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!