An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO

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: Arbitrum daoURI Proposal Security Review

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:

  1. Who are the current Security Council, Arbitrum Research & Development Collective, Procurement Committee members? (Answer: you can search the respective forum post to find this)
  2. Can you share a location that tracks all DAO-owned/managed multisig addresses? (Answer: this could be https://www.arbwallets.xyz/ )
  3. Can you share a status update on the DAO’s grant spending? (Answer: R3gen Finance reports this on the forum)
  4. Where can we see delegate performance? (Answer: KarmaGAP or Tally)
  5. How much in sequencer fees is being collected? (Answer: there is a dashboard for this)
  6. What orbit chains exist? (Answer: the ecosystem page tracks this)
  7. Where to find recordings and transcripts of public meetings? (Answer: I’m not sure!)

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:

  1. It can be used to bring more context to contracts on block explorers. For example, we could go from this:

to this:

  1. We can make DAO data easily and freely available to everyone

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:

  1. daoURI makes it much easier to structure metadata improvements.

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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!

8 Likes

Original proposal: Team #6: An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO

3 Likes

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!

1 Like

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

1 Like

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).

2 Likes

Sure thing, sharing the code below @paulofonseca:

  1. EIP-4824-Proposals-URI-Template/main.py at main · metagov/EIP-4824-Proposals-URI-Template · GitHub
  2. EIP-4824-Members-URI-Template/main.py at main · metagov/EIP-4824-Members-URI-Template · GitHub

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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?

Hey @cp0x, we reposted it because most delegates wanted us to. If you refer to the previous forum post Team #6: An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO, 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!

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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:

  • Complexity of Governance in Smart Contract Approach: Giving full edit access to the DAO or multiple managers, this could lead to coordination challenges. Deciding who manages updates and how to handle conflicts between different managers might create friction or delays
  • Over-reliance on Tooling: Depending on external APIs (like Tally or Snapshot) for gathering data could introduce dependencies and potential risks if those services experience outages or changes in functionality.

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.

2 Likes

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!

1 Like

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:

  1. daoURI can help us unify all metadata about Arbitrum DAO on the chain, facilitate better access to information for the community and tool developers, and reduce the risk of inconsistency and outdated information. Helpful for both novice and experienced governors.
  2. This proposal does not incur additional costs and does not involve changes to existing contracts, so there is little to no negative impact. We can choose to deploy it directly on the chain or manage it through Arbitrum Foundation.
  3. Suggestions for improvement: I suggest that it be managed by the Arbitrum Foundation at the initial stage to ensure that the data is continuously updated. At the same time, we can keep the discussion going on the forum so that community members can present information they consider important for future adjustments and additions.
1 Like

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.

1 Like

The vote is “FOR”
I am not a coder or technician, I just show what I see from a common user:

Highlights

  1. Enhanced Transparency: By publishing a daoURI on-chain, the Arbitrum DAO can provide a transparent source of information, making it easier for newcomers, tooling providers, and active governors to access information.
  2. No Additional Costs: Adopting the EIP-4824 standard does not require extra expenditure from the DAO treasury and does not change existing smart contracts or governance structures, lowering implementation complexity and risk.
  3. Support for Community Participation: The proposal mentions establishing a manager role, allowing community members to participate in maintaining the daoURI, enhancing the sense of involvement and responsibility within the community.

Just a tiny thinking

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Voting For this proposal and using ENS txt records

  • The proposal will significantly save the time for delegates like us to find prerequisite knowledge and keep up with the discussions
  • It will also increase the participation rate of voters as it’s much easier to understand the context
  • For active voters, the proposal will help to build a better discussion environment where all parties share the same knowledge and thus avoid misunderstanding, inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and even conflicts
  • The reason for voting for the option 2 is that the option 1 will require periodic voting for daoURI managers. Review of the candidate qualities, discussion, and voting can take a lot of effort
  • For option 2 while only the Foundation can edit the txt file, existing working groups (and others) can periodically request new data to be added after passed the voting onchains
1 Like