.
Q1: Is there a single report on the study (conducted in over 100 communities I read) available to publish as a sample ?
Q2: I went through the link embedded in "research on community health". The document defines community health as the following-
" Our definition of Community Health includes five aspects:
Does this mean that these are the things that would be measured as part of this study? If so, is there even a minute possibility that this bot would enable someone to use that publicly available data to map -
Q3: IF any of these possibilities were true, wouldn't it be akin to having a constituency list, with each voting block mapped and their interactions visible? Wouldn't any politician, pay a hand or a leg to access this goldmine of a database?
Disclaimer: I highlight these concerns with no privileged information other than what is provided in the discussion thread. I claim no knowledge of the process involved in the suggested meta-study. All these questions I ask, I seek to learn.
Thank you, I'll go take a look
The first stage of the project consisted of an exploratory analysis of community dynamics at Optimism, which yielded various interesting preliminary findings.
Maybe share the findings, since all study was consensual and public. Would make it easier for all on the forum to gauge what they are signing up for !
Appreciate the reply and sharing the lab and PI. I look forward to reviewing the IRB and the final research. I just wanted to note for you, usually IRB should be approved before data collection or analysis in human subjects research, even if the risks are de minimis.
I think this is a no-brainer assuming that all the necessary precautions, ethical considerations around data usage, privacy and so on are dealt with and deemed fine. I really like what Danielo and the RnDAO team are doing around improving social organisation and coordination across DAOs, and believe it is much more important than the attention it is currently receiving would suggest.
Going over the terms of service / privacy policy, one thing that caught my eye was the paragraphs saying that the ToS and PP may be modified without notice (wouldn't this be non-compliant with GDPR?) - here I think it'd be reasonable to include a requirement to notify (in this case) the DAO of any changes involving the use of this data.
I think this is a no-brainer assuming that all the necessary precautions, ethical considerations around data usage, privacy and so on are dealt with and deemed fine. I really like what Danielo and the RnDAO team are doing around improving social organisation and coordination across DAOs, and believe it is much more important than the attention it is currently receiving would suggest.
Going over the terms of service / privacy policy, one thing that caught my eye was the paragraphs saying that the ToS and PP may be modified without notice (wouldn't this be non-compliant with GDPR?) - here I think it'd be reasonable to include a requirement to notify (in this case) the DAO of any changes involving the use of this data.
Kudos to you and team @danielo
Please do note that the data is publicly available already, anyone could scrape it. We’re choosing to get community consent as a general principle
Wouldn't it be illegal (or in the very least highly unethical) to scrape such data without consent ? To seek consent is not a general principle, it's a legal prerequisite..
Could you please identify the researchers at UCSB and provide a copy of their IRB submission and IRB board approval? Assuming this research is sanctioned by the University, they should be able to provide the DAO with these documents which will, among other things, identify the research questions, responsible parties, the risks, and how they intend to utilize the data (along with their privacy policy, etc.).
If not sanctioned, or they are unable to provide the IRB approval, please indicate why not.
The results are in for the Research on context and retention off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1391
The results are in for the Research on context and retention off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1391
To clarify, the AF provided feedback on the wider proposal as requested, and asked questions pertaining to the privacy policy and terms of service
To clarify, the AF provided feedback on the wider proposal as requested, and asked questions pertaining to the privacy policy and terms of service
where is this research output?
where is this research output?
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’re voting FOR the proposal.
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’re voting FOR the proposal.
This feels like a straightforward ask for access to information that is already public to conduct research that has the potential to benefit the DAO. We do not see any risk with providing the access, so we’re voting in favor.
After some consideration, Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
It seems relatively clear cut to us that this is a benefit to the DAO. There is not cost required and the information is largely public. We see little risk here.
We’ll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months).
more than 3 months have passed since the snapshot vote for this proposal has ended on October 4th, 2024.
We’ll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months).
more than 3 months have passed since the snapshot vote for this proposal has ended on October 4th, 2024.
@danielo has anything been presented to the community as the outcome of this proposal?
@cliffton.eth @raam has anything, by any chance, been presented to the Arbitrum Foundation as the outcome of this proposal?
I still don't understand the big discussion and some resistance on this issue.
We don't react to the fact that anyone can come in and analyze all our transactions, because it's public information, but we can perceive the same information on forums as personal correspondence?
I still don't understand the big discussion and some resistance on this issue.
We don't react to the fact that anyone can come in and analyze all our transactions, because it's public information, but we can perceive the same information on forums as personal correspondence?
Of course, no one will analyze your personal messages on the forum and in Discord, because this is not public information, and otherwise, you need to come to terms with the fact that all your words are saved on the network and anyone can read them.
And if something useful can be done from our messages, then we should only be grateful.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal.
This research is good and takes nothing away from the community.
For context, re users' privacy, @danielo coming to the DAO to inform us of their plans to scrap Discourse is being too nice really. Several projects/teams already do this without informing anyone, so we see no reason to be against it.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Although some folks had privacy concerns, the data is at the end of the day are public and could yield interesting findings. It would be a different story if there was a more explicit profit motive associated with this—but there doesn’t seem to be. We also appreciate the AF for not making a decision regarding this without consultation of DAO members, since some may consider the data public but personal.
I voted FOR. No budget requirement means no dilution of ARB token and treasury spendings but giving (hopefully) important insights.
Thank you for your reply.
I appreciate the transparency and your willingness to work toward a positive outcome. However, I think we should not pursue identifying who is who, doing what, how, when, and where. Privacy on Arbitrum should be strengthened, not weakened. A recent example of privacy concerns was demonstrated by the leaks from Fractal ID, an issue that, to my knowledge, the foundation has not yet addressed. We continue to use their services for KYB/C, even though victims are still suffering from the consequences of this leak.
For context, we engaged with the Foundation requesting said access about 2 months ago, and after reviewing everything, they requested we get confirmation from the DAO.
As I understand it, it's not so much about the legal/permissions side of it, but also about confirming buy-in for the idea.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We believe this report can provide valuable insights to the DAO at no additional cost. Given that the Foundation has already provided feedback about privacy policies and on the wider proposal, we have decided to support it.
I voted for this proposal. At no additional cost, it seems a good idea to explore to see what added value it can provide to the DAO. And approval here does not necessarily mean approval to a new proposal that might require a budget down the road from this organization. If no API access was given, they could nevertheless scrape it. Voted in favour
Nothing has been presented. Research is underway and only very recently the tool was deployed.
Academia is not fast... please expect a few more months.
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’re voting FOR the proposal.
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’re voting FOR the proposal.
This feels like a straightforward ask for access to information that is already public to conduct research that has the potential to benefit the DAO. We do not see any risk with providing the access, so we’re voting in favor.
After some consideration, Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
It seems relatively clear cut to us that this is a benefit to the DAO. There is not cost required and the information is largely public. We see little risk here.
We’ll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months).
more than 3 months have passed since the snapshot vote for this proposal has ended on October 4th, 2024.
We’ll present our findings to the community (progressively over 1-3 months).
more than 3 months have passed since the snapshot vote for this proposal has ended on October 4th, 2024.
@danielo has anything been presented to the community as the outcome of this proposal?
@cliffton.eth @raam has anything, by any chance, been presented to the Arbitrum Foundation as the outcome of this proposal?
I still don't understand the big discussion and some resistance on this issue.
We don't react to the fact that anyone can come in and analyze all our transactions, because it's public information, but we can perceive the same information on forums as personal correspondence?
I still don't understand the big discussion and some resistance on this issue.
We don't react to the fact that anyone can come in and analyze all our transactions, because it's public information, but we can perceive the same information on forums as personal correspondence?
Of course, no one will analyze your personal messages on the forum and in Discord, because this is not public information, and otherwise, you need to come to terms with the fact that all your words are saved on the network and anyone can read them.
And if something useful can be done from our messages, then we should only be grateful.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal.
This research is good and takes nothing away from the community.
For context, re users' privacy, @danielo coming to the DAO to inform us of their plans to scrap Discourse is being too nice really. Several projects/teams already do this without informing anyone, so we see no reason to be against it.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Although some folks had privacy concerns, the data is at the end of the day are public and could yield interesting findings. It would be a different story if there was a more explicit profit motive associated with this—but there doesn’t seem to be. We also appreciate the AF for not making a decision regarding this without consultation of DAO members, since some may consider the data public but personal.
I voted FOR. No budget requirement means no dilution of ARB token and treasury spendings but giving (hopefully) important insights.
Thank you for your reply.
I appreciate the transparency and your willingness to work toward a positive outcome. However, I think we should not pursue identifying who is who, doing what, how, when, and where. Privacy on Arbitrum should be strengthened, not weakened. A recent example of privacy concerns was demonstrated by the leaks from Fractal ID, an issue that, to my knowledge, the foundation has not yet addressed. We continue to use their services for KYB/C, even though victims are still suffering from the consequences of this leak.
For context, we engaged with the Foundation requesting said access about 2 months ago, and after reviewing everything, they requested we get confirmation from the DAO.
As I understand it, it's not so much about the legal/permissions side of it, but also about confirming buy-in for the idea.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We believe this report can provide valuable insights to the DAO at no additional cost. Given that the Foundation has already provided feedback about privacy policies and on the wider proposal, we have decided to support it.
I voted for this proposal. At no additional cost, it seems a good idea to explore to see what added value it can provide to the DAO. And approval here does not necessarily mean approval to a new proposal that might require a budget down the road from this organization. If no API access was given, they could nevertheless scrape it. Voted in favour
Nothing has been presented. Research is underway and only very recently the tool was deployed.
Academia is not fast... please expect a few more months.
Thank you @danielo for the additional context. An update to my post above (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/54?u=bob-rossi) - after sleeping on it and the additional info I will maintain my "Against" vote.
I do not have an issue with the research of public content and can see the benefits. When someone posts something publicly accessible there is understanding that data can be harvested. Danielo looks to have put a lot of thought, as well as appreciated guardrails & limits, to the data collection. It is unfortunate the Discord situation has created a legal grey area.
Thank you @danielo for the additional context. An update to my post above (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/54?u=bob-rossi) - after sleeping on it and the additional info I will maintain my "Against" vote.
I do not have an issue with the research of public content and can see the benefits. When someone posts something publicly accessible there is understanding that data can be harvested. Danielo looks to have put a lot of thought, as well as appreciated guardrails & limits, to the data collection. It is unfortunate the Discord situation has created a legal grey area.
As for the why of the no vote, I will repeat what I mentioned above. The DAO shouldn't be in charge of determining if user data should be scraped like this. It goes beyond on the scope of the DAO. For a site like this where data is posted publicly, it's not like the DAO can stop people from scraping data so the discussion is a moot point. And for Discord, the AF is noted as being in charge of the Discord so I am failing to see why the AF wants to put that decision on us as a DAO. As far as I'm aware, the DAO has not had to vote on any other Discord-related decisions.
I would be curious to see the AF's @Arbitrum reasoning why the DAO is being asked to give permission on the Discord portion of this given the DAO has no control over the Discord channel. As truthfully it feels like they acknowledge this is a legal grey area and the burden of that is being pushed to the DAO.
A quick edit to add:
As I understand it, it’s not so much about the legal/permissions side of it, but also about confirming buy-in for the idea.
If the goal is confirming buy-in, is this going to Tally? And if it's going to Tally does it really need to...? The snapshot vote and this thread has provided a lot of context on buy in, going to Tally to re-confirm that seems like a waste of time.
Voted: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Research on Context and Retention
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/28
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Voted: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Research on Context and Retention
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/28
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
This proposal offers the DAO a unique opportunity to gain insights into community retention and engagement without incurring any costs. The requested data is already publicly available, so there’s minimal privacy risk. While some have voiced privacy concerns, it’s important to note that this data could be accessed by any interested party since it’s already in the public domain. By supporting this research, we may uncover valuable findings to enhance community health and user retention strategies.
Furthermore, the proposal includes the potential to test a bot, Hivemind, which would allow community members to query relevant historical discussions, adding further value to community engagement. It’s commendable that the Foundation consulted DAO members on this initiative, demonstrating a respectful approach to data handling and governance. Given the non-commercial, academic nature of this research, the potential benefits far outweigh any perceived risks.
I mean, this is very different. Fractal was focused on verifying someone's real identity using VERY sensitive data. We don't even collect email addresses. In that sense, we're not identifying who is who.
We went through a discord review of our policies to verify the bot. Past 100 servers it's mandatory, otherwise you can't add it to new servers.
Also for clarity please note that anyone can request their data be erased or they'd be given a copy, as per our policy (independent of the applicability of GDPR or not in certain jurisdictions, we consider this a fundamental right).
@danielo isn't it against Discord Privacy Policy and looks similar to other bots data farm such as Spy Pet? cf https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039598252-Protecting-Your-Data Discourse has probably set up similar privacy policies to fight against these kind of data farms.
I do not consent with my Discord data being captured in the first place. This is also mine and everybody's fundamental right. As per my Discourse data, I’m submitting it under the CC0 license as specified on my forum bio here.
voting AGAINST the offchain proposal.
voting AGAINST the offchain proposal.
The fact that the data is 'publicly' accessible—meaning it is shared on social media, public forums, or platforms like Discord where most people can view it by creating an account or receiving specific permission—does not mean it is free to be collected or processed.
The content that will be scraped by the bot includes both personal data (which identifies or makes individuals identifiable) and potential IP rights over proposals and/or feedback. While there are exceptions to the application of the relevant regulations, I haven’t found details on how the data is handled or why it would fall under such an exception.
The DAO cannot approve engaging in a practice (data collection for processing) that it does not have the authority to carry out. The data belongs to individuals, and the IP belongs to the individuals, and they must authorize its use. In any case, the Discourse and Discord policies should be reviewed beforehand
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate the potential value to be provided by the research from TogetherCrew team without cost from the DAO treasury. However, we are not certain that the DAO is the one to decide whether the API access to Discord is allowed, while most of the Discourse data is public and much related to discussions around the DAO. Either way, we support the concept and its modified implementation that addresses the concerns from the delegates and related parties.
In favor of this.
Based on the answers given by @danielo, we are satisfied, as we had similar concerns to those raised by other delegates.
In favor of this.
Based on the answers given by @danielo, we are satisfied, as we had similar concerns to those raised by other delegates.
The open-source nature and focus on analyzing only public data ensures transparency while minimizing any privacy concerns. We also appreciate the research-driven approach, especially the collaboration with academic institutions, which adds credibility to the analysis.
Understanding how Web3 communities operate and retain members is crucial for the long-term health of DAOs like Arbitrum. This proposal seems like a great opportunity to gain those insights.
We’re looking forward to seeing how this works ;--)
I will be voting against for similar concerns @pedrob raised. I'm not sure the DAO is really one to have say over this, as ultimately the DAO is (as far as I'm aware) not in control of the discord channel. And probably more importantly the DAO shouldn't really be making decisions for individual users privacy.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels.
I will be voting against for similar concerns @pedrob raised. I'm not sure the DAO is really one to have say over this, as ultimately the DAO is (as far as I'm aware) not in control of the discord channel. And probably more importantly the DAO shouldn't really be making decisions for individual users privacy.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels.
I guess maybe it's this line that confuses me... if the foundation is the one with the permissions why does the DAO need to be involved at all? I get it as a general sentiment check, but presumably there will be people in the Discord who don't have voting power that would not have a say. For public channels I don't see an issue, as privacy isn't expected but from what others have said it seems the Discord has different rules on this.
All said, I'm not opposed to the broad concept. It seems like it can provide valuable data at no cost - which is great! I guess the question becomes is this something that can be done with publicly available information? Or is there a way users can Opt-In to the Discord so only those who elect to do this can participate.
Edit: I see there is still a day to vote, I'll hold on the vote until tomorrow incase additional info comes to light
I'm voting in favor. This research seems really interesting plus it requires no budget and it only uses data that is already publicly available. Initially I was concerned about potential security issues but I saw that it was already brought up in the previous discussions, leaving me with no other major doubts. I'm curious to see the results of this research!
Nice! I personally think it is desirable to sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of security! Thank you very much!
voting Against the current offchain proposal because we shouldn't treat Discord open channels data as public data, since it isn't public data. I would maybe agree with this proposal if it only used Discourse forum data, which can be argued that it is public, and also if all the analysis and dashboards would be shared with the broad community and submitted under CC0 license.
After reviewing feedback from other delegates, we decided to support this proposal as it provides valuable insights to the community. the research would be helpful in understanding the data, and it would be beneficial for gaining a deeper understanding.
I have no issues with this proposal, and it should move forward. No budget is required, and there’s no security risk since it uses an open-source API. Importantly, if approved, this proposal will help identify potential members of the community.
yes, exactly.
The downside is that deploying our bot takes a bit longer as you need to give permission channel by channel sometimes. This is why many other bots opt for admin permissions but we know how that ends...
We do not have any specific objections to TogetherCrew's implementation of this research, considering that the DAO has no budgetary requirements tied to this proposal.
Overall, we believe this is an excellent contribution to the academic research on DAO conducted by researchers at TogetherCrew and the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as potentially benefitting from findings that can share more profound insights on the Arbitrum DAOs.
We do not have any specific objections to TogetherCrew's implementation of this research, considering that the DAO has no budgetary requirements tied to this proposal.
Overall, we believe this is an excellent contribution to the academic research on DAO conducted by researchers at TogetherCrew and the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as potentially benefitting from findings that can share more profound insights on the Arbitrum DAOs.
We look forward to reviewing the research findings.
Thanks for clarifying! So the bot is just a normal member of Arbitrum Discord without any administrator permissions. Even if there is a security issue, it will not have any impact on Arbitrum's Discord, right?
I voted For this proposal on Snapshot. The initiative seems worthy of the relatively low risk and effort required to enable the Discourse API and Discourse public channel access.
I voted FOR.
Interested to check the findings and the possible next steps.
Thank you @danielo for the additional context. An update to my post above (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/54?u=bob-rossi) - after sleeping on it and the additional info I will maintain my "Against" vote.
I do not have an issue with the research of public content and can see the benefits. When someone posts something publicly accessible there is understanding that data can be harvested. Danielo looks to have put a lot of thought, as well as appreciated guardrails & limits, to the data collection. It is unfortunate the Discord situation has created a legal grey area.
Thank you @danielo for the additional context. An update to my post above (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/54?u=bob-rossi) - after sleeping on it and the additional info I will maintain my "Against" vote.
I do not have an issue with the research of public content and can see the benefits. When someone posts something publicly accessible there is understanding that data can be harvested. Danielo looks to have put a lot of thought, as well as appreciated guardrails & limits, to the data collection. It is unfortunate the Discord situation has created a legal grey area.
As for the why of the no vote, I will repeat what I mentioned above. The DAO shouldn't be in charge of determining if user data should be scraped like this. It goes beyond on the scope of the DAO. For a site like this where data is posted publicly, it's not like the DAO can stop people from scraping data so the discussion is a moot point. And for Discord, the AF is noted as being in charge of the Discord so I am failing to see why the AF wants to put that decision on us as a DAO. As far as I'm aware, the DAO has not had to vote on any other Discord-related decisions.
I would be curious to see the AF's @Arbitrum reasoning why the DAO is being asked to give permission on the Discord portion of this given the DAO has no control over the Discord channel. As truthfully it feels like they acknowledge this is a legal grey area and the burden of that is being pushed to the DAO.
A quick edit to add:
As I understand it, it’s not so much about the legal/permissions side of it, but also about confirming buy-in for the idea.
If the goal is confirming buy-in, is this going to Tally? And if it's going to Tally does it really need to...? The snapshot vote and this thread has provided a lot of context on buy in, going to Tally to re-confirm that seems like a waste of time.
Voted: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Research on Context and Retention
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/28
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Voted: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Research on Context and Retention
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/28
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
This proposal offers the DAO a unique opportunity to gain insights into community retention and engagement without incurring any costs. The requested data is already publicly available, so there’s minimal privacy risk. While some have voiced privacy concerns, it’s important to note that this data could be accessed by any interested party since it’s already in the public domain. By supporting this research, we may uncover valuable findings to enhance community health and user retention strategies.
Furthermore, the proposal includes the potential to test a bot, Hivemind, which would allow community members to query relevant historical discussions, adding further value to community engagement. It’s commendable that the Foundation consulted DAO members on this initiative, demonstrating a respectful approach to data handling and governance. Given the non-commercial, academic nature of this research, the potential benefits far outweigh any perceived risks.
I mean, this is very different. Fractal was focused on verifying someone's real identity using VERY sensitive data. We don't even collect email addresses. In that sense, we're not identifying who is who.
We went through a discord review of our policies to verify the bot. Past 100 servers it's mandatory, otherwise you can't add it to new servers.
Also for clarity please note that anyone can request their data be erased or they'd be given a copy, as per our policy (independent of the applicability of GDPR or not in certain jurisdictions, we consider this a fundamental right).
@danielo isn't it against Discord Privacy Policy and looks similar to other bots data farm such as Spy Pet? cf https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039598252-Protecting-Your-Data Discourse has probably set up similar privacy policies to fight against these kind of data farms.
I do not consent with my Discord data being captured in the first place. This is also mine and everybody's fundamental right. As per my Discourse data, I’m submitting it under the CC0 license as specified on my forum bio here.
voting AGAINST the offchain proposal.
voting AGAINST the offchain proposal.
The fact that the data is 'publicly' accessible—meaning it is shared on social media, public forums, or platforms like Discord where most people can view it by creating an account or receiving specific permission—does not mean it is free to be collected or processed.
The content that will be scraped by the bot includes both personal data (which identifies or makes individuals identifiable) and potential IP rights over proposals and/or feedback. While there are exceptions to the application of the relevant regulations, I haven’t found details on how the data is handled or why it would fall under such an exception.
The DAO cannot approve engaging in a practice (data collection for processing) that it does not have the authority to carry out. The data belongs to individuals, and the IP belongs to the individuals, and they must authorize its use. In any case, the Discourse and Discord policies should be reviewed beforehand
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate the potential value to be provided by the research from TogetherCrew team without cost from the DAO treasury. However, we are not certain that the DAO is the one to decide whether the API access to Discord is allowed, while most of the Discourse data is public and much related to discussions around the DAO. Either way, we support the concept and its modified implementation that addresses the concerns from the delegates and related parties.
In favor of this.
Based on the answers given by @danielo, we are satisfied, as we had similar concerns to those raised by other delegates.
In favor of this.
Based on the answers given by @danielo, we are satisfied, as we had similar concerns to those raised by other delegates.
The open-source nature and focus on analyzing only public data ensures transparency while minimizing any privacy concerns. We also appreciate the research-driven approach, especially the collaboration with academic institutions, which adds credibility to the analysis.
Understanding how Web3 communities operate and retain members is crucial for the long-term health of DAOs like Arbitrum. This proposal seems like a great opportunity to gain those insights.
We’re looking forward to seeing how this works ;--)
I will be voting against for similar concerns @pedrob raised. I'm not sure the DAO is really one to have say over this, as ultimately the DAO is (as far as I'm aware) not in control of the discord channel. And probably more importantly the DAO shouldn't really be making decisions for individual users privacy.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels.
I will be voting against for similar concerns @pedrob raised. I'm not sure the DAO is really one to have say over this, as ultimately the DAO is (as far as I'm aware) not in control of the discord channel. And probably more importantly the DAO shouldn't really be making decisions for individual users privacy.
A favourable snapshot vote will give the foundation the permission to give us read access to the Discourse API and public Discord channels.
I guess maybe it's this line that confuses me... if the foundation is the one with the permissions why does the DAO need to be involved at all? I get it as a general sentiment check, but presumably there will be people in the Discord who don't have voting power that would not have a say. For public channels I don't see an issue, as privacy isn't expected but from what others have said it seems the Discord has different rules on this.
All said, I'm not opposed to the broad concept. It seems like it can provide valuable data at no cost - which is great! I guess the question becomes is this something that can be done with publicly available information? Or is there a way users can Opt-In to the Discord so only those who elect to do this can participate.
Edit: I see there is still a day to vote, I'll hold on the vote until tomorrow incase additional info comes to light
I'm voting in favor. This research seems really interesting plus it requires no budget and it only uses data that is already publicly available. Initially I was concerned about potential security issues but I saw that it was already brought up in the previous discussions, leaving me with no other major doubts. I'm curious to see the results of this research!
Nice! I personally think it is desirable to sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of security! Thank you very much!
voting Against the current offchain proposal because we shouldn't treat Discord open channels data as public data, since it isn't public data. I would maybe agree with this proposal if it only used Discourse forum data, which can be argued that it is public, and also if all the analysis and dashboards would be shared with the broad community and submitted under CC0 license.
After reviewing feedback from other delegates, we decided to support this proposal as it provides valuable insights to the community. the research would be helpful in understanding the data, and it would be beneficial for gaining a deeper understanding.
I have no issues with this proposal, and it should move forward. No budget is required, and there’s no security risk since it uses an open-source API. Importantly, if approved, this proposal will help identify potential members of the community.
yes, exactly.
The downside is that deploying our bot takes a bit longer as you need to give permission channel by channel sometimes. This is why many other bots opt for admin permissions but we know how that ends...
We do not have any specific objections to TogetherCrew's implementation of this research, considering that the DAO has no budgetary requirements tied to this proposal.
Overall, we believe this is an excellent contribution to the academic research on DAO conducted by researchers at TogetherCrew and the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as potentially benefitting from findings that can share more profound insights on the Arbitrum DAOs.
We do not have any specific objections to TogetherCrew's implementation of this research, considering that the DAO has no budgetary requirements tied to this proposal.
Overall, we believe this is an excellent contribution to the academic research on DAO conducted by researchers at TogetherCrew and the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as potentially benefitting from findings that can share more profound insights on the Arbitrum DAOs.
We look forward to reviewing the research findings.
Thanks for clarifying! So the bot is just a normal member of Arbitrum Discord without any administrator permissions. Even if there is a security issue, it will not have any impact on Arbitrum's Discord, right?
I voted For this proposal on Snapshot. The initiative seems worthy of the relatively low risk and effort required to enable the Discourse API and Discourse public channel access.
I voted FOR.
Interested to check the findings and the possible next steps.
We're Voting For this proposal
Voted For: In terms of security, I think requesting read access is fine as long as the tools are security tested. Insights into our communication channels can bring some interesting info and show how we can improve. Supporting this proposal is a small effort from the DAO and foundation side, with big benefits once the analysis is done.
Hey Larva
The only permissions needed are:
Anyone can verify this by deploying the bot from our website on a test server.
Hey Larva
The only permissions needed are:
Anyone can verify this by deploying the bot from our website on a test server.
We're avoiding Admin, Use Commands, channel management, edit/delete message, manage members, and related permissions which are the ones that can be used to attack a server. As such, even if our bot is hacked, the regular Discord security is in place to prevent our bot from doing anything that's not reading messages or sending a message (low risk actions). If the Discord security was broken, that would compromise the server but that's irrespective of using our bot or not. A further precaution is disabling our bot from sending messages on any Announcements channel, so even if we're compromised and someone can send a spam message, they could only do so in non-official channels. The mods will quickly detect this (as it's already a regular procedure) and can kick-out or freeze the bot. We'll coordinate with the foundation for this (which doesn't require them to implement any new procedures, just operate as usual).
We have optional permissions for attach files on the messages and we're recommending to the Foundation to NOT give us said permission, as there could be an attack vector of sharing a file with the community that contains malware. (note that the permission to share files is already regularly available for discord users so any individual could carry this attack. We're avoiding the permission as we don't need it for Arbitrum and hence prefer to avoid that risk on our shoulders).
Because of these precautions, we have never been required to carry a security audit by a third party security firm. And the team that deployed us have verified the permissions every time, confirming this. The Arbitrum Foundaiton will also have to configure the permissions for us (a 5-10min job, so they'll once again verify and can hold back if there are any concerns).
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.
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.
Though the proposal has no associated costs, the potential benefits of the study could be highly valuable. The requested data is publicly available on the forum, and while concerns about Discord's privacy policy have been noted, we’ve seen many DAOs provide similar access for community-driven projects. The fact that TogetherCrew is already an active member of the DAO gives us confidence that this data will be used for the greater good of the community.
TogetherCrew should be fascinating and promising in the not so far future. I really like the name of the project and the whole proposal. The concept of Web3 social networks has been gaining traction, and the Arbitrum community should have been in a prime position to launch such a project. On-chain governance is essentially a social activity, and AI and data privacy are essential components. I hope TogetherCrew surprises us further.
Thank you for your work, the proposal is helpful and worth moving forward. In addition to providing data analytics, the proposal also helps community members understand how to use the tools and increase their engagement, the dynamic reputation NFT sounds like it has potential, it is recommended to understand the community needs first to ensure that people want to use these new features.
gm, voting FOR. Looking forward to seeing what insights we can unlock, and if further research can then be conducted to prove/disprove emerging thesis for DAOs (areas of interest, underserved topics, how to reduce friction for new entrants, ...).
Also no cost = good
I support the proposal with a few suggestions:
:grinning:data privacy and security: although the proposal mentions using only publicly available data, it is recommended that further clarification be provided on exactly how the data will be used, and that the privacy policy be updated regularly to ensure greater transparency. :grinning:community feedback: after the analysis results are available, it is recommended to provide timely feedback to the community and keep the discussion open so that everyone can clearly understand the progress of the project and the actual results. It is recommended to test the Hivemind functionality on a small scale first to collect feedback.
I really appreciate the open-source nature of this proposal and the fact that all the data being analyzed is already public, so there are no privacy concerns. Plus, the fact that they’re not even asking for any budget makes this an easy decision.
I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal on Snapshot for the reasons already outline above.
Hey, danielo! I love this proposal, but I'm very concerned about security issues because the Discord of Arbitrum and many other projects have been hacked, causing great harm. You mentioned that the bot requires very low permissions and has done actual security testing. Do you have a detailed security report? Can it be disclosed in this proposal? Thank you!
I'm not sure if it's fare to bundle together Discourse, and Discord data, all in the same bucket of publicly accessible data. They are different things.
Discourse data is indeed public, this post I'm writing right now, is public data, in the sense that it can be accessed and indexed without any restrictions, through this link.
I have to say, I really love this proposal! It aligns with the field I’m currently dedicated to, although my work is not as systematic or well-structured.I’ve only been supporting some new startups within my area of interest.
This proposal aims to help new users entering the Arbitrum ecosystem to understand everything about Arbitrum better and faster. In fact, this not only holds significance for Arbitrum but also for Ethereum and all L2s. Education is always a field that requires long-term investment in any organically growing ecosystem. Moreover, I noticed that this proposal doesn’t require budget, as the team has already funded by other sources.
will do. I'm also hoping we can soon share a bit of the early findings with Optimism. So that could happen even before the Arbitrum ones. But TBC
I'm definitely voting in favor of this one! TogetherCrew's solid history with other DAOs and the fact that experienced researchers are on board, it just makes the whole thing even better. @danielo consider sharing regular updates on your progress so the community stays informed!
Voting for. Identifying patterns in discussion could be quite interesting, even tho I wouldn't personally want a big focus of the DAO, in future, being on this topic, cause it risks to skew convos too much. As it is, in favour because also this initiative won't bear any cost.
We support this proposal as it offers valuable insights into community retention and health without requiring any additional funding or compromising privacy. TogetherCrew has a solid track record of contributing to other DAOs, and their collaboration with researchers from UCSB further strengthens this.
For potential concerns, We recommend that the proposal more clearly define how TogetherCrew plans to handle and access data from Discord, especially given its unique privacy conditions. Maybe including more specifics regarding API access and the installation of the TogetherCrew bot on the Arbitrum Discord server to ensure that all necessary privacy and community guidelines are respected.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We have been actively gathering data from different public forums and really appreciate this proposal for improving transparency. The proposal addresses concerns from all angles and ensures access to valuable research at no cost to the DAO. Given the organization’s previous record of delivering results to other DAOs, this makes sense and could be beneficial for the Arbitrum community.
Q1: The TogetherCrew bot is deployed in 100+ communities. That does not mean 100+ communities are part of the study. To date, Optimism is part of the Study and we haven't yet asked the others.
Q2: The article you're referencing on community health is not connected to the current study.
Q1: The TogetherCrew bot is deployed in 100+ communities. That does not mean 100+ communities are part of the study. To date, Optimism is part of the Study and we haven't yet asked the others.
Q2: The article you're referencing on community health is not connected to the current study.
Q3: we haven't done research on the willingness to pay by politicians for said dataset. But as I explained already, the data is already public. A simple bot could scrape it. There are already open-source versions of these bots, so anyone with basic development knowledge can extract it already. And doing so would be GDRP complaint because it's public data.
The study is not published yet. Quite a bit of work left to do still
The tool is open-source (https://github.com/togethercrew). However, the report on OP has not been made public (still early-stage research).
We have some standard metrics computed in our dashboard, and you can request access to them from their community lead (we're not the admin).
We're Voting For this proposal
Voted For: In terms of security, I think requesting read access is fine as long as the tools are security tested. Insights into our communication channels can bring some interesting info and show how we can improve. Supporting this proposal is a small effort from the DAO and foundation side, with big benefits once the analysis is done.
Hey Larva
The only permissions needed are:
Anyone can verify this by deploying the bot from our website on a test server.
Hey Larva
The only permissions needed are:
Anyone can verify this by deploying the bot from our website on a test server.
We're avoiding Admin, Use Commands, channel management, edit/delete message, manage members, and related permissions which are the ones that can be used to attack a server. As such, even if our bot is hacked, the regular Discord security is in place to prevent our bot from doing anything that's not reading messages or sending a message (low risk actions). If the Discord security was broken, that would compromise the server but that's irrespective of using our bot or not. A further precaution is disabling our bot from sending messages on any Announcements channel, so even if we're compromised and someone can send a spam message, they could only do so in non-official channels. The mods will quickly detect this (as it's already a regular procedure) and can kick-out or freeze the bot. We'll coordinate with the foundation for this (which doesn't require them to implement any new procedures, just operate as usual).
We have optional permissions for attach files on the messages and we're recommending to the Foundation to NOT give us said permission, as there could be an attack vector of sharing a file with the community that contains malware. (note that the permission to share files is already regularly available for discord users so any individual could carry this attack. We're avoiding the permission as we don't need it for Arbitrum and hence prefer to avoid that risk on our shoulders).
Because of these precautions, we have never been required to carry a security audit by a third party security firm. And the team that deployed us have verified the permissions every time, confirming this. The Arbitrum Foundaiton will also have to configure the permissions for us (a 5-10min job, so they'll once again verify and can hold back if there are any concerns).
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.
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.
Though the proposal has no associated costs, the potential benefits of the study could be highly valuable. The requested data is publicly available on the forum, and while concerns about Discord's privacy policy have been noted, we’ve seen many DAOs provide similar access for community-driven projects. The fact that TogetherCrew is already an active member of the DAO gives us confidence that this data will be used for the greater good of the community.
TogetherCrew should be fascinating and promising in the not so far future. I really like the name of the project and the whole proposal. The concept of Web3 social networks has been gaining traction, and the Arbitrum community should have been in a prime position to launch such a project. On-chain governance is essentially a social activity, and AI and data privacy are essential components. I hope TogetherCrew surprises us further.
Thank you for your work, the proposal is helpful and worth moving forward. In addition to providing data analytics, the proposal also helps community members understand how to use the tools and increase their engagement, the dynamic reputation NFT sounds like it has potential, it is recommended to understand the community needs first to ensure that people want to use these new features.
gm, voting FOR. Looking forward to seeing what insights we can unlock, and if further research can then be conducted to prove/disprove emerging thesis for DAOs (areas of interest, underserved topics, how to reduce friction for new entrants, ...).
Also no cost = good
I support the proposal with a few suggestions:
:grinning:data privacy and security: although the proposal mentions using only publicly available data, it is recommended that further clarification be provided on exactly how the data will be used, and that the privacy policy be updated regularly to ensure greater transparency. :grinning:community feedback: after the analysis results are available, it is recommended to provide timely feedback to the community and keep the discussion open so that everyone can clearly understand the progress of the project and the actual results. It is recommended to test the Hivemind functionality on a small scale first to collect feedback.
I really appreciate the open-source nature of this proposal and the fact that all the data being analyzed is already public, so there are no privacy concerns. Plus, the fact that they’re not even asking for any budget makes this an easy decision.
I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal on Snapshot for the reasons already outline above.
Hey, danielo! I love this proposal, but I'm very concerned about security issues because the Discord of Arbitrum and many other projects have been hacked, causing great harm. You mentioned that the bot requires very low permissions and has done actual security testing. Do you have a detailed security report? Can it be disclosed in this proposal? Thank you!
I'm not sure if it's fare to bundle together Discourse, and Discord data, all in the same bucket of publicly accessible data. They are different things.
Discourse data is indeed public, this post I'm writing right now, is public data, in the sense that it can be accessed and indexed without any restrictions, through this link.
I have to say, I really love this proposal! It aligns with the field I’m currently dedicated to, although my work is not as systematic or well-structured.I’ve only been supporting some new startups within my area of interest.
This proposal aims to help new users entering the Arbitrum ecosystem to understand everything about Arbitrum better and faster. In fact, this not only holds significance for Arbitrum but also for Ethereum and all L2s. Education is always a field that requires long-term investment in any organically growing ecosystem. Moreover, I noticed that this proposal doesn’t require budget, as the team has already funded by other sources.
will do. I'm also hoping we can soon share a bit of the early findings with Optimism. So that could happen even before the Arbitrum ones. But TBC
I'm definitely voting in favor of this one! TogetherCrew's solid history with other DAOs and the fact that experienced researchers are on board, it just makes the whole thing even better. @danielo consider sharing regular updates on your progress so the community stays informed!
Voting for. Identifying patterns in discussion could be quite interesting, even tho I wouldn't personally want a big focus of the DAO, in future, being on this topic, cause it risks to skew convos too much. As it is, in favour because also this initiative won't bear any cost.
We support this proposal as it offers valuable insights into community retention and health without requiring any additional funding or compromising privacy. TogetherCrew has a solid track record of contributing to other DAOs, and their collaboration with researchers from UCSB further strengthens this.
For potential concerns, We recommend that the proposal more clearly define how TogetherCrew plans to handle and access data from Discord, especially given its unique privacy conditions. Maybe including more specifics regarding API access and the installation of the TogetherCrew bot on the Arbitrum Discord server to ensure that all necessary privacy and community guidelines are respected.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We have been actively gathering data from different public forums and really appreciate this proposal for improving transparency. The proposal addresses concerns from all angles and ensures access to valuable research at no cost to the DAO. Given the organization’s previous record of delivering results to other DAOs, this makes sense and could be beneficial for the Arbitrum community.
Q1: The TogetherCrew bot is deployed in 100+ communities. That does not mean 100+ communities are part of the study. To date, Optimism is part of the Study and we haven't yet asked the others.
Q2: The article you're referencing on community health is not connected to the current study.
Q1: The TogetherCrew bot is deployed in 100+ communities. That does not mean 100+ communities are part of the study. To date, Optimism is part of the Study and we haven't yet asked the others.
Q2: The article you're referencing on community health is not connected to the current study.
Q3: we haven't done research on the willingness to pay by politicians for said dataset. But as I explained already, the data is already public. A simple bot could scrape it. There are already open-source versions of these bots, so anyone with basic development knowledge can extract it already. And doing so would be GDRP complaint because it's public data.
The study is not published yet. Quite a bit of work left to do still
The tool is open-source (https://github.com/togethercrew). However, the report on OP has not been made public (still early-stage research).
We have some standard metrics computed in our dashboard, and you can request access to them from their community lead (we're not the admin).
I'm not sure if it's fare to bundle together Discourse, and Discord data, all in the same bucket of publicly accessible data. They are different things.
Discourse data is indeed public, this post I'm writing right now, is public data, in the sense that it can be accessed and indexed without any restrictions, through this link.
Messages on open Discord channels are not public data, in the sense that they can't be accessed or indexed without a Discord account that is on the Arbitrum Discord server. For example, only Discord users that have accepted Discord's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, can see the contents of this message I just sent in the Arbitrum Discord server.
So, I agree with using the Discourse data for this, but not with the Discord data.
Also, I think this proposal should be much more specific of what it is actually asking the DAO.
I believe that this proposal is asking the DAO to consent that the Arbitrum Foundation would give API access to this Discourse data, and also to install this TogetherCrew discord bot, on the Arbitrum Discord server, so that TogetherCrew can read all messages, threads and message reactions in every open channel in that Discord server.
Is this assessment correct @danielo ?
I have to say, I really love this proposal! It aligns with the field I’m currently dedicated to, although my work is not as systematic or well-structured.I’ve only been supporting some new startups within my area of interest.
This proposal aims to help new users entering the Arbitrum ecosystem to understand everything about Arbitrum better and faster. In fact, this not only holds significance for Arbitrum but also for Ethereum and all L2s. Education is always a field that requires long-term investment in any organically growing ecosystem. Moreover, I noticed that this proposal doesn’t require budget, as the team has already funded by other sources.
So, i fully support this proposal. And if there’s any help needed from me or ANDAO in the future, welcome to DM me.
We support this proposal as it offers valuable insights into community retention and health without requiring any additional funding or compromising privacy. TogetherCrew has a solid track record of contributing to other DAOs, and their collaboration with researchers from UCSB further strengthens this.
For potential concerns, We recommend that the proposal more clearly define how TogetherCrew plans to handle and access data from Discord, especially given its unique privacy conditions. Maybe including more specifics regarding API access and the installation of the TogetherCrew bot on the Arbitrum Discord server to ensure that all necessary privacy and community guidelines are respected.
Overall, this should be a step towards improving community health and transparency and we look forward to seeing the results of this research.
It's public data, so by law it's not illegal to scrape it.
Now, I'm precisely here asking for consent...
I hear you. Do note that the data in that case had already been collected because TogetherCrew was doing analytics for them. So the extra step was anonymizing it and giving the researchers access (with consent from the client of course).
We agree with many of the previous comments. Just a few questions: Is it sufficient to include in the proposal that TogetherCrew notify the DAO? I ask because their privacy policies are very clear. We understand that the findings will be presented to the community over a period of 1 to 3 months. Is that the duration of this proposal, or is the timeframe indefinite?
I really appreciate the open-source nature of this proposal and the fact that all the data being analyzed is already public, so there are no privacy concerns. Plus, the fact that they're not even asking for any budget makes this an easy decision.
Looking forward to seeing the results!
That's a good point. I'll edit the proposal so TogetherCrew notifies the DAO of any privacy policy or TS changes at least 2 weeks before they take effect to allow for a snapshot vote to suspend the service if desired.
Good proposal. Regarding additional future functions:
I think it would be convenient for the authors of the proposals to have a final message with all the pros and cons of the proposal before the vote (on Wednesday).
Here's what I got from the team
"The research will be conducted in collaboration with the META lab at UCSB, led by Distinguished Professor Jonathan Schooler (https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/). The first stage of the project consisted of an exploratory analysis of community dynamics at Optimism, which yielded various interesting preliminary findings. This led to our decision to turn these explorations into an official research project where multiple online communities are studied to see which findings are consistent among communities. The IRB submission process for this research has been initiated and we will follow up with the relevant documents as soon as this is completed. From the start, only fully anonymized data has been used and all research practices match the GDPR compliance as described in TogetherCrew’s privacy policy (https://www.togethercrew.com/privacy-policy)."
I'm not sure if it's fare to bundle together Discourse, and Discord data, all in the same bucket of publicly accessible data. They are different things.
Discourse data is indeed public, this post I'm writing right now, is public data, in the sense that it can be accessed and indexed without any restrictions, through this link.
Messages on open Discord channels are not public data, in the sense that they can't be accessed or indexed without a Discord account that is on the Arbitrum Discord server. For example, only Discord users that have accepted Discord's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, can see the contents of this message I just sent in the Arbitrum Discord server.
So, I agree with using the Discourse data for this, but not with the Discord data.
Also, I think this proposal should be much more specific of what it is actually asking the DAO.
I believe that this proposal is asking the DAO to consent that the Arbitrum Foundation would give API access to this Discourse data, and also to install this TogetherCrew discord bot, on the Arbitrum Discord server, so that TogetherCrew can read all messages, threads and message reactions in every open channel in that Discord server.
Is this assessment correct @danielo ?
I have to say, I really love this proposal! It aligns with the field I’m currently dedicated to, although my work is not as systematic or well-structured.I’ve only been supporting some new startups within my area of interest.
This proposal aims to help new users entering the Arbitrum ecosystem to understand everything about Arbitrum better and faster. In fact, this not only holds significance for Arbitrum but also for Ethereum and all L2s. Education is always a field that requires long-term investment in any organically growing ecosystem. Moreover, I noticed that this proposal doesn’t require budget, as the team has already funded by other sources.
So, i fully support this proposal. And if there’s any help needed from me or ANDAO in the future, welcome to DM me.
We support this proposal as it offers valuable insights into community retention and health without requiring any additional funding or compromising privacy. TogetherCrew has a solid track record of contributing to other DAOs, and their collaboration with researchers from UCSB further strengthens this.
For potential concerns, We recommend that the proposal more clearly define how TogetherCrew plans to handle and access data from Discord, especially given its unique privacy conditions. Maybe including more specifics regarding API access and the installation of the TogetherCrew bot on the Arbitrum Discord server to ensure that all necessary privacy and community guidelines are respected.
Overall, this should be a step towards improving community health and transparency and we look forward to seeing the results of this research.
It's public data, so by law it's not illegal to scrape it.
Now, I'm precisely here asking for consent...
I hear you. Do note that the data in that case had already been collected because TogetherCrew was doing analytics for them. So the extra step was anonymizing it and giving the researchers access (with consent from the client of course).
We agree with many of the previous comments. Just a few questions: Is it sufficient to include in the proposal that TogetherCrew notify the DAO? I ask because their privacy policies are very clear. We understand that the findings will be presented to the community over a period of 1 to 3 months. Is that the duration of this proposal, or is the timeframe indefinite?
I really appreciate the open-source nature of this proposal and the fact that all the data being analyzed is already public, so there are no privacy concerns. Plus, the fact that they're not even asking for any budget makes this an easy decision.
Looking forward to seeing the results!
That's a good point. I'll edit the proposal so TogetherCrew notifies the DAO of any privacy policy or TS changes at least 2 weeks before they take effect to allow for a snapshot vote to suspend the service if desired.
Good proposal. Regarding additional future functions:
I think it would be convenient for the authors of the proposals to have a final message with all the pros and cons of the proposal before the vote (on Wednesday).
Here's what I got from the team
"The research will be conducted in collaboration with the META lab at UCSB, led by Distinguished Professor Jonathan Schooler (https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/). The first stage of the project consisted of an exploratory analysis of community dynamics at Optimism, which yielded various interesting preliminary findings. This led to our decision to turn these explorations into an official research project where multiple online communities are studied to see which findings are consistent among communities. The IRB submission process for this research has been initiated and we will follow up with the relevant documents as soon as this is completed. From the start, only fully anonymized data has been used and all research practices match the GDPR compliance as described in TogetherCrew’s privacy policy (https://www.togethercrew.com/privacy-policy)."
