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

28d ago

Rejected

Content

AI Summary

Overview:

OpenGov faces challenges due to the prevalent use of social media, Telegram, and Discord groups, as well as traditional discussion forums, which exhibit certain limitations e.g: Lack of structured debate, no argument visualization, potential for echo chambers, inefficient fragmentation of community discussions, risk of misinformation, decision making intransparency, tendency for off-topic discussions and risk of misinformation. These reasons and the lack of transparency in the opinions and views of OpenGov user/voters can lead to user disengagement and potentially bad and expensive DOA decisions.

I would like to suggest a new way of discussing OpenGov proposals.

We should aim for a discussion forum designed to facilitate structured, thoughtful discussion on a wide range of topics. The discussions should also be in a clear, tree-like structure, making it easy to follow the logical flow of arguments and counterarguments. It should offer a unique debate format that allows users to constructively explore arguments for and against various positions, with the aim of promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues.

The setup should encourage users to contribute thoughtfully and to consider multiple perspectives, enhancing the quality of discourse on the platform. The discussion platform should integrate a system for tracking and reflecting changes in consensus, allowing users to see how opinions evolve over time. We should be fostering structured and focused debates, and significantly enhancing the quality of online discussions and decisions.

Proposed Solution: We propose a new discussion forum with features designed to enhance transparency and effectiveness:

Structured Debates: Logical organization of arguments with interactive tree structures and easy pro/con identification.
Enhanced Navigation: Features for efficient exploration and tracking debate evolution.
In-Depth Analysis: Tools for argument evaluation, consensus highlighting, and source integration.
Q&A: Ask argument specific questions to the proposal author. Users can rate the question and answers for immediate feedback.
Compromise: Tools for suggesting and evaluating compromises facilitate collaborative problem-solving, benefiting the negotiation process.
Analytics Dashboard: Real-time updates on argument strength and community focus.
Timeline Slider: Visualize argument development and discussion shifts over time.

Benefits: This platform will streamline discussions, prevent misinformation, enhance transparency, and encourage meaningful engagement by integrating diverse opinions and structured analysis tools. It aims to build a more informed and participative OpenGov community.

After so many years with traditional forums, discord, telegram and social media, its time to try something new to improve the DAO decision-making process & decision quality for a better allocation of DAO treasury funds.

Check out argumentree.io

The request of 1k ksm (15k $) is for a 90-day trial period use of the argumentree platform for Kusama.

Thank you for your support and participation!

Update 25.07.2025

Not clearly mentioned was, that after the trial period there will be a new proposal for eg. 1 year.

The idea was that during the trial period the community can discuss how such a proposal should look like and which features it should include,

but I also understand that some may want to have the discussion and clarity around that possible proposal already now, so the options are and I'm open for suggestions:

1.) treasury funding of a decentralized innovative web3 discussion app in what ever form the community likes, which will then be opensource.

2.) or funding through the "New Kusama Vision" Ref498 grant, of course then opensource.

3.) or continue as Service but where the app is storing key metadata onchain, if this is an option...

But looking at the current ChaosDAO vote, the effort discussing this now seems not worth it, without talking to that central authority!

Request

1,070KSM

Status

Decision14d

Confirmation

Attempts

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

Curves

Statistics

Comments

DaCS...Liax

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.

EwWr...hKqF

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.

H56E...btNP

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.

Fa6m...wiBr

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