Thanks for clarifying your position Ivan.
This proposal then has unanimous support for funding
Thanks for clarifying your position Ivan.
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.
Great to see this demo been approved!
I would like to update you that the 4k USDC upfront payment towards General Magic has been made, proof:
Looking forward to the progress and please let me know if we also would like to demo the Finance side of the DAO by using the Vault/Agent for the remainding payments.
Happy to collaborate with that!
@Zeptimus has kindly provided forum posts to help inform our ability to use the Commons Config (Aragon version) to inform our understanding of the delegate-enabled Tao Voting DAO. These documents are intended to support the communities ability to experiment with the voting parameters as they apply to the demo DAO
This is an awesome initiative. Really keen to participate in the Test DAO if at all possible so I can communicate how all of this works to the rest of the community.
Agree! worthy of Community Call to address questions build familiraity maybe a topic for one of your all-hands?
Expect (every hopeful) the param parties and debates in advance of the demo DAO will help us collectively build share understanding for this too…And dtech will provide the “how to” video and documentation
The demo is open to everyone!
Who else is super excited to be able to experiment with governance tooling and models in advance of the delegate deploy?!
Definitely, will mention it there and also direct the team to start creating awareness and educating the community on these topics.
I’ll be looking out for more info on this as well. Super excited
Aragon Tao Voting Dashboard was made by General Magic, which will be used in the upcoming param parties. - Completed
- It includes an explanatory page on Tao Voting and what makes it different from the previous voting app.
- It has a dashboard that lets users select different parameter configurations and see how they affect the voting times.
- It allows submitting the results so they can be checked by the rest of the members of the community.
- Lazuline, made by Blossom Labs / 1Hive, incorporated elements from the Gardens frontend, simplifying much complexity. - Ongoing
- $4000 in USDC already paid to General Magic (they got it upfront).
- $11,000 in USDC will be paid to Blossom Labs’ Safe (blossomlabs.eth), which will be distributed among the different organizations.
- Blossom Labs will deploy the Demo DAO soon when we get the security fixes to the token wrapper.
- TECommons will host some educational param parties.
- Blossom Labs and 1Hive will continue working on Lazuline until we have it working for the new DAO.
We aim to have the functional demo of the Tao Voting DAO by the beginning of September.
Yay! Awesome work teams
1/3 Approved cc @Ricktik6
2/3 cc @Ricktik6
Thank you Seb! 3/3
I have requested that the param debates outlined in this proposal be led internally by @Incandenza as a member of the AN DAO Community Guild. I would therefore like to request that we still provide the funding secured as $500 for param debates to the TEC in recognition of TEC project management for the development of the Commons Config. I understand that funding would accrue to the TEC treasury vs individuals @Zeptimus can you confirm please. dGov would provide equal funding to @Incandenza to facilitate the proposed debates. This would require 2/3 support and I would recuse myself from voting.
Hi there @sembrestels !
I hope that the TAO Voting DAO MVP is going well, can’t wait to try the first test DAO created with it
Considering the fact that AA is responsible for preparing the structure and setting the conditions to decentralize the treasury, I just wanted to publicly communicate that AA will ensure the continuity of this project and will be the entity evaluating deliverables and disbursing payments, while providing any “in-house” support needed in order to get to a production-ready state. Also, I’d like to comment that any design requirements should come directly from AA.
The timings are tight and the stakes high, so we need to be extremely well coordinated to ensure that this project is a success, across multiple stakeholders (proposal creators, tech leads, auditors, etc).
Have a play, look around, and see what others are talking about in terms of delegate voting parameters. Education may be considered an overhead here but imo this is actually a fun way to investigate and learn asych about the delegate voting possibilities of governance
During the param debates, the participants analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of various settings for the Tao voting delegate system. This is the proposal on which participants found consensus during the three meetings.
Note 1: The following parameters are meant to be applied only to financial proposals below a certain value (TBD). Participants in the debates believe that structural changes, such as those applied to the governance model, to the charter, or financial proposal requiring conspicuous amounts of funds, should follow more stringent standards, such higher quorum and support required thresholds.
Note 2: the third debate had a low number of participants.
Note 3: the present proposal is just one among the proposals that people can vote for by following this link - vote will end on Monday. This voting round itself is not binding in any case, but will only express the sentiment of the Community. The final decision will be made and ratified by the ANT holders.
The Debate Proposal:
Support Required: a qualified majority (4/7 = 57%): because a larger majority could mean less reasons to argue with the outcomes of the proposal, and the difficulty to reach the threshold may also lead to better proposals. At the same time 57% shouldn’t be a figure high enough to block our workflow.
Quorum: 0.5% as a starting value. Although we all hope that the delegate voting system will lead to broader participation, given the trend of past voting rounds we believe it is unwise to set values that we might be unable to achieve and thus fall into a stalemate. Our suggestion is to start low and increase the quorum over time in line with the treasury transfer and with the data collected from the first series of ballots.
Vote duration: participants believe that 7 days are enough for voting, provided that we keep at least two weeks of forum discussion before voting.
Delegate voting period: 3 days. Considering that the delegates with the most voting power will be paid to carry out their function, it is lecit to demand some celerity in casting their votes. Furthermore, this would leave three days for people who disagree with their delegate position to undelegate their tokens.
Quite ending period: 1 day. A sufficient time to avoid last-minute upheavals in the voting outcome.
Quite ending extension: 3 days. In case the swing falls on the weekend, it is good to have enough time for everyone to have returned to work and, in case, try to attract more support if they are not happy with the outcome.
(from debate 3) EXECUTION DELAY: 3 days, in order to grant a fair amount of time to people who want to rage quit in disagreement with the voting outcome, but not too long to slow down the process excessively
(from debate 3) PROPOSAL DEPOSIT: 1024 ANT. A relatively low value not to discourage the creation of new proposals. However, participants shared the idea that this parameter should be set as a percentage to the amount of funds requested (suggested value: 5%)
(from debate 3) CHALLENGE DEPOSIT: 128 ANT. Participants believe that money shouldn’t be an obstacle for anyone to challenge a proposal
(from debate 3) SETTLEMENT PERIOD: Participants believe that 5 days are enough to take a shared decision, and not too many to slow down the entire process.
Following the links below, you can go through the reasoning that led us to these params:
A Great Initiative I beleive, I Really like the Idea of this new type, May I know If I can test them out on my own now?
Attended an Param Debate and I must say Its going good, however need more participation.
I am curious when the next update for this project is? Very excited to see the changes!
Hello @sembrestels , Aragon teams and GM/Blossom team!
Sharing an update here for transparency. We are still awaiting the demo from the Blossom/GM team, and are communicating directly with them to get this scheduled, as the early September stated goal has passed.
As most are aware, delegate voting functionality is a critical variable in the treasury transition, and is a dependency for key tech-stack/governance-related tasks our teams are working to define.
Blossom team is working hard to overcome some technical hurdles that likely caused this delay. We are hopeful we’ll be able to set a firm date as soon as possible with their team to review functionality and share with everyone the result.
For further transparency, as this proposal was removed on request from the Proposal to Honour ESD Committed Funds Can I clarify please when the TEC funding will be released? The total funding approved in the proposal was USDC1000.
Although there were changes to the delivery of Param Debates TEC delivered
- 3 x Param Parties
- Series of 8 forum posts to inform TAO voting
- active project management w. General Magic for the Aragon TAO Voting Config AND the switch from 1 token 1 vote to quadratic voting for the token log voting
All work was completed in early September.
@sembrestels already made the payment to the TEC.