[RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard

[Curia]

Abstract

We propose the development of an ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard to support ongoing governance initiatives, enhance transparency, and provide comprehensive insights into governance data. The dashboard aims to track voting behavior, safeguard against potential governance attacks, and measure the success of initiatives like Redelegation Week. We are seeking comments and support from the Arbitrum community to develop this analytic dashboard.

Motivation

The Arbitrum community needs a robust, user-friendly tool to simplify the understanding of complex governance dynamics, track the effectiveness of initiatives, and ensure transparency and accountability. This dashboard will foster inclusive, data-driven decision-making, enhancing community governance effectiveness.

Differentiation from Existing Solutions:

Our Arbitrum Governance Analytics Dashboard aims to fill the gaps in existing platforms by providing more detailed metrics for enhanced understanding and transparency:

1. Concentration of Voting Power Metrics: Our dashboard sheds light on the distribution of voting power among small and large holders, their engagement in delegation, and the source of delegates’ voting power. It identifies potential centralization of power and offers insights into each delegate’s influence.

2. Proposal Metrics: We offer a detailed view of proposal activities, including the ratio of unique proposers to total proposals and the distribution by type. We classify proposal results as contentious, generally accepted, or normal to help stakeholders understand voting dynamics.

3. Participation Metrics: Our focus is on delivering granular metrics on the participation of small and large holders. This comprehensive analysis identifies underrepresented groups and informs strategies for more balanced and inclusive participation.

Our dashboard is an analytical tool designed to provide a comprehensive view of Arbitrum’s governance process, highlighting underrepresented holders or delegates and the overall power structure. We are committed to iterative development, refining our dashboard based on community feedback to ensure it remains valuable and relevant for all stakeholders.

Rationale

This proposal aligns with the Arbitrum community’s mission and guiding values by enhancing transparency, promoting data-driven decision-making, and supporting the effectiveness of governance processes. By providing near real-time monitoring and detailed analytics, the dashboard will help the community make informed decisions and maintain a secure governance framework.

Example Uses of the Dashboard

1. Redelegation Week Success Tracking

To ensure the success of the Redelegation Week program, our dashboard will monitor delegate change in their voting power and track the overall votable supply.This user-friendly interface will display the number of delegates joining and the increase in delegations, providing clear insights into the program’s success.

2. Optimizing Voting Schedule

Our dashboard will help optimize the voting schedule by identifying periods when delegates are most active. By aligning voting schedules with peak voting activity, we can support the predictability proposal from Entropy, adjusting dates based on these insights to enhance participation and predictability.

3. Safeguarding from Potential Governance Attacks

To safeguard against potential governance attacks, our dashboard will help monitor unusual delegation behavior, such as sudden changes in delegate voting power into their respective delegate’s voting activity for certain proposals, helping to maintain a secure and robust governance framework.

4. Supporting Tools for Current and Future Delegate Incentive Programs

Our dashboard will complement the auditing of the Delegate Incentive program’s results. By providing comprehensive analytics and near real-time delegate participation tracking, it ensures transparency and accountability, allowing for accurate assessment and evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.

Specifications

The ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard will be developed by Curia Lab, leveraging our extensive expertise in DAO governance and data analysis. The dashboard will include features:

Dashboard Metrics

Holder Metrics

• Total number of holder wallets.
• Total token supply.
• Total Circulating Supply.
• Votable supply (tokens in circulation that are eligible to vote).
• Share of circulating supply that is votable.
• Number of tokens with a holding period (e.g., more than 6 months, 1 year without selling).

Concentration of Voting Power Metrics

• Small Holder vs. Large Holder Representation:
  • Voting power delegated by small holders.
  • Number of delegated tokens held by small holders.
  • Percentage of small holder wallets that have delegated.
• Large Holders Metrics:
  • Voting power delegated by large holders.
  • Number of delegated tokens held by large holders.
  • Percentage of large holder wallets that have delegated.
• Voter Quorum Gauge & Nakamoto Coefficient:
  • Delegate Nakamoto Coefficient: The number of top delegates required to achieve 50% of the votable supply.
  • Delegate Quorum: The number of top delegates needed to reach the proposal quorum of 10M of Voting power.
  • Voting Power Distribution: Share of total voting power held within the top 1, top 5, top 10, top 25, top 50, top 100, and top 200 voters.
• Delegates Categorized by Source of Voting Power:
  • Single-Holder Delegate (via Self-Delegation): Any delegate that received >=50% of its voting power via self-delegation.
  • Single-Holder Delegate (via Other Address): Any delegate that received >=50% of its voting power via one other address’s delegation.
  • Community Delegate: Any delegate with voting power where each delegation it has received (including self-delegation) accounts for <50% of its voting power.
• Share of Total Small VS Large Voting Power Ratio.
• Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

Proposal Metrics

• Distribution of Proposals by Category:
  • A breakdown of governance proposals based on their topic area.
• Voting Results of the Proposal:
  • Provides an overview of voting outcomes for governance proposals. This offers a snapshot of the degree of consensus or division among token holders. Classification of results as contentious, generally accepted, or normal.
• Unique Proposers:
  • Indicates the range of individuals or entities participating in governance proposals. This helps highlight varying levels of engagement among proposers.
• Proposal Outcome:
  • Number of passed vs. failed proposals.
• Table of All Proposals:
  • Proposal Name, Status, Result, and Category.

Participation Metrics

• Top 1000 Delegates Participation Voting Power Delegators:
  • This section provides an overview of the participation via delegation within the governance token ecosystem.
  • Voting Power: Indicates the token voting power delegated from small & large holders to each delegate category: Active, Inactive, and Ghost.
  • Delegators: Indicates the number of both small and large delegator addresses associated with each delegate category: Active, Inactive, and Ghost.
• Proposal Participation:
  • This section provides an overview of the participation within each proposal.
  • Voter: Indicates the unique number of addresses that have cast a vote on each proposal.
  • Voting Power: Indicates the total number of tokens that were used to cast votes on each proposal.
  • Participation Rate: Indicates the percentage of votes cast in relation to the total votable supply.
  • Participation return rate: Indicates the percentage of participants retentions

Delegate Metrics

• Delegated Table: Ranking, Delegate Name, Delegated token (%Voting power), Delegating address, Voting turnout, Most Recent 5 votes.

• Voter Turnout: Tracking individual participation activeness, refers to their recent proposals participation.

• Delegate Profile:

  • Dedicated page for each delegate, displaying all proposals they have voted or not voted on.
  • Rationale Vote: Tracking each delegate whether a delegate only votes or also provides a rationale & discussion for their vote, both on-chain and in forums.
  • Non-Conformity Ratio: Display the ratio of times a delegate votes against the majority.
  • Delegation Tracking: Tracking changes in the amount of delegation each delegate receives.

• Voter Behavior:
  

  

  • Trend Voting Period Density: Heat map indicating voting density during various time periods.

  • Voting Momentum: Indicates the distribution of voter activity across the entirety of the proposals’ voting phase, divided into four equal quartiles: ‘early’, ‘normal’, ‘late’, and ‘ending’.

Steps to Implement

1. Research & Ideation:

• We started by identifying the metrics and gather community feedbacks

2. Design & Mockups:

• Based on our research, we created initial design mockups focusing on user experience and the presentation of key metrics. These were shared with the community for initial feedback.

3. Development Phase 1:

• We developed a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) featuring basic holder metrics and concentration of voting power metrics. This was released as a mid-development preview to gather community feedback.

4. Development Phase 2:

• We integrated additional metrics based on community feedback, including more detailed proposal and participation metrics.

5. Testing & Iteration:

• The dashboard underwent multiple rounds of testing for functionality, usability, and data accuracy. We also made iterative improvements based on ongoing community feedback.

6. Launch & Maintenance:

• After final testing and refinements, the dashboard was officially launched. We have committed to maintaining it, including daily updates and feature iterations based on community needs.

7. Monthly Report:

• Release of monthly governance analytics report

Timeline

Budget Request (6 months)

Governance Dashboard (40,000 USD)

• Infrastructure Costs: This includes all the foundational services needed to support the dashboard’s operation.

• Maintenance and Operational Costs: These are ongoing costs required to keep the service up-to-date and running smoothly.

• Data Management Costs: Expenses related to handling and storing the data used by the dashboard.

• Third-Party Services: Costs for services provided by external entities that enhance the functionality of the dashboard.

• Overhead Costs: General administrative and operational expenses not directly tied to specific technical resources.

Monthly Report (10,000 USD)

• Data Interpretation and Analysis: Simplify complex metrics into clear insights and identify trends, patterns, and anomalies.

• Focus on Key Governance Metrics: Voting patterns, voter performance, proposal outcomes, and voting power shifts.

• Actionable Insights: Provide recommendations for increased participation and governance improvements.

• Customized Content: Tailor reports to community interests and feedback.

Example of our report from SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread

Overall Cost

• The total requested budget is 50,000 USD, with 40,000 USD allocated for the Governance Dashboard and 10,000 USD for the 6 months of report generation and maintenance.
  (The amount will be paid denominated in 71,000 ARB (at the current ARB price of $0.70)

Team

Curia Lab: Our team brings extensive expertise in research, data analysis, and experience in DAO and decentralized governance. We have actively served as delegates in multiple DAOs, deeply engaging in governance, data analysis, and operational activities. We have built governance data-driven tools for notable projects like the Optimism Collective (Optimism Dashboard) and SafeDAO (SafeDAO Dashboard) and are keen on developing similar tools for ArbitrumDAO as well.

Contact Information

• Twitter: Curia
• Telegram: @v3dao, @englandkiiz
• Email: varit@curialab.xyz
• Website: Curia Hub

We look forward to your feedback and suggestions!

[cp0x]

I like the analytical approach to the topic of voting and delegation.
It seems to me that this is an adequate budget for such work.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Are those types of visual interfaces a future project (prototype?) or have you already designed them and this is the final product?
2. If this offer is accepted, maintenance will be required to continue operating this portal. Will it also cost $10,000 for 6 months?

[Curia]

Hey @cp0x , thank you for your feedback!

To answer your questions, the current visuals are initial mock-ups of our design and can be adjusted based on community feedback. We plan to conduct a research survey to collect this feedback and make updates based on it. Once approved by the DAO, we will start working on the dashboard, which will take roughly 2.5 months or less to complete.

Regarding maintenance, there will be costs, including incorporating new metrics based on governance changes to ensure relevance with ArbitrumDAO and their initiatives. We plan to have this proposed budget renewed every six months, covering the governance dashboard for infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, and overhead costs. Additionally, this budget will include the preparation of monthly reports to keep the community informed and ensure the tool stays updated and functional.

[Frisson]

I think this would add significant value by providing insight into key governance metrics over time. We provide a small slice of this data on Tally, but ultimately have a different focus (governance participation, UX, and incentives).

[Curia]

Hey @Frisson,
Thank you so much for your feedback! We’re big fans of Tally and really appreciate the work you do in Arbitrum!

[EzR3aL]

I really like the design, the metrics and how simple it is to understand.
Will you also add other DAO data to some an overall DAO score?
For example I am active in the Aave DAO for a long time already. So my numbers there are pretty high and showing strong activity. Now I just recently joined the Arbitrum DAO where my numbers are small which might influence the decision of a user to delegate to me. If both would be aggregated one could see I’m already active in another DAO and will probably be the same here too.

Also I would say it’s great too immediately see if a delegate is active or inactive for example which a red button saying “inactive” and green for “active”.

I also think the budget is very fair.
What will be the future costs to maintain this dashboard per month?

[0xDonPepe]

I’m a big fan of Curia’s work, these kinds of dashboards provide valuable insights; tracking voting behavior enhances transparency and accountability within the DAO.

edit: Just voted ‘FOR’ this proposal because of the reasons already outlined.

[WinVerse]

One can never say no to more valuable insights and detailed analysis. Thank you for putting this together, Curia!

This is quite useful as it would bring a more structured analysis of governance within Arbitrum DAO. Some of the solutions you envision this dashboard to provide would be super helpful as well. I have been in some DAOs that implemented something similar to redelegation week and having this sort of dashboard would have been super helpful.

For the Delegate Metrics though, a lot of it feels redundant. I would not focus too much on individual delegates’ metrics — Delegate Profile — but more on broad delegate analysis — Delegated Table — as something similar is already available/could be easily implemented with Karma. Delegation Tracking could be added as a column to the table; should come in handy.

Finally, regarding the budget request, please could you denominate cost in either USD or ARB? It’s somewhat confusing as is.

[Curia]

Thank you, @EzR3aL , for your feedback.

That’s a great idea and something we could do if we expand to more DAOs, but at this stage, we would like to focus on Arbitrum’s data. Regarding the budget, we plan to renew the contract to maintain this dashboard every 6 months for $50k USD. This will cover all governance dashboard needs, including infrastructure, maintenance, data management, API services for community use, third-party services, overhead costs, and the monthly report.

[Curia]

Thank you for your support! We’re glad you find our dashboards valuable.

[Curia]

Thank you for your feedback and support! We really appreciate your insights.

Sorry for the confusion regarding the budget. The amount will be denominated in 71,000 ARB (at the current ARB price of $0.70).

[Curia]

Here is the example of our report for SafeDAO: SafeDAO Governance Analytics Report Thread

[CoinRuay]

Thank you very much for the great proposal. The UX/UI is beautiful. I’m confident that this will help advance governance to some extent.

I’d like to ask a few additional questions:

1. Regarding the current Governance Dashboard, as we understand it, users have quite a variety of choices. How does the team view the advantages and disadvantages of the above proposal compared to other current options?

2. In terms of numerical targets, such as the number of users, number of transactions, etc., what targets does the team have? What plans are there to reach these goals?

[Curia]

@CoinRuay Thank you for your positive feedback on our proposal and the UX/UI design. Our dashboard offers unique advantages over existing options by

• Comprehensive Analytics: Our dashboard offers more detailed and comprehensive analytics than most existing solutions, providing deeper insights into delegate activities, voting patterns, and proposal outcomes.
• Tailored to Arbitrum: Our dashboard and reports are specifically designed to meet the needs of the Arbitrum community. This means it covers specific governance initiatives, providing insights and analytics that are directly relevant to users.

In terms of numerical targets, we aim to have at least 15-20% of Arbitrum’s voter base actively using our dashboard. To achieve these goals, we plan to:

• Outreach: Conduct demo sessions in Arbitrum community calls to showcase the community on the benefits and functionalities of the dashboard.

• Continuous Improvement: Gather user feedback and continuously enhance the dashboard to meet evolving needs and preferences.

We believe these strategies will help us reach our targets and make a meaningful impact on governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

[AlexLumley]

Commenting Rationale for the [RFC] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard Proposal
Below are three recommendations to improve this proposal towards Reducing Redundancy and Increasing Impact.

1. Address Redundancy Concerns:

• Explicitly address community concerns regarding potential overlap with existing tools. Explain how the dashboard will complement rather than duplicate the functionalities of tools like Karma.

2. Actionable Insights and Real-World Application:

• Emphasize how the dashboard will provide actionable insights that can be used in real-world governance decisions. Examples or case studies of how similar tools have impacted other organizations could be beneficial.

3. Cost-Effectiveness and Return on Investment:

• Highlight the cost-effectiveness of the dashboard by comparing it with the benefits and efficiencies it introduces. Discuss the potential return on investment through improved decision-making and increased engagement.

See Voting Rationale here: Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #4 by AlexLumley

[Curia]

Hi everyone, our proposal is now live on Snapshot! We welcome your comments and feedback. If you have any specific concerns you’d like to discuss, feel free to reach out to us. Here’s the link: Snapshot: AribtrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard

[DoDAO]

@Curia developed a Governance Analytics Dashboard in Safe and its proven very useful. For Arbiturm I will add even more value as the team(governance participants) is much bigger.

[Larva]

I support the proposal to create the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard. This tool will enhance transparency and data-driven decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem by providing a clear and comprehensive view of governance activities.

[gauntlet]

This proposal aims to serve a unique dataset currently underserved in the Arbitrum community.

That said, it is also extension upon the data work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive program. This feels like a competitive offer that might be better served as a part of the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive proposal once it’s extension period has ended and a V2 has shipped.

As such, Gauntlet is leaning toward voting against this proposal as a standalone offer to the DAO.

[Curia]

@Gauntlet, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand your concern regarding potential overlap with the work currently being done by the Karma team as part of the Delegate Incentive program. However, we believe our proposal offers a complementary, rather than competitive, solution. Here’s why:

• Our dashboard is designed to provide an expanded and more granular view of governance data, focusing on underrepresented metrics such as the Concentration of Voting Power, Holders & Delegation trends, Proposal Dynamics, and Detailed Participation Analysis. While Karma’s work is excellent at tracking delegate performance, our solution delves deeper into the broader Arbitrum governance ecosystem, offering insights that extend beyond the scope of delegate incentives alone.

• For instance, our concentration of Voting Power metrics are specifically tailored to assess the health and decentralization of governance, which is crucial for identifying centralization risks and fostering a more inclusive decision-making process. We believe these insights would significantly contribute to the integrity of the entire governance framework.

The Arbitrum community would benefit from having these analytical tools at its disposal, serving different aspects of governance. By offering a specialized tool that provides a comprehensive view of governance data, we can ensure that no aspect of the governance process is overlooked.

Furthermore, our commitment to ongoing maintenance and community-driven iterations ensures that this dashboard will continuously adapt to the evolving needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We respectfully request that you reconsider your stance on this proposal. We believe our Governance Analytics Dashboard can provide significant value to the Arbitrum community, both as a standalone tool and additional complementary tool to existing governance initiatives. We are open to further discussions on how we can align our efforts with the broader goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem.