After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe Tally plays a vital role in our governance infrastructure, and we have been impressed by the Tally team’s proactive engagement and alignment with the DAO over the last year.
The improvement suggested within the well thought through and logical framework would clearly benefit Arbitrum’s governance process. In aggregate, we believe these changes will greatly enhance the accessibility, transparency, efficiency and usability of the DAOs core governance processes. We look forward to this partnership continuing into the future.
These suggested upgrades especially in the proposal process is very much welcome as it ensures a more seamless navigation between Forum and Tally.
DAOplomats (previous DAOStewards) voted in favor of this proposal.
Just to clarify, will this cancel function here still be in effect after the voting period for a proposal have started? Or is there a limiter once voting starts?
COMMENTARY: We heard about the difficulties with the governor contracts and this is a perfect example of relatively minor pain point that we can fix quickly. We applaud Tally for their work in moving quickly to create a small improvement.
We disagree with exactly their recommendations on the proposal process, but we are happy to user test.
Additionally, we ask Tally to ask for MORE funds and work with other experts to improve the voting participation vector in Arbitrum (such as working with @EventHorizonDAO ).
The below response 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’ll be voting in favor of the proposal as we value Tally’s work in supporting the governance mechanisms of Arbitrum DAO.
Tally Updates
We see the Tally improvements as quality-of-life improvements that make the voting process smoother and as a result delegates’ lives easier. We support all of the improvements outlined withing the proposal, on top of that we’d like to add some of our own ideas:
The ability to ‘subscribe’ to a DAO and receive email notifications for new votes (like Snapshot).
Fuzzy search when looking up delegates.
Ability to provide feedback on past votes (for example after half a year from the vote it might be a good idea to put some additional thoughts on the vote based on the execution of the proposal).
The ability for delegators to provide feedback for delegates based on their votes
We are pretty sure that other delegates might have their own list of features on their wishlist, and as such it might be a good idea to run some kind of workshops before jumping on development to establish what are the most needed changes.
Governor Upgrades
We support both proposed changes to the Governor contracts. However, we would like to emphasise that this vote only funds the development of the desired Governor changes. There needs to be a separate vote to implement those changes on-chain, which should be preceded by a broad discussion about the consequences of implementing those changes.
Long-term approach
On the occasion of this proposal, we’d like to state that we’d like to see more long-term support being established for key projects in Arbitrum’s ecosystem. Governance mechanisms are the core of the DAO and we should be funding work and research around it. Tally already proved their commitment to Arbitrum, they are present first-hand in the DAO’s everyday life and they are well-networked within the DAO and proved that they have a decent understanding of the DAO’s needs. On the other hand, the DAO is becoming more and more dependent on Tally’s ongoing support. Therefore, it would make sense to have this proposal as a first step in what could become a long-term governance research and development fund, with Tally as an obvious initial partner.
Our current plan is to limit cancel() to the 3-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. We anticipate that the most common use case will be someone noticing a mistake soon after the proposal is put onchain. We are open to feedback on this point.
Thank you for your comments @krst and @Sinkas. We are aligned with everything you shared. A few specific points in response:
I’m putting together a workshop and forum post to capture everyone’s top governance tooling ideas. Thanks for sharing a few of yours - they are great!
Yes, a DAO proposal to upgrade the Governors is included in the timeline of this proposal. Good point about allowing time for discussion - we will include this along with audits as part of the pre-deployment process.
We’re excited about the idea of helping to establish a governance research and development fund. Perhaps a follow on proposal with additional governance upgrades (based on community input) could be structured as such a partnership.
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of this proposal for the following reasons:
Improves transparency and visibility:
Delegate scoring metrics provide more transparency to each delegate’s activity without having to do in depth research on your own.
Showing the security council transactions on the main page improves visibility for non-proposal actions.
Enhances user experience:
Linking proposal posts with Tally creates a seamless experience for delegates and proposal writers, especially by showing differences between the on-chain and off-chain proposals.
Additional time stamps in Tally are nice instead of just ‘queue proposal.’
Enabling proposal cancellation is great for correcting mistakes.
Governance innovation:
We really like integrating Flexible Voting from Scopelift because of their innovation in voting mechanisms (liquid delegation, shielded voting, etc.)
Hi Frisson, thank you for the proposal. I’ll vote in favor of it. The budget and timeline appear reasonable, but a breakdown of costs associated with each milestone within the design/development, testing, and deployment phases would provide even better transparency.
@jengajojo’s suggestion is great. Maybe we can fork Gnosis contracts and save some ARB. pls check it out.
Tally has consistently provided value to governance programs across the space and serves as one of the major pieces of Arbitrum’s governance process. Given their track record and expertise, we are excited to see these and future improvements made to help governance flows. We are especially interested in seeing the results of work done on flexible voting, shielded voting, and partial delegation.
Excited to see this move to the on chain vote. We are in full favor of this proposal. Tally has done a great job in the past and we look forward to their expanded and continued support.
The budget is very reasonable and we think well deserved. Overall we would like to see some continued upgrades on the front end as there seem to have been some recent issues with votes (not) showing up and pending submissions.
I just wanted to hop in and reiterate my support FOR the proposal to expand Tally support for the Arbitrum DAO, now that we’ve moved to an on-chain vote. My stance hasn’t changed since the previous off-chain vote on Snapshot.
Tally has been consistently killing it when it comes to improving our DAO’s governance processes. They’ve proposed awesome upgrades to the proposal process, Governor contracts, and initiatives to showcase the hard work of our delegates. Plus, they’re looking into some really cool future improvements like partial delegation and shielded voting. All of these changes will make it way easier for delegates and contributors to get involved in governance, keep things transparent, and set our DAO up for long-term success.
On top of that, the proposal has a clear timeline and a reasonable cost breakdown, which shows that Tally has really thought this through.
As a delegate representing the Arbitrum community members who have trusted me with their voting power, I’m sticking with my vote FOR this proposal. I truly believe that expanding Tally support will be a game-changer for the Arbitrum DAO and our governance processes, helping us build a stronger, more inclusive, and more effective community-driven ecosystem.
After reading the proposal, comments, and feedback, I voted in favour of the proposal in Snapshot and will be doing so in Tally as well. Given the extended use that delegates and DAO give to Tally, it makes sense to support this proposal and I believe the cost is reasonable.
Blockworks Research has voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally has proven itself as an invaluable service provider for the DAO, and the scope of the expansion work is rational. Overall, DAOs are still a relatively young concept, and well-documented frictions for governance participation across crypto notoriously include the complexity of large DAOs, the opaqueness of certain DAOs, as well as the difficulties of motivating a significant share of token holders to stay updated on developments. We see any upgrades to minimize the aforementioned frictions as extremely beneficial, especially since the requested budget is sensible.
As some food for thought, since Tally has proven itself as a high-quality service provider, it might make sense for the entity to request long-term funding in the future, with payments based on milestones, such that the time spent on, e.g., drafting proposals and associated back-and-forth communication, can be minimized.
My opinion on the proposal is unchanged from the Snapshot vote, which can be found above. I will be voting “For” this on Tally.
I appreciate the foresight of Frisson / Tally to continually look to improve the on-chain governance process. I really think any way we can make governance easier to participate in (both delegators and delegates) as well as more transparent is a win. I’ll also add that since the Snapshot vote Frisson has already setup the forum post for governance tooling ideas, which gives me confidence Tally understands the importance of these types of improvements. I look forward to what kind of tooling will come of this, both specific to Arbitrum’s DAO but also the trickle-down effects of other DAOs that may benefit.
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
Tally’s listed improvements will be greatly benefit delegates and improve the on-chain proposal process. In particular, we really see the value of:
Creating Tally proposals from forum links
Tally Discourse bot
Proposal cancel functionality
Late quorum extensions
Flexible voting
Karma integration to see delegate metrics
Overall, we support the Tally team and their efforts in streamlining and enhancing the governance process for Arbitrum. We appreciate their work and hope to see these features implemented for other DAOs as well.
DAOPlomats (previous DAOStewards) maintained our support of the proposal from Snapshot onto Tally.
We are also in support of limiting the cancel() func to the three-day waiting period that happens prior to the start of voting. Thank you for putting this together, Frisson.
I’m excited about the proposed upgrades from Tally, enhancing the DAO’s tooling, making it easier for members to express their views and vote on DAO actions.
Tally’s track record as a proactive partner, alongside their commitment to ongoing improvements in proposal processes and governance, is invaluable for Arbitrum’s ecosystem development.
These enhancements significantly contribute to the optimization and growth of delegate engagement, promising a brighter future for the DAO’s operational effectiveness.
).