An Integration to convert Discourse Forum Discussions into Clear Proposal Revisions with Community-Sourced Justifications

Technical Discussion
21

"Similar to those SimScore analyses I shared, but this would actually edit the proposal and show justification for each change.

As you may remember, I ran simscore during the sos proposal cycle in January. As an example look at your last post during the sos proposal.

voting For the current offchain proposal because I think it is always helpful for a DAO to try to formalize objectives (despite most of the time the effort being a waste of time for everybody involved) and this proposal puts forward a good overall methodology to do that in a DAO context. However, I don’t like the fact that @Entropy would also be submitting their own submission to their own framework, since it breaks the neutrality of the intent of authoring and pushing this SOS proposal forward. So I would recommend for Entropy to be the very last one to submit their proposal, so as not to dissuade participation from other participants.

Your comment was Priority #2 out of 200 replies. As you can see, in parentheses, you predicted exactly what has happened - that the time and effort would be a waste of time for all involved. This was not only your individual response but the aggregated collective intelligence of all respondents."​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1 Like
22

Thank you for submitting this novel proposal. We appreciate the initiative to explore AI-powered tooling to enhance proposal refinement and stakeholder alignment, a direction we believe is valuable for scaling DAO governance.

After reviewing the SimScore proposal, we would like to offer early feedback and suggestions:

Add a Test Pilot Before Launching Full Integration

While the technology appears mature, we suggest running a pilot with 1-2 high-traffic proposals to evaluate its output quality, edit relevance, and proposer trust. This allows:

  • Community and proposer feedback on AI-edits and justifications
  • Iterative refinement of scoring weights or edit thresholds
  • Clear examples of success before full deployment

This could be framed as a “SimScore Pilot Program” within the Arbitrum forum.

Surface and Weight Delegate vs. Community Feedback Separately

Since post-temperature check feedback will involve token-weighted community signaling, we recommend making delegate vs. general community inputs distinct:

  • Delegates may carry more strategic context or governance implications.
  • SimScore could add an optional “delegates-only consensus” metric.
    This would also help proposers prioritize feedback from key stakeholders.

Final Thoughts

StableLab is supportive of innovative approaches that can streamline governance workflows and reduce contributor fatigue, especially during proposal review cycles. SimScore introduces a structured way to translate community input into actionable edits, this is a promising start.

However, we strongly believe the rollout should:

  • Start small with a pilot phase,
  • Add oversight and transparency safeguards before becoming a default tool for proposal refinement.

In addition, we agree with @paulofonseca that these types of initiatives could be better served under a specific grants program that can assess more thoroughly the fitness of the tool for Arbitrum governance and analyze all gathered feedback.

23

From a legal and governance standpoint, the SimScore proposal raises several interesting opportunities and some critical considerations for the DAO to weigh carefully.

1. Due Process and Proposal Integrity
The idea of algorithmically suggesting edits to proposals based on community feedback is promising. However, it’s essential that any revisions maintain the integrity of the proposer’s original intent. While the proposal does ensure human final control, we must codify this guarantee as a non-negotiable principle to protect authorship rights and procedural fairness in governance.

2. Transparency and Auditability
The justification system tied to each proposed edit, with clear sourcing to community replies is a strong design feature. This traceability will help mitigate legal risk by ensuring that proposal evolution is documented, consent-based, and publicly auditable, which are important from both a legal defensibility and decentralized governance perspective.

3. Risk of Misrepresentation
Even though the AI operates in a “constrained” capacity, there remains the potential for unintentional editorial bias or misinterpretation of sentiment, especially in complex or polarized discussions. To address this, I recommend a formal disclaimer mechanism attached to any AI-generated revisions, clarifying that such changes are suggestive and not representative of DAO consensus unless explicitly adopted by the original proposer.

4. Intellectual Property & Content Rights
The system pulls and repurposes content from multiple users, raising questions about attribution, content reuse, and implied consent. A simple solution would be to update the forum’s terms of use to clarify that contributions may be processed by AI for governance-related tooling, while maintaining proper attribution where quoted.

5. Precedent for Proposal Modification Workflows
This system introduces an entirely new procedural layer into the DAO’s proposal pipeline. Before deployment, the community should consider if this constitutes a material change in proposal process that might require a ratified governance framework, especially if used during critical governance phases like Temperature Check or on-chain vote refinement.

In summary, SimScore is a thoughtful innovation that can help operationalize deliberative governance at scale, but it must be implemented with strong legal safeguards:

  • Clear consent and attribution policies
  • Non-binding AI suggestions unless proposer-approved
  • Transparent audit trails and disclaimers
  • DAO ratification of workflow changes

I support further discussion and testing, especially if implemented as a voluntary plugin rather than a default governance layer in the short term. Looking forward to feedback from other DAO contributors and potentially incorporating a lightweight legal review process for novel AI integrations like this.

24

@cp0x Hi,

“I’m saying that an agent can consolidate some opinions and present them in a convenient form, but deciding which of these proposals is better based on how people react to them seems wrong to me. We need to let people make decisions, without cutting off any options that agents find unpopular - the majority can also be wrong”

In response to the above comment, I would like if you can consider this.

The Simscore proposal meets your criteria. We use existing Forum formats to gather community feedback. Aggregate the opinions into a priority list and relationship graph. The analysis is transparent, auditable and deterministic, no black box.

The analysis represents the collective intelligence of the DAO.

The proposer maintains human control over final proposal edits prior to snapshot or tally.

1 Like
25

In this case, when a person makes a final decision, this is a great use case.

At least it is worth trying and getting the first feedback to understand how convenient and helpful it will be.

26

image
image1849×637 228 KB

Hi, The Demo screens in this proposal are from the DRIP proposal prior to the Snapshot vote.

As you @cp0x can see your responses were the #13 and #14 out of 171 responses.

However your insights are not included in the edit done by Entropy.

Entropy’s edits to the proposal (rev1) were based on Priority #s 41, 17, 2, 5 and 96.

We feel that the feedback from the Top Priority #1 - #17 (10%) responses should have been included in Entropy’s Rev 1 as they reflect the collective intelligence of the DAO.

Wisdom of Crowds is based on:
Diversity
Decentralization
Independent Opinions
and
an Unbiased Mechanism for Aggregation

We feel the simscore analysis tool provides this unbiased mechanism.

Would you be interested in seeing the top priority responses from the DRIP Snapshot Forum Replies, before the Tally vote?

3 Likes
27

Here is the SimScore Analysis for this proposal. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oc87ygQqbzY0G7YMqonThvKhnq45SQKgU-Mt5v3kCDw/edit?usp=sharing
As you know, independent judgement + unbiased aggregation = Collective Intelligence. Below are the 5 proposal revision recommendations by the group

28

1. Implement Mandatory Governance Framework Review Process

Problem Statement: The SimScore system would introduce a new procedural layer into the DAO’s governance pipeline without proper authorization, potentially creating illegitimate governance processes that bypass established DAO ratification requirements.

The highest priority concern centers on the procedural legitimacy of introducing SimScore into the DAO’s governance pipeline.

Supporting Data Points:

  • Priority #1 (@GozmanGonzalez, 52%): “This system introduces an entirely new procedural layer into the DAO’s proposal pipeline. Before deployment, the community should consider if this constitutes a material change in proposal process that might require a ratified governance framework, especially if used during critical governance phases like Temperature Check or on-chain vote refinement.”
  • Priority #36 (@GozmanGonzalez, 16%): “DAO ratification of workflow changes”

Why This Change Matters:
This represents the strongest community consensus at 52% similarity. The concern addresses fundamental governance legitimacy - introducing AI-powered proposal modification tools without proper DAO ratification could undermine procedural integrity. The community clearly prioritizes establishing formal approval processes before deploying tools that alter existing governance workflows, particularly during critical phases like Temperature Checks and on-chain voting.

29

Establish Rigid Proposer Intent Protection Mechanisms

Problem Statement: The current proposal lacks formally codified guarantees that AI-generated suggestions won’t compromise original proposer authorship rights or inadvertently alter the fundamental intent of governance proposals.

The community strongly emphasizes protecting original proposer authorship and maintaining proposal integrity throughout the AI-assisted revision process.

Supporting Data Points:

  • Priority #2 (@GozmanGonzalez, 44%): “The idea of algorithmically suggesting edits to proposals based on community feedback is promising. However, it’s essential that any revisions maintain the integrity of the proposer’s original intent. While the proposal does ensure human final control, we must codify this guarantee as a non-negotiable principle to protect authorship rights and procedural fairness in governance.”
  • Priority #41 (@GozmanGonzalez, 11%): “Non-binding AI suggestions unless proposer-approved”

Why This Change Matters:
At 44% similarity, this represents a core community value around preserving democratic principles in governance. The feedback demands moving beyond informal assurances to formal codification of proposer rights. This addresses fundamental concerns about AI overreach in governance and ensures that technological efficiency doesn’t compromise the integrity of human-driven proposal development.

30

3. Mandate Comprehensive Pilot Testing Before Full Deployment

Problem Statement: Deploying SimScore as a default governance tool without adequate testing could result in poor output quality, reduced proposer trust, and potential damage to the DAO’s governance processes if the technology proves ineffective or problematic.

The community consistently advocates for structured testing phases rather than immediate full implementation.

Supporting Data Points:

  • Priority #9 (@GozmanGonzalez, 37%): “I support further discussion and testing, especially if implemented as a voluntary plugin rather than a default governance layer in the short term. Looking forward to feedback from other DAO contributors and potentially incorporating a lightweight legal review process for novel AI integrations like this.”
  • Priority #21 (@Jose_StableLab, 26%): “While the technology appears mature, we suggest running a pilot with 1-2 high-traffic proposals to evaluate its output quality, edit relevance, and proposer trust.”
  • Priority #38 (@Jose_StableLab, 14%): “Add a Test Pilot Before Launching Full Integration”

Why This Change Matters:
Multiple high-scoring responses converge on the need for cautious, phased implementation. The 37% similarity score from GozmanGonzalez specifically advocates for voluntary adoption rather than default integration, while StableLab’s 26% score provides concrete testing parameters. This approach mitigates risks while allowing the community to evaluate real-world performance before committing to broader deployment.

31

4. Address Technical Implementation Constraints and Alternative Approaches

Problem Statement: The proposed Discourse plugin approach is incompatible with Arbitrum DAO’s hosted forum infrastructure, creating a fundamental technical barrier that prevents implementation as currently designed.

The community has identified significant technical barriers that require resolution or alternative solutions.

Supporting Data Points:

  • Priority #12 (@Arbitrum, 32%): “We have moved the proposal to the Technical Discussion category for now. Our discourse instance is hosted by Discourse and not locally run by us. We are unable to install custom plugins beyond what is already available from the Discourse service. Also, it is important to highlight why it needs to be a plugin compared to a bot that simply reads the forum and makes a post?”
  • Priority #28 (@paulofonseca, 22%): “yeah, this approach is not technically possible to execute in the current Discourse hosted setup of the Arbitrum DAO forum.”

Why This Change Matters:
The official Arbitrum response at 32% similarity identifies fundamental technical incompatibilities with the current forum infrastructure. This represents a critical implementation blocker that requires either alternative technical approaches or infrastructure changes. The community needs clarity on whether SimScore will function as a plugin, bot, or alternative system given these constraints.

32

5. Implement Distinct Delegate vs. Community Input Weighting

Problem Statement: The current SimScore system treats all community feedback equally, failing to account for the different strategic context and governance implications that delegate input carries compared to general community feedback.

The feedback emphasizes the need to differentiate between delegate input and general community feedback in the SimScore analysis.

Supporting Data Points:

  • Priority #25 (@Jose_StableLab, 23%): “Since post-temperature check feedback will involve token-weighted community signaling, we recommend making delegate vs. general community inputs distinct”
  • Priority #26 (@Jose_StableLab, 23%): “Surface and Weight Delegate vs. Community Feedback Separately”
  • Priority #33 (@Jose_StableLab, 20%): “Delegates may carry more strategic context or governance implications.”

Why This Change Matters:
StableLab’s consistent feedback across multiple similar responses (23%, 23%, 20%) highlights the importance of recognizing different stakeholder roles in governance. Delegates often carry greater strategic context and governance implications, and the SimScore system should reflect these distinctions in its analysis and recommendations rather than treating all community input equally.

33

This will be considered at a later date @GozmanGonzalez .

1 Like
34

@GozmanGonzalez at a later date

1 Like
35

This is the direction the SimScore Team will go. We will revise the proposal to a “SimScore Pilot Program” as suggested by @Jose_StableLab. The revisions will be made based once we work out the cost changes. Thanks everyone for your feedback.

1 Like