Hey @bendi I remember seeing scopelift doing some great work for other DAOs like Uniswap but I don’t remember where else. Do you mind sharing some of your prev experience here? More for curiosity’s sake here.
Regarding the proposal, I believe it’s a small ask in the grand scheme and I am in favour of it.
Hey @Bobbay, sure! Would be happy to.
As you mentioned, we’ve done a number of governance related work for Uniswap DAO over the years, most recently, we built out the UniStaker contracts which—if adopted by the DAO—will allow those who actively stake and delegate in governance to earn fee rewards.
We also contributed heavily to the development Seatbelt, an automated tool for checking governance proposal safety, which is used by many DAOs.
We originally developed Flexible Voting with a grant from the Uniswap Foundation as well, and have recently helped PoolTogether and Gitcoin upgrade to Flexible Voting compatible Governors. We’re also working on a Governor upgrade for Radworks.
We’ve also done a bunch of work related to cross chain voting funded by the Ethereum Foundation and Wormhole. There’s a beta version of this that will ship for Gitcoin and PoolTogether soon, with a much more comprehensive version currently under development in conjunction with Tally and Wormhole that will ship later this year.
There’s more that I could add but I think this is good for a quick summary. There are a few other projects in the works I can’t yet talk about, but with any luck you’ll hear about them later this year as well! Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Mahesh from Karma here. I’m excited to collaborate with Tally’s team on this initiative. We have been building in the DAO contributor reputation space for a long time and have contributed to Arbitrum through the experimental incentive program as well. If anyone has questions regarding Delegate discovery component proposed, I will be happy to answer.
I am in favour of this proposal.
WIth the DAO moving fast and the participation rate increasing, there is a need for our governance tooling to iterate and improve and all the proposed items that are covered here are useful for the DAO and given the Tally team’s contribution from the start of the DAO, this is a fairly small ask.
I used the Snapshot → Proposal tool when making my last onchain proposal, and it was silky smooth, also this is a good potential opportunity to use the ARDC security resources to review the smart contracts for the upgrade. Whatever we can do to take on more ownership from OCL I am supportive of, if only we could speed up that delivery time 4mo is a lifetime.
Maybe not the right proposal for this, but I think an open discussion period where people can submit Ease of Use or Quality of Life improvements to streamline Karma, Discourse, Snapshot, & Tally integration would be beneficial down the line, but this is def a step in the right direction.
Thanks for your comments @dk3! I think the Governor upgrades in this proposal would be a great use case for the ARDC security resources. I like the idea of an open discussion period for DAO tooling - dm’d you to coordinate.
This proposal is live on Snapshot.
I will vote abstain because this proposal directly benefits Tally.
cp0x voted in favor of this proposal.
We are glad to see such usefull upgrades in voting.
We support changes to improve proposal creation/cancellation usability and convenience for users
On behalf of the UADP, we are very excited to see this proposal and are fully in favor of the DAO expanding support for Tally. We think what they have done in the past few months customized for Arbitrum is great and the team is very helpful to work with. The budget ask is reasonable in our opinions.
On behalf of the Arbitrum community members who entrusted me with their voting power, I am voting FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO. Tally has demonstrated their commitment to improving the DAO’s governance processes by proposing enhancements to the proposal process, upgrading Governor contracts, highlighting delegate contributions, and researching future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. The proposed changes will make it easier for delegates and contributors to engage with governance activities, promote transparency, and set the DAO up for long-term success. The clear timeline and reasonable cost breakdown further support the viability of this proposal.
@cp0x the issue you highlighted about delegations being displayed differently in different parts of the site has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
We’ve voted for! Tally is a very critical infrastructure for governance smoothness. Happy to see you continue supporting the Arbitrum DAO.
I will be voting “For”.
Tally has been huge in regards to both Arbitrum itself and the broad governance space. I think that anything we can do to make projects like Tally or Snapshot better is a win-win, as it should improve our governance goals as well.
Specific to the proposal:
A question however - Will the cancel function be cut-off at a certain point of the proposal? i.e., only before voting started? I see a lot of value in this, but I also know we ran into issues of proposers deleting Snapshot votes that already started. I see the value in being able to cancel once something starts (incase there is an error found by the community not found by the proposer) but I think I’d like to see this functionality where it doesn’t get deleted but moved to a specific ‘canceled proposals’ section. If possible of course. I think there is value in cleaning up the main voting page but also value in having the full history.
And as a final comment, I think that even though these projects are specific to Arbitrum I would like to see these types of things be expanded out to other DAOs. I did see the comment that this is a Arb-specific item due to the way our governance works, however my hope is that some of these things (like say shielded voting and canceling erroneous proposals) could be expanded to all projects. Whether Arbitrum has to front that entire bill or not, I think the greater DAO space can benefit from things like this and I’d rather see the broad benefit subsidized by Arbitrum then not see it implemented at all. Any improvement system-wide should benefit Arbitrm in the long run.
Thank you for your comments and support @Bob-Rossi! The thoughts you shared are very insightful. We are generally aligned with all of your suggestions.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a canceled status that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
To answer your question, onchain proposals cannot be deleted. Canceling changes the proposal to a
canceledstatus that prevents voting and execution, but the proposal will exist onchain (and on Tally) forever.
Perfect! And thank you for clarifying. My only suggestion would be the ideal would be that the user can opt to filter / sort out the canceled status somehow on the Tally page. As I think that would make it cleaner for the end users who may be looking to choose a delegate or view their delegates voting history.
Thanks and look forward to see what can be done with this.
Voting Yes on this proposal.
The QOL improvements are severals. Specifically i really like the inclusion of discourse comment in tally because all the knowledge about the proposal is technically in here, and we want a deeper and deeper integration. As well as the karma integration. And the flexible voting is cool as well.
TBH i think all of the innovation provided here are very very good, and I think tally is becoming an essential product for our governance. We want to integrate it as much as possible with both established tools (discourse) and new tools (karma) we are using, we want to diminish friction as much as possible for voters to both act and access info, and for automatic tools to fetch what delegates are doing.
Strong yes for @Frisson and his team, hoping that after this integration is complete they will come back to us with a new proposal to address what they had to left out (i am pretty sure they had more ideas they couldn’t lay down in here due to time constraints) and also the new capabilities we will eventually need in future.
Thank you for your kind words JoJo! We do have more ideas about how to improve Arbitrum governance. We’re going to start by soliciting additional input from the community per the suggestion of @dk3 and @krst, then we’ll likely come back with another proposal that would be something of a phase 2.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of expanding Tally’s support for the DAO.
The Tally team has been consistently shipping new improvements to their UI and made significant contributions throughout the first year of the Arbitrum DAO. (As a team that uses Gnosis Safes for governance, improvements to multisig support have been greatly appreciated!)
All these proposed upgrades would be great to have, and would reduce some annoyances (like all of the [OLD] proposal spam).
The part about researching solutions for shielded onchain voting is pretty important - perhaps this is worth more than $10k in funding? Having Shutter for Snapshot has been nice, but we’ve really been lacking a usable onchain solution. Would be a huge improvement for future Security Council elections if we can get this done!
After considering the proposal and community feedback, We decided to support this proposal due to its potential to significantly enhance the Arbitrum DAO’s governance toolings by making it more accessible, transparent, and user-friendly.
Having read the proposal and the additional insights that @Frisson provided, I am voting in favor of this proposal.
The changes are meaningful and I am excited to see more integration with Karma which is increasingly becoming an important tool for the Arbitrum DAO.