Aragon Forum TLDR 24 - 1 Dec


Approved: 14 ANT holders representing 52,133.62 ANT (0.1%) voted with unamimous support for the proposal to Update Aragon’s DEX Strategy

This Weeks Forum Updates & Discussions

NEW: Product research is shared on Blind O-VOTE L2 voting solution to provide gasless anonymous voting with on-chain binding execution on Ethereum. The post provides a high-level overview of the system, its properties and its drawbacks. Plus a prototype implementation of the system in Rust and a comparison with the OVOTE presented in July 2022.

Both schemes, aim for scalability, where users vote off-chain but the results are verified on-chain, aggregating the census proofs verification and voters’ signatures in a single zkSNARK proof which is sent in a single Ethereum transaction. The main difference between OVOTE and Blind-OVOTE is the approach used for the census

NEW: Delegate conversation on Legal Wrappers that presents options and considerations from which @ronald_k position on the subject bears repeating

In my opinion, it is key that delegates can act through a legal wrapper. Otherwise, they are likely subject to unlimited liability for all activities of the DAO where they participated in voting

NEW: Meta discussion proposes several user interface improvements to the home with examples from other discourse forums of the suggested format.

Ongoing: Discussion continued for the Mastering DAO Program with reference to DAOStar One DAO standards and incentivising governance participation. The proposal requests €76k for 30+ participants during a 10-week methodological program offering a full-scope universal governance template that simplifies the interaction between members of the organization, structures informational flow and formulates agreements.

S2 Transparency

Final Report from EVMCrispr

During this time, EVMcrispr has passed from being a helpful tool for performing DAO-ops to being a fully-fledged scripting language for performing operations on different protocols (Curve, Sushi, Superfluid, Gnosis Safe, etc.).

S2 Report Community Guild
S2 Report Eagle Ops
S2 Report dTech

On topics important to all ANT holders the following questions still await transparency.

  1. Progress status of the new DAO?
  2. Who is accountable for governance design of the new DAO?
  3. What if any plan exist for dealing with the Securities Exchange Commission regarding tax implications, securities or other requirements of $ANT

Feedback Welcome

We welcome diversity of perspectives and encourage the community to ask questions and offer support and constructive feedback. Forum discussions are encouraged before and during voting and on proposals as they progress.

Twitter Version


Thank you for the weekly summary - helps me stay on top when logging in once per month or so. Is this official communication by the project as the category “Announcements from the Aragon team” suggest or can anyone post?

1 Like

This is a volunteer effort, the official position as advised by AA team members is that the TLDR is a

  1. duplication of the newsletter @Shawncubbedge
  2. would not be “needed” when delegates are in place @Samantha

I value transparency over the marketing narrative of the newsletter so I’m posting here as it appeared to be the category that historically contained community updates.

I think anyone can post here idk. Give it a try!

1 Like

I appreciate the effort but as the forum is now set in order of the last post I really do think this simply pushes down the important information and has become spam. I think at this point it’s worth deprecating. Just my opinion!

lol do you sincerely appreciate SPAM?..I’ll be taking a holiday over Dec/Jan but expect to see them continue…this is a public forum and I wouldn’t want you to miss opportunities to routinely disparage my contributions to the community

Hello sir! There you go - communication from the team on all things Aragon:

spam? really? my .02 is that you’re a shill and wasting time and space in the forum. “just my opinion”

1 Like

Is there any particular reason why you are abusive to a suggestion that something being done is not adding value? The TLDR “posts” from @lee0007 (who mentions she has no official capacity at Aragon and yet on twitter has “transparency” as a function for the ANDAO and AA, how misleading and transparent?) have no engagement, little views, and push down other content. How is it unfair to deem this SPAM and ask for it to be reviewed and deprecated?

I would ask a moderator @Shawncubbedge to determine if name-calling (calling me, a community member, a “shill” and “a waste of time and space”) is against the rules and community code of conduct and issue you the correct penalty. I look forward to hearing back about what community rule this breaks and what the penalty is.

Thank you, and it’s sad that community members can’t post in this forum without being attacked.

I am an $ANT holder and a regular contributor to this public forum. I am posting transparency as an $ANT holder, via my personal Twitter for transparency of the activity of this forum. My Twitter account is not the official Aragon twitter nor does it pretend to be, it simply @ mentions the official accounts (standard twitter procedure) You have indicated yourself that participation in this community is not limited to paid contributors

On the matter of code of conduct (recognising English is not your first language), it does come across as hypocritical to take offence when your attitude is met in kind by others. Here are some comments you have made about my contributions

How about we just focus on keeping our own conduct in check

you consider that abuse? i think calling you a shill is just accurate use of the language. the work being promoted by aragon’s core team, in my opinion, is biased corporate talk, and i think you’re shilling it. i know @lee0007 has been highly engaged in this community and her perspective has more value than most. your value is not so clear. calling someone’s work spam is pretty aggressive, and so yeah - if that hurt your feelings or you think it’s an attack then i think you’re just not enjoying having it thrown back in your face.

don’t call someone’s work spam and expect to be treated like a hero… i think you’re shilling corporate nonsense and half-truths and should be called out for it. As Gang Starr once said “Take it personal”, sir.

@Dunedain i completely agree these posts should be deprecated. That is why we canceled the bounty over a month ago. @lee0007 is doing these posts of her own accord.

@lee0007 i understand what youre trying to do. However, you dont have the full picture of what is going on in the organization. So any communication that you put out is only part of the picture and therefor misleading. Im asking you directly to please stop. Its not necessary and we’re now receiving complaints from community members about this.

@alibama those comments are absolutely unnecessary. Any attacks on other community members is against community guidelines and wont be tolerated. This goes for everyone. This type of talk in the forum is not only absolutely not constructive in any sense but it makes both you and Aragon look unprofessional to anyone who comes in to this public facing forum. If you have an issue with someone take it to dms or keep it to yourself. Otherwise we will begin taking action. Whether this be in the form of a temp ban or permanently.

1 Like

For the record. Page 11 of the current version of the Charter states:

Our Standards
Examples of behaviour that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:

• Assuming good intentions and demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people.
• Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
• Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback.
• Proactively taking responsibility.
• Clearly communicating if we might fail to uphold responsibility, working to avoid or repair negative
consequences on others, adequately apologizing with the affected parties, and learning from the
• Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community.
• Embodying the values of the Aragon Manifesto.

Examples of unacceptable behaviour include:

• Selling or renting votes.
Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.
Public or private harassment, including stalking or repeated unwanted contact, including nonconsensual sexual attention, sexualized language or imagery, or advances of any kind.
Misleading or passive-aggressive comments.
• Publishing others’ private information, including personal identifiable information such as a physical address or email address, without their explicit permission.
• Hate speech such as promotes violence or hatred against people based on characteristics like
race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, religion, disability, disease, age, sexual orientation, gender,
or gender identity.
• Doing any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.
• Spam (unsolicited off-topic messages, especially commercial in nature).

• Inciting or threatening violence, encourage, glorify or incite violence against anyone relate to
extremism, terrorism, or human trafficking, directly or indirectly, or encouraging others to hurt
• Propose or make any payments or behave directly or indirectly in a way that results in a violation
of applicable anti-corruption laws.
• Repeatedly yelling (i.e. ALL CAPS or excessive exclamation points!!!).
• Discussing the price of a token or asset, or giving any type of financial advice.

If you go on to page 12 you will see the first time is a warning, the second offence is a temporary ban and the third offence is a permanent ban. I’d really rather it did not go that far.

@alibama this is a warning btw. The next time will be a temp ban. You’re better than that man, please be civil.

Are you suggesting that participation in the community forum should be limited to insiders with full context?

A TLDR is by its nature not intended to be comprehensive, simply a summary of recent posts that are in the forum open for discussion so that people might be aware.

Awareness and the bandwidth to build context is a known barriers to participation in governance and I have had several people say that this is useful.

I am suggesting that updates come from those with full context. Otherwise it can be misleading.

For instance, i could easily google how to optimize SEO for an organization. Does that make me qualified to tell others how to do that task? Not at all. There are subtleties that are involved that, if not taken into account, can affect peoples perception of the task or results they would like to get out of that task.

Anyone can participate, this is an public forum. But not everyone is trying to give updates on behalf of an organization they are not even close to being a part of in the day to day operations.

How would you feel if i went on twitter and started updating everyone on your life strictly from what you post and how i feel about what you post? I know nothing about your day to day life, which makes me unqualified to update others on it.

In addition, helping our community gain context is part of my job as community manager. Please let me take care of that.

I am of the understanding that the $ANT token provides $ANT holders with a right to governance participation, of which this forum is a key source of information.

I am not writing a TLDR on behalf of the Aragon Association I understand that the newsletter was designed for that purpose.

I am volunteering the TLDR as an $ANT holder on behalf of other $ANT holders who do not have the time/ bandwidth to locate and read every post.


Because I understand there are some $ANT holders and people within the broader community who would like increased transparency and awareness of the discussions, questions and decisions being made.

As per the initial bounty, I did include a summary of discussion points where a significant discussion progressed from week to week. I stopped this practice.

I am not selectively biased about which posts are included in the TLDR. I include all votes, new proposals and ongoing discussions subject to possible voting (within the Charter timeframe of 14 days) that I am aware of at the time of publishing.

I am not providing subjective commentary as you suggest with “…how I feel about what people post…” I reserve honest opinions to direct responses in the forum. Anyone comparing the TLDR to my personal posts is likely to recognise this.

If you believe there are statements in the TLDR that are subjective instead of objective, I am open to specific, substantiated feedback. I appreciate constructive feedback and have made edits based on such feedback.

I do not intend to stop contributing to the public forum just because a few outspoken people do not respect and berate my efforts, as such people are evidently not the intended audience of the TLDR.

If objective transparency of the activity here becomes available I would consider retiring from this volunteer role, but I am yet to see a level of transparency that would keep people well informed on the breadth of forum discussion.


Correction: if you go to page 12 of the Charter Violations and Consequence you will see that first offence is not a warning but correction.


Community Impact: A single use of inappropriate language or other behaviour deemed unwelcome in the community.

Consequence: Deletion or removal of the post in question, in addition to communicating which rule was violated and how to avoid such violations in the future. If the action was in person, direct communication with that individual to identify which rule was violated and how to avoid such violations in the future.

Appreciate your efforts to uphold the governing Charter and further trust this advice is applied equally to everyone. If you seek to police the standards it is advisable that you yourself adhere to the procedure provided.

The process for a first offence is a correction which requires that you

  1. moderate to determine if an admin should delete or remove the post
  2. communicate which rule was violated and
  3. communicate how to avoid such violations in the future

The process is in place as much to legitimise moderators as it is to address concerns. Subverting the specified (voter-enacted) process undermines the legitimacy upon which you seek to take action.