argumentree.io : improve decision making processes & decision quality, for a better allocation of DAO treasury funds!

Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
1,070KSM
Status
Decision14d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
16.7%Aye
50.0%Threshold
83.3%Nay
Aye
60.56KKSM
Nay
302.88KKSM
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.06%
10.3KKSM
Issuance
16.32MKSM
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

PolkaWorld votes NAY.

We recommend developing the platform first and guiding the community to use it for a period of time before requesting retrospective funding. There are already mature governance platforms in use, and unless this is truly innovative or solves a real pain point, changing user habits will be very difficult. It still needs time to be validated.

See all feedback here.

Reply
Up

JAM DAO votes NAY on this Proposal

We’re voting NAY on this proposal due to multiple unresolved concerns around transparency, architecture, and community alignment:

Lack of clarity and awareness: The proposer was unable to confidently answer where critical governance data is being stored - a major red flag for a governance tooling proposal.

Centralization risks: Reliance on MongoDB raises concerns over censorship resistance and long-term data availability, especially with only a 90-day data retention window and no clear on-chain backup or migration plan.

Closed source status: Despite committing in Kusama Proposal #433 to open-sourcing the project under an MIT license, they’ve made no mention of honoring that commitment in the current Polkadot Proposal #561, which is claimed to be a continuation of the earlier effort.

Insufficient ecosystem collaboration: There’s no clear indication that the project is being built in dialogue with existing governance toolmakers or end-users in the Kusama or Polkadot ecosystem.

Missing accountability: The absence of clear deliverables, open code, or on-chain archival plans makes it hard to justify this as trustworthy infrastructure for governance.

While JAM DAO welcomes experimentation in governance tooling, it must be held to a standard that reflects the importance of that role. We strongly encourage proposers to:

Be transparent about architecture and data practices

Meet open-source commitments

Collaborate with ecosystem stakeholders

Move key metadata and logs on-chain when feasible

Until those expectations are met, JAM DAO maintains its NAY.

Reply
Up

Dieter has identified a real need within OpenGov. I appreciate his motivation to have a clear visualization of all arguments (pros & cons) with the goal of making better informed decisions as a DAO, which I support. His dedication to this project, coming back with a 2nd proposal after the 1st one failed last year, demonstrates his commitment to the Kusama community and its governance.

I had the opportunity of meeting with him during W3S where he explained argumentree.io and I also enjoyed watching his demo on AAG, especially seeing how the pros & cons can be displayed in a chronological visualization with the “timeline slider” and the option to “challenge” or “strengthen” an existing argument.

My main concerns remain:

  • How to achieve real adoption during the 90 day trial given each DAO already has their own internal mechanism? Would it make more sense to start by having smaller DAOs test this platform with live proposals?
  • How to optimize the time it would take a voter/DAO to input the data?
  • Should this be a standalone platform or could it be integrated with established governance platforms, where voters and DAOs are already casting their votes and/or leaving comments/feedback on proposals (such as Polkassembly, Subsquare and Nova wallet)
  • The proposal mentions implementing a wallet verification where only “legitimate governance participants” are allowed. How to determine which wallets are allowed to participate and how to determine that a new wallet is considered “spam”?
  • I am unsure of the updates regarding the code being open source and the possibility of more community members participating in its development.

Lastly I would like to ask if you could please clarify if every new proposal submitted on chain would automatically also be created on argumentree.io?

Thank you.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 5 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received two aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The proposal sought to improve decision-making by introducing a structured discussion forum for clearer debates and enhanced engagement. Participants noted potential benefits such as better argument visualization and even AI integration, yet many questioned its necessity and the high price tag of the trial period. Several expressed doubts about community adoption and concerns that the new tool might further fragment discussions. Uncertainty about the long-term strategy and the absence of evidence demonstrating user interest also influenced opinions. Ultimately, these considerations led to a rejection of the funding request despite some acknowledgment of its innovative appeal.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up