I’m for the general idea and see how it can be a complementary piece to the Karma dashboard (instead of being repeat work). However, I think because of that this would be better rolled into the presumable renewal of the incentive program and would prefer to see it there. While I know that sounds a little counter-intuitive, I’d imagine there is a real opportunity for the sum being greater than the parts if all the groups involved with that worked together on that project and learned from each other.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal during temp check.
We agree with some of the delegates about some of these being redundant (and we also highlighted this). However, we would support this proposal due to our rationale here as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.
While we acknowledge the potential value that the Governance Analytics Dashboard (Curia) could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to vote against the proposal at this time.
Our primary concerns revolve around the following points:
Overlap with Existing Initiatives: There is significant overlap with other ongoing programs, particularly those involving Karma. While having multiple data sources can provide a second reference point, it’s crucial to avoid redundancy and ensure that new initiatives add distinct value to the DAO.
Actionability of the Dashboard: We question whether this dashboard will lead to actionable insights or if it might end up as a dashboard for its own sake. Including a monthly report is a positive step, but the proposal lacks clarity on how the data will be utilized to drive meaningful decisions within the DAO.
Timing and Strategic Fit: Given the current landscape, we believe it might not be the right time to introduce another analytics tool without first addressing the overlaps and ensuring that it complements existing efforts rather than duplicating them.
While we recognize the need for better governance analytics and support the idea of improved transparency and data accessibility, we feel this proposal could benefit from further refinement. We encourage future efforts to focus on making data openly available and ensuring that new tools provide clear, actionable insights that will directly benefit the DAO.
The following 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 AGAINST this proposal during the temperature check.
First of all, we’d like to say that we have great respect for the Curia team and their dedication to improving governance processes with more accurate and targeted data. However, in the case of this proposal, we don’t fully understand who the target user is and how this data will be consumed. We agree with other voices in this thread that this initiative would only be useful if it were part of another initiative such as a delegate incentive program or staking rewards.
We vote against this proposal, but encourage Curia to try other avenues, such as the Delegated Domain Allocator grant program, to showcase (probably with limited scope) the value you can provide the DAO with this additional data.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
As others have mentioned, this proposal is definitely enticing and the dashboard UI shows promise. Furthermore, we acknowledge that it might be a better time to propose this after the delegate incentive program has ended its trial. And as many have said, there is the concern that this would complicate the current delegate incentive program with our ongoing partnership with Karma. While this could introduce some complexity, it does provide the DAO with more data about voter dynamics that Karma currently does not have implemented, and could be of use in the long run, especially if we approach a path to integrate some of this data into actionable insights with Tally. Voting concentration and participation are important metrics to the DAO, as several of our recent proposal efforts have been geared toward increasing participation. With that in mind, if this proposal does not go through, we would like to see this return but reworked toward the delegate incentive program angle or see Curia go through the Domain Allocator channels.
Voting against this proposal because of crossover with Karma services. Think that there are specific use cases for a project like this such as to avoid gov attacks or inspect governance tangential areas like grant usage, rather than the current generalist scope of the project. Some of the individual delegate metrics may be redundant or not particularly useful to many unless they can be integrated into the delegate incentive program rewards calculations, instead of just complementary dashboards as an audit.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Arbitrum DAO Governance Analytics Dashboard.”
In our understanding, the current proposal aims to create a governance-related dashboard that aggregates and elaborates on the on-chain data available from Tally. While some quality-of-life upgrades, such as analysis of voting power concentration or participation metrics, will be included, we do not believe that these proposed features justify the creation of an additional governance dashboard, nor do we think it should be financed by the DAO.
Interesting initiative. However, I’d like to see the results of Karma and SeedLatam initiatives first in the mid-term to avoid-double spending on similar cause. Voting abstain
Voting for this proposal at the temp check stage but really as a sign of support that we need better tooling in this area.
This proposal isn’t going to pass but i would still recommend the team approach the various grant programs (Plurality and Questbook) or the foundation to see if there is a more limited initiative that could be taken up while the DAO progresses its thinking on how best to appraoch a unified governance dashboard.
We want to thanks everyone who engaged in the discussion around our proposal. Your participation and feedback are incredibly important to us, and we truly appreciate your involvement.
Although we didn’t pass the Snapshot vote, we see this as a valuable opportunity to listen and learn from the community. Your feedback has given us clear guidance on how we should move forward. Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
Aligning with Existing Initiatives: Many of you noted that our proposal overlaps with existing tools. We totally get this concern, and we’re now exploring ways to better integrate our ideas with what’s already in place.
Several delegates also suggested that smaller budget requests like ours should go through channels such as the Domain Allocator. We’re planning to explore this route to make sure we can bring our ideas to life and provide real value to the DAO.
Thank you once again for your support, feedback, and engagement. We’re excited to keep working together with the community as we continue to build and contribute to ArbitrumDAO.
As the ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, the Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integration with the Unistaker platform and a focus on active delegate scoring. We consider this proposal vital for improving Arbitrum’s governance security and sustainability.
I voted against this proposal, agreed that it overlaps with other active tools (such as Karma) and in consequence its benefit decreases. The idea to channel this proposal through existing grant programmes such as PL and QB also seems good.
I voted against the proposal because it conflicts with other existing dashboards, including Karma. In general, I oppose creating multiple governance dashboards, as it complicates governance, especially for new delegates. While I find your dashboard complementary to Karma and appreciate its more user-friendly interface, I still voted against the proposal due to the complexity introduced by having multiple dashboards. However, I would like to see the Karma dashboard further developed, potentially in collaboration with you, as I admire your previous designs and work.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we support the ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal.
By unlocking ARB utility and aligning incentives, Tally Protocol implements ARB staking and the stARB token, addressing declining voter participation and governance risks. The governance framework is strengthened by integrating with the Unistaker platform and focusing on active delegate scoring.
We consider this proposal important for improving Arbitrum’s governance security and sustainability.
Our team voted For this proposal. Data points related to governance activity is very much a hit or miss topic. We’ve personally seen a slew of products released over the past three years regarding this subject matter. Most of them have since been deprecated because nobody wants to pay for these services. The frequency with which delegates review these statistics also varies. They only review such information when conducting a report or review, which means such data only needs to be queried on a periodic basis. That being said, all of this also hinges on one important point: the type of DAO these metrics are being provided for. Dapps usually have smaller delegate bases and therefore don’t need complex datapoints. Most info can be inferred, and the stats are often statistically insignificant. However, with regards to an ecosystem like Arbitrum, we aren’t just dealing with a dapp. There are numerous delegates, lots of votes, various perspectives, and decent dispersion in voting power. The entry for Arb DAO is also lower relative to many other DAOs, so these dashboards are helpful for new folks. To those ends, we are voting For this proposal.
Voted FOR on the temp check. We need multiple sources of solid data on governance.
I’m not sure if this is the right solution, but I do think that this sends the right signal that governance tooling needs to be explored and problems need to be reviewed for better solutions.
as we believe these statistics would still come in handy for the DAO.