[Temp Check] Should GnosisDAO procure governance analytics solutions?
TL;DR – seeking opinions on whether externally-sourced governance analytics solutions might add value to the DAO’s activities, as a precursor to a formal Request For Proposal (“RFP”).
Background
In 2025, the governance of our DAO has taken some potentially significant steps. The formal launch of our elected Delegate Program has empowered delegates to advance and improve our governance processes. Proposals in relation to governance infrastructure have also been advanced. And, at the recent initial governance call, a range of further steps to empower and encourage our governance were discussed.
Amidst these developments, we also received a handful of proposals for the development of governance analytics:
-
GIP-123 by @Curia proposed a comprehensive analytics platform across chains;
-
GIP-124 by @PYOR proposed a lightweight delegate dashboard and Telegram alerts; and
-
Lighthouse RFC by @lighthousegov.eth opened a touch point for using Lighthouse’s existing suite of tools for voting and notification of new proposals.
Though a range of feedback was received, we think this can be summarised as few were persuaded of the need or value of the solutions provided. In our comments, we flagged that multiple competing proposals may be ineffective and encouraged consideration across proposals.
In a separate thread, @john_szczepaniak raised the idea of a Call (or “Request”) For Proposals (“RFP”) to help progress various governance areas where possible improvements are apparent.
This post continues the spirit of John’s efforts by exploring the idea of an RFP for governance analytics. It is framed as a Temp Check, to gauge whether others in the DAO consider a full RFP (essentially a procurement process) would be helpful to explore.
Request For Proposals
A full RFP may be helpful here for a number of reasons:
-
It would help to consolidate similar-yet-slightly-different proposals into a common, comparable format, so that the DAO can easily discern the differences and identify strong and weak proposals.
-
It would encourage more providers to join this effort, and provide a focal point for marketing our efforts, in the hope of attracting the best offers. In turn, stronger competition in theory tends to drive better results in terms of value for money.
-
It would force all providers to project the cost and timescales for their efforts, helping to create accountable expectations and a strong plan of action.
-
It may also foster collaboration between teams, where missing components in competitive offers can be matched through teamwork across applicants. This may open up more creative and cost-effective solutions than weighing each provider solely on their own merits.
If an RFP is desirable, we feel it should define a clear application form and process for providers, as well as a timescale for submissions.
To kick off discussions, we would propose a 30-day period for expressions of interest, followed by a 30-day period of deliberation and modification to responses, before a single round of voting to elect one preferable option (including an option for no action).
We would also propose that an RFP should cover a 2-year commitment from both sides, divided into a 1-year fixed commitment and a 1-year renewal option (terminable if milestones are not reached or performance is unsatisfactory).
We believe applications for this RFP should include (at a minimum):
-
Disclosure of all the parties involved in the application, including nomination of a lead contact for each entity;
-
A brief summary of the provider’s credentials;
-
A checkbox of common components for governance analytics solutions, for the provider to specify which components they are proposing to provide;
-
A written description of the provider’s solution, which can include its history, selling points, usage and reference to external sources for verification (including quoted references in the description);
-
A rough timeline of expected developments in the provision of the proposed solution;
-
A rough budget of the provider’s expected price/costs, and how these would be apportioned over the above timeline;
-
A list of deliverables expected by the completion of the provider’s proposal; and
-
A list of key milestones and metrics that the provider will adhere to and update against during the provider’s performance of its proposal.
Ideally, we think this proposal should be relatively free-form and open, without adding a lot of bureaucracy. This should be seen as a test case for RFPs, where a better consistent process could be defined later if other RFPs prove desirable.
Temp Check
Given the above, we now invite the DAO to give comments on: (i) the desirability of obtaining governance analytics solutions; and (ii) if desirable, the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed RFP process outlined above.
We would also be interested to hear from Gnosis Ltd on their view of outsourcing this work, given there is clearly sufficient technical expertise for the core team to tackle this area if they would prefer.
Our View
To kick things off, we reflect that our DAO has seen historic lows of participation and interest in recent years. As such, the throughput of our governance systems is not necessarily high enough to warrant significant upfront investment into governance analytics (by comparison to other DAOs dealing with hundreds of proposals per year to maintain their operations). As such, we think value for money should be the overriding objective of this RFP.
Nonetheless, we were excited to already see proposals within a very modest budget that could deliver meaningful help to governance participants. Many have complained that our forum isn’t the easiest to navigate, that delegates’ reasonings are inaccessible, and that it can be too easy to miss new proposals. We think these problems can all be solved without huge costs by a gradual process of developing our analytics.
We see no harm in inviting proposals from a range of providers to explore the options and costs of making progress in this space. And, we are happy to contribute to framing the RFP and evaluating the options for free as part of our work as elected delegates.
To ensure we’re not wasting anyone’s time, we think an indication of desirable costs to the providers would be useful. We believe that no more than $100,000 per year should go to this initiative in the first 2 years. Rather, we think a desirable amount would be closer to $50,000 per year, but the DAO should explore options in the range from $0-$100,000.
Thanks in advance for your time and consideration 