As more delegates join the Gnosis DAO ecosystem, we’ve noticed that delegate profiles are currently created manually and stored across fragmented sources, making it challenging for token holders to easily compare delegates and make informed delegation decisions. Right now, token holders have to navigate multiple pages, Snapshot profiles, and forum discussions to piece together delegate information. This fragmented approach makes it difficult to quickly assess delegates’ voting power, voting history, proposal engagement, and overall governance activity.
To address these challenges, we’re considering building a dedicated Delegate Dashboard for Gnosis DAO. The dashboard would provide:
Delegate Profiles: Centralized and standardized profiles with real-time data on voting power, contact information, delegation size, and delegate activity.
Voting History & Status: Easily accessible records showing how delegates voted on each proposal along with the current status of those proposals (active, passed, rejected).
Optional Vote Reasoning: Delegates can optionally provide reasoning behind their votes, helping token holders understand their decision-making processes.
We believe such a dashboard could significantly streamline the delegation process, improve transparency, and empower token holders to make data-driven decisions.
We’d love your feedback on this idea:
Do you see value in such a dashboard?
Are there particular metrics or features you’d like included?
Any specific suggestions or concerns regarding implementation?
I like the initiative, and agree that there’s space to improve our current delegate information setup. However, a new space would need to offer meaningful improvements. We already have profiles, voting history and optional vote reasoning available if you combine Snapshot and the forum… just rehousing this information in one place wouldn’t be enough in my eyes!
The current selection of threads in Delegate Communication is okay, but will only get more overwhelming to navigate as our delegates bed into their roles. I imagine - for example - trying to search for the range of views on a specific historic proposal will become increasingly difficult! A solution that effectively displayed the entire position of all delegates (including those who don’t vote or don’t give reasons) on the proposal page would be great!
Certainly number of votes made, number of votes missed since first vote, and number of votes with reason given would be interesting data (and percentage of total for each). You could even extend to number of times voted with/against majority, to see who tends to be contrarian or compliant.
If I had authority to sign off on this project, I’d first ask for a more detailed scope and design.
We appreciate your insights and agree that simply consolidating existing delegate information will not be sufficient. Our goal is to offer meaningful improvements that simplify the delegate evaluation process while effectively increasing governance transparency.
Your point regarding the range of views on historic proposals is particularly interesting to build. We’ve attached a visualization of this concept at the end.
The dashboard we’re developing will provide the following information:
Macro Governance Metrics: Total proposals over time, total delegates, average voting power of delegates, delegation trends, voting power distribution, etc.
Individual Delegates View: Basic information including contact details, voting power, and total delegations, along with another set of key metrics outlined below (some added based on your suggestions):
Proposal Specific View: For any particular past proposal, you can view the positions of different voters in following order:
This is great to see! Appreciate the swift response and edits.
The metrics described in point 2 above add a lot we hadn’t thought of or seen before. This also meets our request to deliver value over and above what’s already available elsewhere.
This doesn’t’ so much concern delegates but those who delegate to them and would depend on what info they would want to see to ascertain if their delegate is doing what they expect or not.
I guess something like Tally does for many DAOs (say ENS: Tally | ENS | Delegates) would be sufficient.
For delegates themselves what would be important is a way to notify for action needed. Email notifications, or a TG/signal channel where we would be tagged when action is needed.
The interface we would be creating will provide similar information as the ENS Delegate dashboard on Tally.
However, we’ll provide more indepth metrics on:
Macro Governance Metrics (proposal trends, delegate stats, voting power distribution)
Individual Delegate Profiles (with comprehensive metrics on voting activity, alignment, influence, and proposal-level insights) [this will have a similar interface as of tally], you can expect something like this:
Proposal-Specific Views (to compare delegate positions on past proposals)
As you pointed out, a Telegram bot would be valuable for increasing delegate participation in governance.
We plan to implement an automated governance tracking bot that bridges the communication gap between delegates and governance activities by providing timely updates directly to delegates.
This will kick off a flywheel.
More engagement → More participation → More engagement.
Potential notification triggers could include:
New proposal creation
Reminder for delegates who haven’t voted yet
Proposal execution or cancellation
Provide automated proposal summaries and reminders
Agreed here. A simple interface that bumped the 10 delegates when new action was needed would be hugely helpful. Also, having a summary page that can be easily viewed to see a delegates actions would be helpful for those delegating and Gnosis DAO generally to gauge participation. My worry as a delegate is that the current system is so spread out people wont be able to easily see the various views, unless its all just in conversation below each GIP proposal
Are you part of these teams? I think they all serve a purpose but in our opinion serve as supplementary information. Dashboards are a great way to surface information should a user want to find additional information but this assumes that the user is searching for that information.
We prefer a proactive approach. We have been researching and discussing with delegates and DAO member that have identified some common pain points. This paper is a great read on the phenomenon.
Delegate statements are generally not on-chain which makes it hard to surface in dashboards and apps.
Often delegations are made once and forgotten
How a delegate votes is not easily relayed to the delegator.
Ultimately , these platforms because they are web based which means the mode of delivery to inform the user is limited. This means relying on additional services like Telegram, asking the user to disclose their phone number or email address to send them SMS, email or alerts.
At Lighthouse have taken the time to build out our dedicated native apps to provide the most comprehensive set of alerting when it comes to voting and other governance ops.
We already include some of the notifications you mentioned such as:
New proposal creation
Proposal execution or cancellation
Proposal completion
And have some cool triggers planned such as:
When a vote is cast with a comment
When you have not voted
When a delegate you delegated to has not voted
Changing you delegation every X days
Would love to get your thoughts on what you think about this alternative approach. Personally I don’t think one approach is better than another; as users tend to consume information on different devices, however I do believe that native platforms offer better tooling to keep people engaged and aware of key activity without having to disclose emails and phone numbers.
Which is long tail better for engagement and privacy.
Hey Arnold, Aakash here a colleague of @vivekkumar. Thanks for sharing these resources and the paper.
The systems you shared have the same end goal as our proposal. But our target userbase is – delegators i.e. tokenholders as @lefterisjp mentioned in the comment above.
The DAO Delegate Dashboard we’re proposing will have metrics on each delegate based on:
Proposal level: Type of proposal voted on and impact
The above data can be pivoted under a different “Proposal View” to show the voting behaviour of delegates at a proposal level.
This way delegators will know what the voting behavior, influence, and impact of each delegate is at two levels – at a delegate level and a proposal level (a delegator could, for instance, be interested in only a particular delegate or a particular type of proposal, say protocol upgrade or marketing spend, etc.).
We think, this dashboard would be sufficiently different from the existing Curia dashboard and would complement Lighthouse’s distribution efforts for proposals, announcements, and events.
Further, I agree that the “mode of delivery to inform the user is limited” and asking for a delegate’s personal information like a phone number or email address to send alerts is too invasive. To solve this, we would like to build a Telegram bot connected to a closed group that sends proposal updates. These updates would include new proposals submitted, votes registered, reminders on deadlines, and voting closures and results. This would be limited to governance updates only for the Gnosis DAO. This way – delegates and delegators can join, receive updates via a broadcasted message.
