ANV Process & Information Quality

Source: Birds of a Feather

That’s right!

Let me rephrase to highlight the problem I’m seeing: it’s not the role of ANT holders to research anything, it’s their roles to decide.

With that in mind:

Person X likes the project a lot, wants to become ANT holder and vote. Person X has a full-time job, a familly, etc but is willing to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to vote in a way that would produce positive outcomes to the project.

Now, today Person X has to vote. What process Person X is supposed to follow to vote on AGP 130, 139 & 143. The others are easier because they seem to basically be critical AGPs necessary to move the project in the direction that was planned a long time ago.

This goes beyond @lkngtn comment and that’s why I have created a new thread. ANT holders are left alone to make decisions, I don’t think this is good at all.

Executive summaries could work but indeed if nobody expresses anything, there won’t be much to summarize. We eventually want to have delegated voting right? Likewise if there’s nobody expressing their views on each vote, that’s going to be challenging to find to whom ANT holders should delegate their votes.

Now I wonder. Some major projects are using Aragon: Decentraland, Melon, Coinbase, and quite a few others. Don’t they want to make sure the project is steered in the best possible direction as it is a pillar to the governance of their project? If so, they ought to vote (hope they do) and also to express themselves so people stand behind their reasoning and vote similarly, which would help steer the project in alignment to their needs.

Also, @luis & @jorge: I get that it’s difficult to be in your shoes as you have to find the right balance between leading the project, and decentralizing it. But I believe:

  • You should vote. I think you should do that with maybe 1% of your stake or alternatively as much as the largest non-founder voter used on the last vote. That would nicely put more weight to your vote as the project grows. Much better than suddently deciding out of the blue that it’s time for you to vote, which would probably create a big fuss.
  • You should express your views on each of the AGPs proposed so ANT holders can use your opinion in their voting.
  • When there is a conflict of interest or for any other reason, you can feel free to skip a vote and express opinion, although you should feel free to express yourself and vote if you feel strongly about something.
  • In doubt of what to do, create an AGP to suggest what you wish and ask the ANT holders.

What shape should this take, I have some ideas but I don’t really know. What I know is there’s a clear problem where in order to vote properly, an ANT holder needs to do a lot of research. Since in some (many) cases the research would be either too long or impossible, you get either a no-vote or more dangerous, a vote that has little confidence behind it.


I am happy to see this post. It has been hard to strike the right balance to foster decentralization while providing leadership.

In the beginning, I opted for not voting on any proposal except for force majeure situations.
I do think now that it was too early for that to happen. I think we will arrive there, but right now, there are some outstanding items that need to be fixed beforehand:

  • We need a higher participation rate. I don’t think participation rate is a proxy for good decisions, but it can be a proxy for more security and less last-minute surprises. For that, we can:
    • Implement quiet ending. That way, no one single participant can swing the outcome of the vote last minute
    • Implement voting delegation. That way ANT holders can delegate to those who they trust
  • We need to narrow the scope of governance. Governing parameters of a network seems easier than governing everything about the network. An example can be ANT holders tuning the parameters of Aragon Court. Those are more objective decisions that involve less politics. The current AGP process is very broad, and also doesn’t encode what’s the goal of the Network. The Manifesto is a great guiding light, but it’s just a guiding light
  • We need to use our own tools for governance! Minimize wet code, maximize dry code

Just my two satoshi!


I would prefer delegating my votes to people i trust because i don’t understand the impact on AGPs and the connection between AGPs and which influence an AGP has on the Aragon Network. This is very complex and therefore complicated. I would like to see a list of Delegation Teams which make transparent for whom they work for example Aragon One Team or 1Hive team etc. for me it would be helpful if they create short videos where they explain why they vote like they vote and explain what the impact / change it will make to the Aragon Ecosystem.


Very much looking forward to this.

Another minor detail but not sure if it ever has been mentionned: If I vote YES on something, I can change my vote to NO, but I cannot change my vote back to neither. Not a big problem but not optimal either.