Financial Proposal: Demoing a Tao Voting DAO

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).

3 Likes

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 :slight_smile:
  • 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.

3 Likes

Hi Sem and team,

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?

Thank you!
Anthony

3 Likes

Super happy to see this coming together thanks Sem and Team.

One question, does that budget include the Audit or will that be coming from a separate pool.

Also as the technical team would you advice transferring the funds in one go or in batches.

Look forward to seeing this!

1 Like

This seems like a great idea to me!

5 Likes

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

  1. technical risk perspective
  2. whether you believe this would be beneficial to the Aragon project
2 Likes

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.

1 Like

i can’t speak to all of this… but one reason to build on lazuline is that it’s blazing fast… and since it interacts with evm crispr it’s also well inline with previous proposals

also aragon client needs upgrades all over the place and hasn’t been properly maintained… so i can’t think of a good reason to release on it as is

Love it! The Lazuline link is giving an error though

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

Hi frens!

First of all, I’m super stoked to see this proposal and to have finally personally met @sembrestels and Paulo in EthBarcelona.

One of my responsibilities as ED of AA during this transition period is to define HOW we solve the AN DAO delegation challenge (so AN DAO “infrastructure” is operative in time). We’ve got different options to evaluate and I think this could be a great solution for the challenge we’ve got ahead of us. Also, a great opportunity to dog food if possible.

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.

I’d love to sync with several AA team members asap to sync (cc/ @ramon @juareth Jordi M @evanaronson) and then organize a call with the proposers and ESD members (cc/ @sembrestels @lee0007 @paul2 @Zeptimus) for early next week in order to clarify some doubts and next steps.

Could you post your Discord handles or DM them to me so we can arrange a time for next week?

Super hyped to continue with this conversation :slight_smile:

4 Likes

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

  1. Include disputability, enabling the DAO to be secured by a Charter and dispute service
  2. Customise the DAO frontend
  3. 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 tech agnostic charter CIP 1 and
  • 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.

1 Like

Awesome work @sembrestels and team!

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).

Let me know what you think!

1 Like

Is this referring to allocating funds from the DAO treasury for subDAO operations (as well as for any other purpose approved through governance)?

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.

1 Like

Calling out the two red herrings here. Linking out to a lengthy draft proposal none of which is yet decided, let alone implemented is a distraction at best from the purpose proposed.

If you have specific elements please quote or link to them directly as shown below as this aids transparency and saves other people time navigating back and forth through discourse.

This proposal is designed by teams with working experience of building delegate voting systems to deliver the requirements specified under an approved signalling proposal Proposal: Transfer the Aragon Project Funds to an Aragon DAO Governed by (Delegated) ANT. The relevant information is

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?

1 Like

Fantastic proposal that I’m happy to support

2/3 cc @Ricktik6

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!

1 Like

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.

Thanks for clarifying your position Ivan.
This proposal then has unanimous support for funding

cc @Zeptimus @GriffGreen
@Ricktik6 will advise below as soon as the advance payment is made

Thank you, folks, for the support and such interesting questions. I will try to reply to most of them the best I can.

Generalization of features for Aragon Client users

We will build the software in a way that is easily generalizable in the future, although we may focus on this demo DAO first. Mainly the Tao Voting AragonOS app contract will be usable by any AragonOS DAO, and we will provide an evmcrispr script to install it. Still, we can not give a frontend that will work out-of-the-box for anyone without some customization. Especially it won’t be as easy as installing a Company/Reputation/Membership DAO from the Aragon Client. However, we can keep working on it in the future.

Branding, licensing, and their impact on generalization

In regards to licensing, we have to be very clear. All Gardens and Blossom Labs is producing is open source / free software, as Aragon. This means Aragon can take the code, modify it or not, and rebrand it at its convenience (without asking permission). We have been doing this with Aragon products because their open-source licenses allowed us to do so, and we will be happy to see Aragon merge back some of our code as well!

The code repos are available here:

That being said, we would love to collaborate with Aragon on porting the improvements that make sense to Aragon Client or release Lazuline as an Aragon product. This proposal only includes the release of the MVP that can be used to vote on Voting and Tao Voting, but we plan to expand it to fulfill most of Aragon Client features in the future. More on this when it’s the time.

Why build Lazuline as a separate tool and not implement it directly into the Aragon client?

I tend to think of them as different products:

  • Aragon Client is the reliable source connected to the blockchain

  • Lazuline may be a more convenient way to interact with the AragonOS DAOs, although it relies on the graph to work (that can fail), and it won’t be able to load some custom apps.

Both products have sense, similar to what full node wallets and light wallets are for bitcoin.

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?

For this demo, we can still use the hosted service. However, in the future, we will have to migrate to the decentralized service. I think we still have some months before all the graphs in the hosted service are deprecated, although I have to check. Ideally, we should migrate the subgraph during the following proposal.

Was ever some research done on the delegation topic to build TAO voting?

It was built by the old Aragon One team, and we didn’t do any additional research, although there are many things they got just right.

One of the last projects the team worked on was the Network Dashboard, which was a kind of frontend for Disputable Voting (what we refer to Tao Voting nowadays). We will not build on top of it for this proposal, but it is worth looking at.

would be great if we could get the Product design team at Aragon involved in the discussions for all the UX/UI flows

We are only going to provide a functional DAO in this first proposal. We need to be very surgical to have a product ready on time, so we will only reuse and connect old and battle-tested pieces of code. We think it will look like the good old Voting app.

When we have it working, we will be ready to receive UX/UI feedback on what could work differently and how to improve it. We will not produce new code; for now, we are just recycling what is already there.

why not adapt TAO voting for regular ERC20s - Does Finance and Agent app are super dependent on MineMe as well?

The ERC20Snapshot/MinimeToken interface provided by the Token Wrapper app is only relevant for Voting (and Tao Voting).

It tells Voting the distribution of tokens at the beginning of a vote. Without it, Voting would not know if a token was there from the beginning or if it was transferred so that people could vote more than once.

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.

It’s important to say that this is not the main proposal working towards creating the new Aragon Treasury DAO. We will prepare a subsequent proposal that we will probably send to the Main DAO.

This is instead a “low-cost” proposal to put together a demo so the community can discuss.

does that budget include the Audit, or will that be coming from a separate pool.

Aragon must choose an independent auditor team to perform the reviews. We can help by referring some people who worked with us previously.

I’d love to sync with several AA team members asap

There will be opportunities all around the place: AMAs, param parties, forum posts, and, more importantly, a functional demo containing minimal elements for a delegated voting DAO.

I’m also open to answering any questions in DMs related to this topic.

and periodically send funds to another designated DAO

Is this referring to allocating funds from the DAO treasury for subDAO operations (as well as for any other purpose approved through governance)?

I think the “Aragon Treasury” DAO should not do a lot of things by design, just hold the 200M safely and send part of them periodically to another DAO (AN DAO?) to properly manage them. This other DAO can be the current AN DAO, an AragonOS DAO, or an Aragon Core DAO in the future.

I would kindly ask the team to confirm [the design can meet the specs and it is finished by 30th November] is feasible and a ballpark of the additional cost to get us there.

It is early to know. We can only commit to having a functional demo by the end of August, but with lots of missing or clunky features. However, if we do not overcomplicate things and the auditors work fast, it would be feasible to have the final DAO by the end of November. Still, it will depend on which are going to be the final requirements after receiving the feedback from the community on 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).

I am also worried about it, and although Tao Voting does not cover it, we may find a solution to this problem. This is the kind of feedback we expect to receive after the demo and having them solved in the final version.

4 Likes