Introducing Governance Tracker (follow proposals across forum, snapshot and tally)

General
1

Hello Arbitrum community!

I’d like to share Governance Tracker, a tool built to make it easier to follow Arbitrum DAO proposals across the different stages of governance. Link to the platform

Instead of jumping between forum threads, Snapshot votes, and Tally proposals, Governance Tracker brings the full lifecycle into one place, so you can quickly see where a proposal stands and jump to the relevant source.

What you can do with it:

  • Search for a specific proposal

  • Filter by governance status

  • See what stage each proposal is in

  • Access the details of each stage on its original platform

  • Check the latest vote results

  • View proposals with multiple offchain or onchain votes

We’re linking the different stages of each proposal with the help of AI. If you find an error in the data or in how stages are linked, please let us know!

As we ingest more governance data from different sources, we’re also starting to experiment with RAG so this history becomes something you can query in natural language, with answers grounded in the original sources.

This is not released yet, but DM me if you want to join the waitlist for our beta testing group :folded_hands:

You can watch a short walkthrough video here.

Hope you find it useful. We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback!

1 Like
2

Great initiative! One major gap I see:

The AI-based stage linking is self-admittedly prone to errors and in a governance context, wrong linking means wrong information for delegates making decisions. A tool built for governance accuracy should have a clear data verification mechanism, not just a “report error” option.

Also, incomplete historical data limits its usefulness for research. Without full proposal history, pattern analysis and precedent-based decisions aren’t possible yet.

Would love to know what’s the plan for data accuracy and completeness before wider adoption?

3

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I agree that accuracy and provenance are critical here.

On completeness: we have already ingested and matched the historical Forum, Snapshot, and Tally proposals currently in scope for the tracker. That said, there may still be edge cases, missing proposals, or incorrect matches, so we’re asking the community to flag anything that looks wrong or missing.

For future proposals, the flow is relatively small, so new matches should be easy to double-check as they come in.

On verification: agreed that we can go beyond a simple “report error” flow. One idea is to expose the AI matching logs for each proposal, including confidence score and LLM reasoning, so the matching process can be reviewed instead of being opaque. That review screen could also include structured feedback actions, for example to flag an incorrect match, suggest a missing link, or mark a match as verified by the community.

This review layer could be made available to active Arbitrum participants, potentially gated by an ARB holding threshold.

At the same time, we’re trying not to build too much process before validating whether this tool is actually useful for delegates and other governance participants. For now, we want to keep the prototype simple, transparent, and easy to improve based on real feedback.

Curious if you think this kind of transparent matching/review layer would address the concern, or if you’d prefer a different verification mechanism.

1 Like