Having been active in the proposal development process, my questions are answered, and what I do not yet understand I hope to learn via a working demo and proposed community engagement sessions. I look forward to hearing other people’s feedback and questions
Conflict of Interest
I do not see this as a conflict of interest for two reasons
I offer this support to any teams that wish to propose governance solutions (dGov) or seek funding for new initiatives (ESD)
I have supported the majority of ESD proposals to date in the same way - in terms of seeking out or supporting authors, providing proposal templates, feedback and editing prior to forum.
Congrats @sembrestels and this super team on this wonderful proposal. I’m especially excited about the prospect of collaborating with Blossom Labs, Gardens, General magic, TEC and 1Hive - the dream!
I have a couple of questions about how future generalization of this work could affect this first stage. I see that the proposal has a clear and actionable short term focus, so I don’t want to get bogged down in ‘what ifs’ for the future that are out of scope. That said, I’d appreciate if you can give your view on whether these are worth considering now.
1. Generalization of features for Aragon Client users
Since delegated voting and a faster voting UI are two of the top needs of large DAOs on Aragon Client, I am interested to know if you think that there’s anything worth doing in this first stage to prepare for future generalization?
(I can at the very least propose that we make a conscious effort to invite large DAOs on Aragon into these community education discussions, to shape future proposals)
2. Branding, licensing and their impact on generalization
Since Lazuline and TAO voting are already existing ‘brands’, to what extent do you think these could be integrated as ‘standard offerings’ under the Aragon Client branding umbrella in future. For example, are these open source, and with what license? E.g. if this was a huge success, and many DAOs wanted to have Lazuline as their front end, would there be restrictions to a) its use, and b) its branding e.g. should it in your view be called ‘Lazuline’, or ‘X’ created by Blossom Labs, …? What would you as the creators want to happen?
(From my perspective working on product marketing at Aragon, personally I would like us to work towards names that say what the thing is as clearly as possible, and a framework to have different types of branding agreements according to different types of funding).
Awesome proposal, and although I would love to see AN DAO on the new Aragon app in the future, it is needed that we start it sooner, and leveraging the current technologies built on top of aragonOS sounds like the best way to do it.
A few questions/curiosities
Why build Lazuline as a separate tool and not implement it directly into Aragon client?
Given the latest news on subgraph not having the hosted services anymore, do you see any potential issue and have already thought about which Graph service to use?
Was ever some research done on the delegation topic to build TAO voting? Not saying this is a requirement at all, but was thinking of creating some bounties for user research on this topic (from a product perspective, not a governance one), and if anything already exists would be better to first look at it
A sort of follow-up to the last question, would be great if we could get the Product design team at Aragon involved in the discussions for all the UX/UI flows, as we want to have this implemented in the new app at some point in time, and could already run lots of validations when implementing it here.
Although it is stated on the proposal that using Token Wrapper is the best decision, could you elaborate more on that @sembrestels ? Meaning, why not adapt TAO voting for regular ERC20s - Does Finance and Agent app are super dependent on MineMe as well?
I am super confident that we will be able to leverage a lot of the work done here for the new app in the future as well - again, excited about this proposal.
Thanks for this awesome proposal! I have little to say other than I support the contents of this proposal and follow up questions from Harry and Ramon. I look forward to hearing other opinions especially from our more technical team members. Seems like a great idea!
I do however believe this proposal should be going through the MainDAO and not the Executive Sub-DAO as it is a proposal that should be decided on by the Aragon community, and not a committee of 3 people. Due to its scope, breadth, and importance.
Likewise, should the tech-committee be tagged to have a read? @lee0007@fartunov ? What’s common practise for a proposal such as this?
I recommended ESD because 1) it fits our funding remit 2) there will still need to be a formal proposal to adopt any DAO governing technology. Currently, the governances proposal requires 44 days minimum, but I’m hoping CIP 1 will reduce this. And in the meantime, this is an opportunity to be working on a demo - to help inform the main DAO proposal - and effectively gain weeks on a very short timeline.
As a demo, this is not a proposal to implement this technology for the DAO and I believe very low-risk. However technical risk is a decision for the tech committee to make. Would love to hear their assessment please @voronchuk@p4u@nivida on
technical risk perspective
whether you believe this would be beneficial to the Aragon project
The demo model does not include audit as that is an expense required only if we formally adopt this model, which would require a Main DAO proposal. On payment cadence, the technical teams were provided opportunities to request funds in advance - as per General Magic.
The reason for monthly reporting is that under the current charter the ESD is required to assess deliverables in advance of releasing funding. In this case, that’s not an assessment of the technology, simply deliverables status - not started, in-progress or complete as per the ESD monthly reporting template. Keen for as many technical people possible to test the demo tech to help inform proposals and voting should this move to Main DAO for formal adoption.
As smart contract audits are planned for future proposals, I don’t see tech problems with this demo, other than the ones mentioned by @ramon. I also understand that integrating it into outdated Aragon Client code may be overkill and requires more clarity if it’s planned to be actively maintained or fully replaced by Zaragoza or another UX platform.
First of all, I’m super stoked to see this proposal and to have finally personally met @sembrestels and Paulo in EthBarcelona.
If we went down this path, I may suggest increasing the scope of the proposal so the currently “not included” may be included, so we can have a clear expectation on when would what be ready, and what would be the security assumptions needed.
Just to clarify the reason items are “not included” (yet) is due primarily to the limitation of the funding that the ESD can release. Our S2 funding strategy states:-
Thats said dGov could cover the 5k funding required for the community engagement process which would cover the
4k advance payment to General Magic for the development of the Commons Config dash and
TEC community engagement aspects - proposed parameter parties, param debates and the AMA sessions.
Clearly 10k will not cover the cost of things such as audits and @sembrestels and @paul2 would need to advise on the costs to
Include disputability, enabling the DAO to be secured by a Charter and dispute service
Customise the DAO frontend
Create a custom frontend to 1) apply as a delegate and 2) delegate voting power
As 40k is effectively the limit of ESD funding would that be enough to achieve 1-3 ? Although if this extends the time line beyond two (2) months, we could allocate up to 60k or 80k MAX (due to timeline, if just tweaking the delegate UI UX in November)
A Main DAO proposal could be created, it simply delays development by a further three weeks. Given the October deadline for delegates, I am 1/3 in support of providing what funding we can via ESD so development for the demo can progress, while additional funding is secured via Main DAO for the work that proceeds the Demo
Ultimately a Governance proposal is required to decide on the alternative governance tooling. For governance legitimacy this requires
a minimum of 30 Days of Notification + 14 days of voting + 0.5% quorum CIP 2
Voting scheduled to being 22 July
Given timelines to have delegates in place ahead of S3 - 1 December to 31 March - we would need governance proposals for the delegate DAO on the forum by end of August. The strategy here is to provide a working demo to help inform voters as to the options on the table.
Looking forward to the development of this experiment/demo.
Would be great to participate if that makes sense.
As this gets approved, we could send the 35k funds towards the demo DAO and I am happy to test the Vault/Agent side and execute the requested budget via the demo (if this makes sense of course).
This is dope - glad to support this and to see such wide consensus across stakeholders.
For me, the few things that need to be cleared out:
Make sure that the design can meet the specs outlined in @mlphresearch proposal that has passed and will guide the initial governance design of the Aragon DAO…I think some of these are being refined here
We can have a functional system by the 1st of October so ANT holders can start delegating their voting power, and we can transfer $100M into that system by 30th November
I am aware those two things might be out of the scope of the current proposal. I would kindly ask the team to confirm they are feasible and a ballpark of the additional cost to get us there.
The approved proposal does not set 1 October as a deadline and everything here is proposed as a demo ONLY
Both a tech agnostic charter and a formal governance proposal are still required to adopt any of these tools and I suggest the questions you raise - which are outside of the proposed scope here - are best addressed via that forum.
Aware the scope may be subject to further changes as per @Joan_Arus request. Keen to hear any concerns, or questions you have as they relate directly to this proposal and subsequently whether you do or do not support the funding requested?
As a side note, I’m seriously concerned of the takeover of the Aragon network by a handful of insiders and a VC. Timelines are being pushed without legitimacy, commitments made behind back doors and then just repeated at nauseum so people don’t realise they come from a minority. Everyone, please be wary of the strategies being used to create illusions of consensus!
For @sembrestels and co, onwards and forwards. Thanks for the good work!
Thank you for your response Renee. My message clearly states I am happy to support the proposal as is. 3/3 @Ricktik6
I would ideally want to think a few steps beyond the demo.
I have also specifically tagged Sem at the most relevant bit in the other thread, which is to have some expiration on the delegation (to avoid the “set it and forget it” behavior). While it is not explicitly part of the current specs, there is a pretty wide consensus it is a net positive. Knowing the high likelihood that this will be a requirement could be helpful to the technical team if the intention is to go beyond a demo and use TAO as the new setup for the Aragon DAO. They are also obviously free to ignore that feedback.
Similarly, most conversations working backward from an asset transfer in November have indicated the need for delegation to happen in October (including multiple conversations in which the two of us participated).
It would be awesome if we can share feedback different from “LFG” and not be immediately branded as hostile.