AGP idea: modify the AGP-10 Community Funding DAO so only the Aragon Co-op can create new votes


There was a concern brought up about the current implementation of the AGP-10 DAO that makes it easy to attack with spam proposals in the hopes of overwhelming honest voters, causing confusion, and draining funds from the DAO. This hasn’t happened yet but the longer the DAO exists as-is the more likely that someone will try to mess with it (if only as a proof of concept).

I propose an AGP that would modify the permissions in the AGP-10 DAO so that only the Aragon Coop DAO can create proposals. For this to be viable it would require cooperation from the Aragon Coop DAO to take on this responsibility. They would also need to install an instance of the Agent app so that their DAO has the capability to create votes in the AGP-10 DAO. And the workflow for creating AGP-10 DAO proposals would be modified slightly so that proposal authors would convince the Aragon Coop DAO members to approve creating a vote for their proposal in the AGP-10 DAO.

So before writing a formal proposal I would like to put this idea out there for consideration not just from ANT holders broadly but from Aragon Coop DAO members specifically. Is this a good idea? Are you (Aragon Coop members) willing to help facilitate the AGP-10 governance process and curate worthy proposals?



John, I think this sounds like a great idea. It can give the cooperative a near-term collaborative activity, and it shouldn’t take that much of one’s time if one checks the forum here and there. I also like that it will allow for playing with the Agent app!

I would say perhaps there can be a vote in the Aragon Coop DAO to see who votes “Yes” to contributing to the curation process.



Woah, nice idea John, like it. Agree w. Yalda that this would be a good task for Araco (or whatever we’re actually titled - there’s another potential vote pending:).

I’m not sure it’s quite as straightforward as is being suggested above though - there’s actually a very large amount of tacit knowledge expected here, in terms of tooling and communication/community - and also responsibility.

I spent the evening going through various coops principles documentation last night (I’ll upload my notes on the MVM thread as per our convo yesterday) and one thing they are all very clear on is that contributions (or what Loomio describe as ''transacting") requires a sense of ownership and reward for those participants (with both terms often interlinked). Can I head off any possible accusation of this being ‘well what’s in it for me’ by drawing attention to another principle found in all successful coop examples I’ve encountered, where a focus on sustainability (of the coop and surrounding community) is key*.

So yeah - this all sounds great – what’s in it for us? :slight_smile: **

*as someone who’s spent 15 years in and around free libre open communities of practice, I’ve seen waaay too much burnout already.

** Am also aware that perhaps this is for the coop to decide itself, being equally aware that people contribute their time and skills for many different reasons and desired outcomes.

Still, it’s a great idea @light, thank you for suggesting it…



If the frame signer integration were available I think this approach would be fairly straightforward, without it there is a pretty significant technical burden associated with using the CLI to interact with the Agent app to create the votes (though perhaps a basic script/wrapper could be written with minimal effort to make that easier).



though perhaps a basic script/wrapper could be written with minimal effort to make that easier

Building a frontend just for that would be cumbersome and time consuming IMO but writing a custom script to initiate an agent intent to open a vote in another DAO can be done in a day or two.

That would be super specific to this use case but can help anyhow.

If this proposal pass I can take a day to write and publish it for sure.



Thanks for bringing this up. I can think of two main options, I’m not sure what is best and there may be other options I haven’t thought of, let me know what you think:

  • Agree on a sum up front to pay the co-op for reviewing proposals and build it into the AGP or a separate AGP (“Modify the AGP-10 DAO so only the Co-op can create proposals and also send XXXX DAI per quarter to the Co-op as remuneration for their curation services”).

  • Agree on a sum “out of band” that could get paid by proposal authors directly. When proposal authors make a proposal they could pay a flat fee or % of the proposal value to the Co-op. This would more closely link the amount of work done to review proposals with the remuneration value. The proposal author could build the cost of the fee into their proposal so they get it back if the proposal is approved.

This doesn’t take into account how the remuneration is divided within the Co-op but that can be a separate conversation within the Co-op community.

1 Like


Yep, like these options. Perhaps we could do both proposals:

  1. A separate APG to provide some working coop capital
  2. “Modify the AGP-10 DAO so only…”
  3. Agree a sum out of band - which would afford appropriate attention from coop participants to each proposal.

We’ve had a quick roll-call and 20+ coop members appeared through the ether lickedy-split - we’re proposing various tasks (all really positive). Item 3 on my currently very bare bones constitution is in regard how we allocate dividends for contributory transactions from CoAO common property (any surplus cash).

So the idea that there could be funds for the coop itself, as well as specific project ‘maintenance’ (% of value) for specific work by members with specific well suited skills, fits the above conceptualisation very well.

(at some point, hopefully soon, we/I wont feel the requirement to constantly add “but all this is dependent on agreement from our members”, at the end of every post:)



I like this proposed modification as an interim solution to the spam problem. However, given the coordination necessary on the Aragon Coop DAO side it might take more time than we have (3-4 days) to get their approval:

Here is a counter-proposal: at the first sign of trouble, open a proposal in the Community Funding DAO to send the remaining funds back to the Aragon Association multisig (this will need to be done again on April 30, at the time of the next scheduled deposit). So far people have been playing nice with the DAO but it’s good to be ready with a defensive measure should something not nice happen.

Then between now and ANV-3 we can work on an agreement that would give the Aragon Coop DAO exclusive proposal-making abilities in the Community Funding DAO as described in the OP in exchange for some curation fee as @Julian describes. Once an agreement is settled on and the Aragon Coop DAO implements the Agent app to make it possible, an AGP can be drafted for ANV-3 to patch the Community Funding DAO until the court is ready to serve as the spam prevention mechanism.



Hey @anteater, appreciate the feedback on this. Is there anything you’d like us to do over the next couple of days regarding this (or anyone else, please feel free to suggest some/any-thing)?

If it would help I’d imagine we (@lkngtn really) could setup a quick vote re coop taking this role on, from our informal discussions everyone’s up for this. Does appear that setting up the Agent App is not currently that straightforward (though admittedly we haven’t actually got together and tried).

I do appreciate that requesting over half the quarterly budget is outside of the CFDAO’s expected scope, though perhaps half that, 3600DAI, would be acceptable? This would provide some motivation for a couple of coop members (most likely myself & @sepu85) to kickstart the Cooperative DAO’s currently lacking required momentum.

The funds would be used to implement our side of the above…

1 Like


~28% of the Community Funding DAO’s budget going to admin/ curation still seems quite high.

Getting paid a % of the value of each proposal as mentioned above seems a better way to match compensation with the value delivered. If a proposal is 500 DAI and the Coop agrees that 5% is a fair rate for curation then the Coop would get 25 DAI for that proposal from the author in the form of a curation fee, then the author would build that fee into the proposal and get it back when they’re paid by the DAO.

If the proposal is spam, then the Coop DAO still gets paid the fee for the curation work done but the spammer gets nothing (assuming the spammer is dumb enough to still try and submit the proposal in the first place).

What do you think?



Hi again,

Yes, this makes sense to me re coop acting as potential spam-guard. 5% also seems about right as a fair curation fee too.

I do strongly believe the coop requires a capital investment kickstarter, though it does appear evident from community feedback that the CFDAO is perhaps not the right source for this potential funding.

Please let me know what (if anything) I can/should do to assist in making this AGP-ready.

Cheers for your input @anteater, appreciated…



Yeah, this idea was submitted a bit last minute considering the coordination involved to make it a success. I agree that planning this for ANV-3 makes more sense and the “defensive measure” you suggest here seems reasonable in the short term.

I think what is left is for the Co-op to agree under what terms it will accept the curation responsibility. If 5% of the value of each proposal sounds like a good starting point to you as a fee for curation services, the next step would be to take this to the wider Co-op membership and possibly have them vote to ratify this (or whatever y’all do to make group decisions :smiley:) . And then we can work to integrate the Agent app and put forward an AGP for the next vote that makes it official.



We actually hold a digital seance on keybase to summon the spectre of Robert Owens (, by placing our hands on the Ctrl Alt Shift [+] @ ~ keys, while chanting our emergent 8-point cooperative principles. Answers to all questions arrive via the cryptographically secure inbuilt chat protocol.

Works really well (so far)

More seriously (folks) - even this flags up an interesting conundrum - how to make and keep the coop responsive and agile - this really feeds into some practical questions I’ve been attempting to work through recently :thinking: – we so require some trusted representation :superhero:, and I don’t think we have 3 months to wait. This is all useful stuff, thanks again both