Tally's Arbitrum Roadmap

Tally created a proposal to expand our support for the Arbitrum DAO that recently passed. During the proposal feedback process, a number of delegates suggested that we double down on sourcing feedback from the DAO and further increase the scope of what we plan to build for Arbitrum. As a result, we facilitated an open discussion about how to improve governance tools and mechanisms. Now, we’ve put together a comprehensive Tally roadmap for the Arbitrum DAO that includes both what we’ve already committed to building via the current proposal to expand our support and additional high-impact improvements that emerged from the open discussion. Arbitrum DAO stakeholders can consider this post a formal commitment to executing on all of the items included in this roadmap going forward.

Tally has already been funded to build the features listed below under Roadmap: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO. We plan to create another proposal in the near future that we hope will fund the additional features listed below under Roadmap: to be Funded via a Future Proposal. The future proposal will be structured as a long-term partnership between the DAO and Tally that is designed to create mutual clarity, align incentives, and ensure ongoing support. Importantly, we do not view the future proposal as a blocker to begin work on the Roadmap: to be Funded via a Future Proposal. We are beginning work on some of the included features immediately.

This forum post will serve as a living version of Tally’s roadmap for the Arbitrum DAO. Please feel free to reply with feedback at any time. We will update the original post and add a comment when there are changes.

Roadmap: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Development to be completed in Q2, 2024

  • Improve the proposal process
    • Link forum proposal posts and Tally proposals so that delegates can create Tally proposals from forum posts, see forum proposal comments directly on Tally, and be updated by a Tally Discourse bot when onchain proposals are created.
    • Build a diff checker into Tally proposals that shows what text has changed from Snapshot without having to click back over to Snapshot, to help delegates understand any relevant changes from the temp check phase to the onchain governance phase.
    • Enable cancel functionality on Tally proposals so proposal creators can cancel onchain proposals if there are mistakes. (see upgrade Governor contracts section)
    • Develop full proposal execution integration by dynamically showing each phase of proposal execution with accurate time stamps so that contributors and delegates can easily manage proposals through the execution process.
    • Improve support for late quorum extension on Tally so onchain proposals are automatically extended on Tally when late quorum extension is triggered.
    • Fully integrate the quorum of each Governor throughout Tally, including on the proposal page and the delegates page so that delegates always know exactly how much voting power is required to reach quorum.
    • Show Security Council transactions on the main Arbitrum DAO page on Tally so the DAO can easily view actions taken by the Security Council.
  • Upgrade Governor contracts
    • Add a cancel() function to the Arbitrum DAO’s implementation of OpenZeppelin Governor so proposal creators can cancel onchain proposals if there are mistakes.
    • Add Flexible Voting to the Arbitrum DAO Governors to enable future innovations like voting from Orbit chains, voting from DeFi contracts, and shielded voting.
  • Highlight delegate contributions
    • Integrate Karma’s delegate score and contributor metrics into Tally’s delegate page so token holders and DAO stakeholders have access to holistic participation information.
  • Research
    • Publish partial delegation spec
    • Publish shielded voting spec

Roadmap: to be Funded via a Future Proposal
Development is not blocked by future proposal funding. We are beginning work on some features immediately.

  • Make Tally an Arbitrum DAO home page
    • Surface the most important forum discussions on Tally
    • Highlight announcements and news
    • Create a native notifications experience on Tally to notify users throughout the proposal lifecycle
  • Improve the proposal process
    • Add Delegate<>token holder proposal discussion and feedback
    • Unify proposal comments into one location on Tally
    • Add shielded voting
    • Add proposal summaries
    • Further integrate temp check stage into Tally so delegates have the option to only vote once on equivalent temp check/onchain proposals
  • Improve council/committee operations
    • Add a generalized elections feature to Tally for any type of election (not just Security Council)
    • Ship Arbtimistic governance: a feature that creates council Safe transactions as proposals that pass by default but can be vetoed by delegates
  • Improve security council elections
    • Add shielded voting
    • Create a unified page that makes it easy to track and allocate votes across candidates holistically
    • Combine unique votes for individual candidates
    • Add security council votes to Tally profiles
    • Make all candidate questions required
  • Upgrade Governor contracts
    • Add partial delegation
    • Research and develop shielded voting
    • Enable cross-chain governance in Arbitrum ecosystem (vote from Orbit chains)
    • Enable voting from tokens held in smart contracts
  • Decentralize DAO tooling
    • Create a zero-dependency basic frontend for Arbitrum DAO voting and delegation that serves as a decentralized alternative to Tally

Excited to see the changes! as a small note, think something might have got cut off here.


Thanks! I edited the post to fix.


not sure if it was already written in there and i missed it. But can we add a way to change a vote with due reason? Ie: misclicking. Which can happen.
And if you change, you need to do either 1) provide a rationality 2) do it in the next X hours from initial vote 3) maybe both? Not sure what is the best mechanism, don’t want to introduce a way for people to go backdoor and push for changes, but obviously there are situations in which a voter might need to revert it, likely due to a mistake.


I think having the opportunity to edit proposals would be a great upgrade. Not only to correct typos, but also for adding or deleting voting options.

Let me put an example. Been reviewing a lot of proposals lately because of Delegates Incentive Program and one issue we had were ARDC elections. These elections lacked the ABSTAIN option and there was delegates that didn’t want to vote for any of the available choices. These led to some delegates not voting when they were available to do so (and even wanted to do so).
Now, I can understand that deleting and re-uploading can be a pain, but having the option to edit (at least until votation starts) can save a lot of time.


Hey @Frisson, thanks for putting that together. Here are some additional ideas for Tally Roadmap:

  1. Implement quadratic voting: This feature would be beneficial in some scenarios to avoid delegate entrenchment and the polarization of DAO decisions according to the delegates with the ‘biggest tires’. Smaller voters and delegates could still bring more voting dynamism and avoid some pitfalls of protocol politicization by bringing more diversity of opinions. Quadratic voting strikes a balance between giving weight to passionate minorities while still respecting the overall will of the majority.
  2. Incorporate prediction markets: Allow users to bet on the outcomes of proposals to surface crowd-sourced wisdom and better estimate which proposals will pass. It could provide valuable insights into the community’s sentiment (outside DAO politics) regarding specific proposals.

Thanks for bringing this up, JoJo. Changing a vote is not currently on the roadmap. I’m actually not sure how to accomplish this safely in onchain proposals from a technical perspective. Let me do some digging and share some thoughts on possible implementations.

1 Like

Thanks for this suggestion, Gianluca. Similar to Jojo’s suggestion about changing votes, I think the primary barrier to this is technical. It’s interesting to consider how it would be possible to change a proposal once it’s onchain. I’ll give this some thought.


Following up here. Changing votes is technically possible. It requires a modification to Governor, but it’s relatively straightforward. If implemented, delegates would need to submit another voting transaction which would overwrite their previous vote. We’ll do some more digging on our side to spec it out a bit.


Thanks for the ideas, mcfly. I like them!

re: quadratic voting. This requires effective sybil resistance because delegates will be incentivized to vote from multiple addresses. Any thoughts on what sybil resistance could look like?

re: prediction markets. What do you think of MetaDAO’s implementation of Futarchy? https://docs.themetadao.org/

1 Like

Following up here. Allowing proposals to be edited is possible, but it would require a non-trivial change to Governor. We’re doing some work to spec it out a bit on our side.


Thanks for your reply.

  1. Maybe a mix of FractalID (already in use by the foundation) and votes history with the delegate address. The newer the delegate address and/or voting history is, the lighter the voting weight.
  2. Metadao is interesting if there is an effective design in place to counterbalance plutocracy.