Thanks, @Maets23!
With a full understanding of the entire discussion above, I can’t agree with some of the priorities or the notion that these five quoted replies represent the collective will of all respondents. However, if you’d like to discuss SimScore and its intersections with DePolis, we can move to direct messages!
This would be very useful to get an idea of how the dashboard would work as a pilot test, in order to know if the investment would be worthwhile. The Notion you provided was very helpful as it segments the most relevant topics and reflects a percentage of what has generated the most noise in the proposal.
Similarly, the integration of Simscore could serve as a security measure to detect users who submit answers very similar to those of other members, that is, users who are redundant in saying the same thing using synonyms to appear different. Ultimately, this could be spam that does not benefit the DAO.
I don’t currently know how the DIP measures CR´s, but considering that Simscore can measure this, it may be useful when evaluating the value of delegates’ responses.
It would be very interesting if @Maets23 could join the objective of this proposal and both bring an integration of both, perhaps both could present us with solutions in the next governance calls.
As mentioned in the proposal, we’re planning to implement a “UX/frontend closely resembling the original Polis (examples linked below) but with a more modern and streamlined design”, links:
Regarding a potential collaboration with SimScore, I’d be happy to discuss it with @Maets23 and anyone interested via direct messages!
Thank you for sharing the links to interact with the platform; I greatly appreciate it. I will take the time to explore and engage with the interface to assess its strengths and potential areas for improvement…
Thank you for your patient response, each point is so clear. I will continue to support your proposal moving forward and wish you all the best!
Thanks for putting this up, DePolis. This sparked an interesting conversation on some possibilities of what DAOs could look like in areas of brainstorming/ideation.
However, integrating DePolis is just one aspect of the conversation. Another question/issue is the fear that this might just be more overhead for the community and delegates.
The way it is set up currently (after reviewing the Polis site you linked and conversations here), Forum and every other platform we are currently using would still be needed, it’s not replacing anything. Thus, this would just add an extra commitment for delegates/community members, and although that might be generally nice to have, considering the problem you are trying to solve, it might cause more harm than good in terms of governance participation.
Regardless, we believe this could still fly and support other delegates’ remarks concerning demonstrating its value before implementation. If you can prove its worth amidst our fear, we would be more confident supporting its integration then.
Thank you @DePolis for sharing this proposal. While the concept has merit, we believe it would be more effective to first validate the specific problems it aims to address within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Rather than implementing a full program immediately, we recommend pursuing a more focused approach through Questbook’s grant program. This would allow for the development of a targeted MVP that directly addresses Arbitrum’s current needs and use cases.
We are Against this proposal and feel that it should go through Questbook instead.
Hi @DePolis,
Thank you for sharing this detailed and thoughtful proposal.
We have a few questions and points we’d like to understand further:
Have you considered submitting this proposal through Questbook? Their program supports projects like this, and Season 3 funding is expected to renew soon. Based on our experience, our proposal rejected on the forum have found success when re-applied through Questbook. It might be worth exploring as an alternative funding avenue.
Could you elaborate on the specific KPIs you plan to use to measure DePolis’ success? For instance:
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Thanks @DePolis for your proposal,
DePolis’s proposition aims to serve a niche in gathering sentiment amongst large number of parties in forums, like a ‘temperature check’ for opinions. It’s functionality inspired by Polis, has the ability to create metrics from the responses by members in the community. It’s unique stand point is it’s lightweight solution to aggregate large number of participants and channel it to a report which provides insights on how gauging sentiment.
However at this time, we believe the proposal may need to undergo changes, and possibly the development of a pilot through Dev Tooling Domain Allocator Offerings S3 Initiative to recognise DAO-specific pain points, and whether there’s necessarily a fit for this within a DAO forum setting. Additionally existing solutions like Polis, already simplify the process as mentioned with the Gitcoin process. DePolis’s improvement is the ability to be compatible with EVM wallets and the proposed customisation surrounding reporting, voting time periods, moderation, and other configuration.
Based on the demonstration in the linked in the showcase from EthGlobal, the application also requires gas expense for the end user if they’re casting votes on statements, we insist a verification through signature solution, like existing solutions from snapshot.
We also feel there’s concerns with how the $5,000 ARB/USDC incentive program mechanism will work to prevent sybiling of activities within DePolis, what conversation outcomes will need to be done for rewards to be distributed? Very little information is given on this.
Overall, we are against this current proposal, but recommend this proposal undergo changes to create its own pilot and demonstrate its use case amongst small group, which will enable highlighting any user frictions, identify who is the suitable target audience, and provide a better end product by searching how the community would utilise it.
Thank you for sharing this innovative proposal aimed at enhancing governance within the community. While it shows significant potential, I would like to raise a few critical questions to address some possible challenges:
How do you plan to ensure scalability if the tools are widely adopted? High participation rates could potentially strain the system. Are there contingency measures in place to address this?
How will you ensure that community sentiment analysis accurately captures diverse perspectives and does not disproportionately reflect the views of a particular subset of the community, such as large holders or the most active members?
What steps will you take to avoid potential trust issues if moderation is perceived as censorship? Have you considered ways to make moderation decisions more transparent or involve the community in setting moderation guidelines?
The budget outlined is clear, but could you provide more details about its allocation, particularly regarding long-term sustainability? For example, how much will be invested in maintaining and upgrading the tools after the initial development phase?
Finally, what strategies do you have to manage resistance from users who prefer current governance tools? How will you encourage adoption and ensure a smooth transition for the broader community?
Thank you for the proposal. From what I understand so far:
We don’t need to move away from the current forum. Rather, DePolis seems like a separate platform where users can vote or share their views. And that it’s not targeted at Arbitrum delegates but at users.
That said, this proposal feels like it’s relying more on the reputation of Polis rather than showcasing the capability or credibility of DePolis itself. I agree with others—it would really help to see a demo. Apologies if it’s already been shared and I missed it, but I would trust this proposal more if there were something more substantial to demonstrate what DePolis can do.
Even the Polis case studies don’t seem very impressive. It doesn’t appear to be a widely used tool. In fact, apart from 1-2 case studies, the participation numbers seem quite low. This raises a key question—how will you ensure strong participation from Arbitrum users? Getting users to actively engage in surveys is a significant challenge on its own.
While the idea has potential and might work in certain scenarios, in its current form, it seems like it would add more workload for the community rather than streamlining processes or improving efficiency.
Thanks @DePolis for making this proposal. We think its important to democratize governance input through structured sentiment analysis and this initiative seems like a good way improve accessibility by reducing the lift involved in navigating forums which can sometimes be significant. Moreover, we find the tool quite easy to use.
However, our concerns regarding this proposal revolves around issues of adoption (given the existence of similar tools which have failed to gain popularity/traction within the DAO) and whether there’s any plan to address this. We would not like the DAO to fund something that would end up serving no purpose.
Also, we are generally in favor of the DAO allocating capital towards scaling existing solutions or funding initiatives with measurable ROI or impact. There is no mention of KPIs or how the success of this initiative would be measured. In this case, we think this funding request might not be well-suited for direct DAO funding.
What we would like to see to make us be an advocate of this proposal, would be a tangible application case. I.e., how would you use the tool, for what decisions/questions, in what format, for what costs. And then start with a mini MVP to test it out, iterate, iterate, present - before we consider moving this forward.