Boardroom excels at structured, protocol-centric governance by aggregating proposals and votes from major DeFi ecosystems like Compound, Uniswap, and Aave. Its strength lies in providing a unified dashboard for delegates to manage voting power across multiple protocols, with clear metrics like voting history and participation rates. For example, a delegate can track their influence across billions in Total Value Locked (TVL) from a single interface, making it the go-to tool for professional delegates in the DeFi sector.
LABS
Comparisons
Boardroom vs Commonwealth: Delegate Discovery & Communication
A technical analysis comparing Boardroom's on-chain delegation dashboard with Commonwealth's off-chain forum-first approach for DAO governance discovery and communication.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A technical comparison of Boardroom and Commonwealth as platforms for DAO governance, focusing on delegate discovery and communication.
Commonwealth takes a different, community-first approach by integrating forums, polls, and proposal drafting directly into its platform. This strategy fosters deeper discussion and ideation before proposals reach an on-chain vote, as seen in its adoption by DAOs like dYdX and Polygon. The trade-off is a broader, less vote-centric feature set that prioritizes discourse and community sentiment over pure voting efficiency and cross-protocol aggregation.
The key trade-off: If your priority is efficient, multi-protocol vote management and delegate discovery for tokenholders, choose Boardroom. If you prioritize robust, pre-vote community discussion and integrated forum-based governance, choose Commonwealth.
tldr-summary
BOARDROOM VS. COMMONWEALTH
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for delegate discovery and governance communication at a glance.
01
Boardroom: Structured Delegation & On-Chain Focus
Integrated Delegate Directory: Aggregates on-chain voting history, voting power, and delegate statements into a unified profile. This matters for protocols with token-weighted governance (e.g., Uniswap, Compound) where verifying a delegate's on-chain track record is critical.
Proposal Lifecycle Management: Native support for creating, funding (via grants), and executing on-chain proposals. This matters for DAOs needing a full-stack governance solution that bridges forum discussion to on-chain action.
02
Boardroom: Trade-offs & Considerations
Protocol-Specific Integration: Requires deeper integration per DAO, which can limit the breadth of communities covered compared to a general forum. This matters if you need to discover delegates across many disparate ecosystems quickly.
Less Emphasis on Free-Form Debate: Optimized for formal proposal progression rather than open-ended, exploratory discussion. This matters for early-stage ideation or community sentiment gathering where structure can be limiting.
03
Commonwealth: Broad Community Hub & Discussion
Massive Cross-Chain Reach: Hosts thousands of communities (e.g., Polygon, Osmosis, dYdX) in a single, familiar forum interface. This matters for users and delegates who participate in multiple ecosystems and want a unified experience.
Rich, Threaded Discourse: Superior tools for long-form debate, polls, and sentiment analysis before proposals are formalized. This matters for building consensus and gauging voter appetite on complex or controversial topics.
04
Commonwealth: Trade-offs & Considerations
Delegate Discovery is Manual: Lacks a native, standardized delegate directory; finding active delegates requires sifting through forum posts. This matters for large token holders (whales, institutions) seeking efficient due diligence on delegate candidates.
Off-Chain by Default: Discussions are primarily off-chain, creating a gap between sentiment and on-chain execution. This matters for protocols that require tight integration between discussion and proposal submission/voting on their native chain.
DELEGATE DISCOVERY & COMMUNICATION
Feature Comparison: Boardroom vs Commonwealth
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for on-chain governance platforms.
| Metric / Feature | Boardroom | Commonwealth |
|---|---|---|
Primary Governance Focus | On-chain proposal execution & voting | Off-chain discussion & signaling |
On-chain Voting Integration | ||
Native Token Gating for Forums | ||
Supported Chains (Examples) | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon | Solana, NEAR, Injective, Cosmos |
Delegate Discovery Tools | Delegation leaderboards, performance metrics | Forum reputation, discussion activity |
Proposal Lifecycle Management | End-to-end (Draft to Execution) | Pre-proposal discussion & temperature checks |
Monthly Active Users (Est.) | 10,000+ | 50,000+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Boardroom vs Commonwealth: Delegate Discovery & Communication
Key strengths and trade-offs for DAO governance platforms at a glance. Choose based on your protocol's need for integrated execution versus open discourse.
02
Boardroom's Strength: Delegate-First Analytics
Advanced delegate scoring & history: Features like delegate contribution scores and detailed voting history dashboards. This matters for token holders in large protocols (e.g., Aave, Lido) who need data-driven insights to make informed delegation decisions beyond social reputation.
03
Boardroom's Trade-off: Protocol-Centric Focus
Less emphasis on open-ended discussion: The platform is optimized for formal proposal mechanics over broad community brainstorming. This can be a con for early-stage or research-heavy DAOs (like those in the Cosmos ecosystem) that rely on extensive, threaded discourse before proposal drafting.
05
Commonwealth's Strength: Multi-Chain & Ecosystem Agnostic
Broad protocol support without deep execution integration: Hosts discussions for over 500+ communities across Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, and more. This matters for ecosystem funds, grant programs, or cross-chain projects that need a neutral, flexible space for discourse without being tied to a specific chain's tooling.
06
Commonwealth's Trade-off: Execution Layer Gap
Discussion-to-action disconnect: While excellent for debate, it often requires bridging to separate platforms (like Boardroom, Tally, or native chain interfaces) for actual voting and execution. This is a con for operationally intensive DAOs that want a seamless flow from idea to on-chain state change.
pros-cons-b
Boardroom vs Commonwealth
Commonwealth: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for delegate discovery and governance communication.
01
Commonwealth: Deep Community Integration
Integrated forum-first approach: Combines proposals, discussions, and voting signals in a single platform. This matters for complex, multi-stage governance where discourse shapes proposals before on-chain execution. Supports Snapshot signaling and deep integrations with DAOs like Osmosis and dYdX.
02
Commonwealth: Flexible, Chain-Agnostic Design
Protocol-agnostic architecture: Can be deployed for any EVM, Cosmos, or Substrate chain. This matters for multi-chain DAOs or new L1s needing a custom governance hub without being locked into a single ecosystem's tooling. Used by Injective, NEAR, and Solana ecosystems.
03
Boardroom: Unified Delegate Dashboard
Aggregated delegate profiles: Pulls voting history and statements from multiple protocols (Compound, Uniswap, Aave) into a single view. This matters for professional delegates managing portfolios across DAOs and for voters seeking consistent delegate track records. Tracks over 10,000 delegate addresses.
04
Boardroom: Streamlined Voting UX
One-click voting aggregation: Presents pending proposals from integrated protocols in a single, clean interface with wallet connection. This matters for token holders participating in multiple DAOs who want to minimize friction and avoid managing multiple governance portals. Integrates with Tally and Snapshot.
05
Commonwealth: Weakness - Fragmented User Experience
Discussion-to-voting disconnect: While it hosts discourse, the final vote often happens on a separate platform (e.g., Keplr, Metamask). This matters for usability-focused DAOs where a seamless, end-to-end flow is critical to increase voter participation. Can create friction for less technical members.
06
Boardroom: Weakness - Limited Discussion Depth
Delegate-centric, not discussion-centric: Focuses on profiling and aggregating votes, not on fostering proposal ideation or debate. This matters for DAO communities that prioritize collaborative drafting and extensive feedback before a proposal reaches a snapshot. Relies on external forums like Discord or Commonwealth.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: User Scenarios
Boardroom for DAO Builders
Verdict: The integrated, opinionated platform for established DAOs. Strengths: Boardroom excels as a production-ready, all-in-one governance hub. It provides a unified interface for voting, delegation, and treasury management, tightly integrated with major DAO frameworks like Compound Governor and OpenZeppelin Governor. Its delegate discovery is reputation-based, surfacing top voters and delegates with proven on-chain track records. The platform handles complex multi-DAO memberships and offers robust analytics on proposal history and voter participation. Best For: DAOs like Uniswap, Aave, or Compound that need a polished, secure, and full-featured front-end for their token holders, prioritizing a cohesive user experience over deep customization.
Commonwealth for DAO Builders
Verdict: The flexible, discussion-first platform for community building and ideation. Strengths: Commonwealth is fundamentally a discussion forum that layers on governance tools. Its core strength is fostering pre-proposal discourse and signal voting through threaded conversations, polls, and temperature checks. Delegate discovery happens organically through community engagement and discourse quality. It supports a wider array of chains natively (EVM, Solana, Cosmos) and allows for highly customized community spaces. Best For: Newer DAOs, Cosmos ecosystem projects, or communities prioritizing open deliberation and building consensus before on-chain actions. Ideal when the communication layer is as critical as the execution layer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between Boardroom and Commonwealth for governance tooling.
Boardroom excels at structured, protocol-native governance because it is built as a modular SDK for on-chain voting. Its integration with Snapshot X for gasless voting and direct smart contract execution provides a seamless, secure experience for high-value DAOs. For example, protocols like Compound and Uniswap rely on Boardroom's infrastructure to manage billions in TVL, demonstrating its robustness for critical on-chain decisions.
Commonwealth takes a different approach by prioritizing community discussion and off-chain signaling. Its platform combines forums, proposal drafting, and sentiment polling (like temperature checks) into a unified hub. This results in a trade-off of flexibility for accessibility, fostering broader participation but often requiring a separate tool for final on-chain execution, as seen with DAOs like dYdX and Osmosis.
The key trade-off: If your priority is secure, binding on-chain governance for a treasury-heavy protocol, choose Boardroom. Its direct smart contract integration minimizes execution risk. If you prioritize building an engaged, discursive community and validating ideas before they reach the chain, choose Commonwealth. Its all-in-one forum and polling tools lower the barrier to participation, which is critical for growing ecosystems.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall