Launching a Cross-Community Governance Proposal Portal

A cross-community governance portal is an interface that aggregates and displays governance proposals from multiple decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) or protocols. Unlike a single-DAO dashboard, its core function is to enable users—often delegates, token holders, or analysts—to view, discuss, and vote on proposals across different communities from a single hub. This is critical for coordinated governance, where decisions in one protocol (like a base-layer L1) directly impact applications built on it. Popular examples include portals tracking proposals across the Optimism Collective, Arbitrum DAO, and Uniswap DAO.

The technical architecture relies on querying on-chain data and off-chain indexes. You'll primarily interact with governance smart contracts (like OpenZeppelin's Governor) and indexing protocols (like The Graph). A basic flow involves: 1) Fetching proposal data (ID, description, votes, status) from subgraphs, 2) Normalizing this data into a unified schema despite different contract implementations, and 3) Displaying it in a filterable UI. Key data points to index include the proposal proposalId, proposer, targets, values, calldatas, and the voting contract address.

Start by setting up a subgraph for each target DAO. For a Governor-based DAO, your subgraph schema might define a Proposal entity with fields like status, forVotes, againstVotes, and quorum. Use the subgraph's GraphQL API to fetch proposals. Here's a simplified query example for fetching active proposals:

graphqlCopy
query GetActiveProposals {
  proposals(where: { status: "ACTIVE" }) {
    id
    title
    quorum
    forVotes
  }
}

You will need to run one subgraph per DAO or create a single subgraph that indexes multiple contract sources, which is more complex but efficient.

Data normalization is the major challenge. Different DAOs use different voting standards (e.g., Compound's GovernorBravo vs. OpenZeppelin's Governor). Your portal's backend must translate these into a common interface. Create a Proposal model in your application that maps various status enums (e.g., PENDING, ACTIVE, QUEUED) to a standard set. Voting power calculation also varies—some use token snapshots, others use delegation. You may need to call getVotes on each voting contract for a given user and block number to display personalized voting power.

For the frontend, frameworks like Next.js or Vite are suitable. Use a state management library to cache proposal data from your API. Implement filters for DAO, proposal status, and vote type. Integrate wallet connection via libraries like wagmi or ConnectKit to enable voting directly from the portal. The critical integration is connecting the user's wallet to the correct voting contract on the correct chain when they cast a vote, passing the correct proposalId and support (for/against) parameters.

Finally, consider security and verification. Always verify proposal transaction calldata on-chain before execution. Use Tenderly or a similar service to simulate proposal execution to preview effects. For maximum transparency, link each proposal to its original discussion forum (e.g., Commonwealth, Discourse) and on-chain transaction. Launching such a portal reduces governance fragmentation and is a foundational tool for delegates managing influence across multiple treasuries and protocols.

Before writing your first line of code, you need a clear understanding of the core components involved. A cross-community governance portal is a full-stack Web3 application. The backend is built on smart contracts deployed to a blockchain, which handle proposal creation, voting, and execution logic. The frontend is a web application, typically built with a modern framework like React or Next.js, that interacts with these contracts via a library such as wagmi or ethers.js. You will also need a development environment like Hardhat or Foundry for compiling, testing, and deploying your contracts.

Your tech stack must bridge the gap between on-chain and off-chain data. For the smart contract layer, Solidity is the standard language for EVM-compatible chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, or Polygon. You'll need Node.js (v18+) and npm/yarn installed. For interacting with contracts, you'll use a provider like Alchemy or Infura to connect to the blockchain network. A wallet connection library such as RainbowKit or ConnectKit is essential for user authentication. Finally, you'll need a governance framework as a starting point, such as OpenZeppelin's Governor contracts or a fork of a proven system like Compound's Governor Bravo.

Setting up your local environment is the first actionable step. Initialize a new project using npx create-next-app@latest for your frontend and npx hardhat init for your smart contracts. Install core dependencies: npm install wagmi viem @rainbow-me/rainbowkit for the frontend and npm install --save-dev @openzeppelin/contracts for the backend. Configure your hardhat.config.js to connect to a testnet (e.g., Sepolia) and set up environment variables for your RPC URL and wallet private key using a .env file. This setup allows you to compile contracts with npx hardhat compile and run tests before any deployment.

Understanding the data flow is critical. When a user submits a proposal via your frontend, the transaction is signed by their wallet and sent to your proposal factory contract. This contract creates a new instance of a governance proposal, which is represented by a unique proposal ID. Voting tokens (ERC-20 or ERC-721) are used to cast votes, with weight determined by the user's balance at a specific block number (a snapshot). Votes are recorded on-chain, and after the voting period, anyone can trigger the proposal's execution if it passes. Your frontend must query this on-chain state using The Graph or direct RPC calls to display real-time proposal status.

Security and gas optimization are non-negotiable prerequisites. Your contracts must include guards against common vulnerabilities like reentrancy and integer overflow. Use established libraries like OpenZeppelin for access control (Ownable, AccessControl) and security checks. For cross-community functionality, you need a secure method for vote aggregation or message passing if operating across multiple chains, potentially using a cross-chain messaging protocol like Axelar or LayerZero. Thorough testing with Hardhat or Foundry, including simulation of governance attacks, is required before considering a mainnet deployment. Always start on a testnet and conduct an audit.

A cross-community governance portal is a dedicated interface where proposals from one DAO can be formally submitted for consideration and voting by one or more other DAOs. This structure is essential for inter-DAO collaboration on initiatives like shared grant programs, protocol integrations, or ecosystem-wide standards. Unlike a single DAO's internal voting, a portal must handle diverse governance parameters, token standards, and voting mechanisms, creating a unified front-end for a fragmented backend of smart contracts.

The technical foundation typically involves a proposal relay contract that acts as a canonical source of truth. When DAO A creates a proposal, it is stored on-chain with a unique ID. The portal's front-end then fetches this data and surfaces it to the member DAOs (B, C, D). Each DAO votes using its own governance contracts (e.g., OpenZeppelin Governor, Compound Governor Bravo), and the relay contract aggregates the results against a predefined passing threshold. This keeps governance sovereignty intact while enabling collective action.

Key design decisions include defining the proposal lifecycle and voting eligibility. Will proposals have a unified submission standard, like the EIP-4824 DAO URI? How are voting weights calculated across different token types—simple yes/no, token-weighted, or reputation-based? You must also implement quorum and timelock rules that respect each participant's policies. For example, a proposal might require a 60% yes vote from DAO B and a 4% quorum from DAO C to pass.

Security is paramount. The relay contract must be upgradeable with strict multi-sig control to adapt to new member DAOs or voting rules. Consider implementing a veto mechanism where a supermajority of member DAOs can cancel a malicious proposal. All vote aggregation logic should be on-chain and verifiable. Audits are non-negotiable; platforms like ChainSecurity or Trail of Bits specialize in DAO governance security.

For development, you can build on existing frameworks. OpenZeppelin's Governor contracts offer a modular base. The portal's front-end can use Snapshot for gasless signaling or Tally for on-chain governance interfaces. A common pattern is to use a subgraph (The Graph) to index proposal and vote data from all connected DAOs into a single queryable endpoint, which your React or Vue.js front-end can then consume to display unified status and results.

Successful implementations include Uniswap's cross-chain governance bridge and Compound's multi-chain governance system. Start by defining a clear charter with participating DAOs, deploy and audit the relay contract, then integrate each DAO's voting module. The final portal should provide transparency into every stage: proposal creation, active voting across communities, vote tallying, and execution status, fostering trust in decentralized, multi-party decision-making.

A cross-community governance portal is a unified interface that allows users to discover, create, and vote on proposals from multiple decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Unlike a single-DAO interface like Snapshot, this system must aggregate data from disparate sources—different blockchains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon), various governance frameworks (Compound Governor, OpenZeppelin Governor, Aave), and off-chain voting platforms. The core architectural challenge is creating a coherent data layer that normalizes proposal states, voting power calculations, and execution paths from these heterogeneous systems into a single user experience.

The data flow begins with indexers that continuously listen for on-chain events and off-chain updates. For on-chain DAOs using Governor contracts, an indexer like The Graph subgraph ingests events such as ProposalCreated, VoteCast, and ProposalExecuted. For off-chain platforms like Snapshot, the portal polls their GraphQL API. This raw data is then processed by a normalization service, which maps diverse data models to a common schema. For example, it converts different quorum definitions, voting period lengths, and token standards (ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155) into standardized fields for the frontend.

A critical backend component is the voting power resolver. When a user connects their wallet, the portal must calculate their eligible voting weight for each connected DAO. This involves querying multiple sources: checking token balances via balanceOf, reading from delegation contracts like Compound's Comp.sol, verifying staked positions in protocols like Lido, and checking for NFT-based voting rights. This aggregated power is often cached in a database with a short TTL to balance performance with accuracy. The resolver must also handle cross-chain identities, linking addresses via ENS or Lens Protocol profiles.

The frontend architecture, typically built with a framework like Next.js or React, consumes data from a unified API. It presents a filtered, sorted list of active proposals. Key features include multi-chain wallet connection via WalletConnect or Web3Modal, real-time vote tally updates via WebSocket subscriptions, and transaction building for on-chain execution. For security, the UI should clearly label the source and type of each proposal (e.g., "On-chain: Aave v3 Ethereum, Proposal #123") and link directly to the source contract on a block explorer like Etherscan.

To launch, you must first define the integration scope. Start by forking an open-source UI like Tally or building atop a governance aggregation SDK. Configure the indexers for your target DAOs, deploy the normalization service (e.g., as a serverless function), and set up the database. Thoroughly test voting power calculations and transaction simulation using tools like Tenderly before going live. A successful portal reduces voter fragmentation and increases participation, but it must be maintained to accommodate upgrades in the underlying governance contracts it supports.

A governance proposal portal acts as a unified interface for users to discover, analyze, and participate in proposals across multiple DAOs. The foundation of this system is a reliable data layer that fetches real-time information from various blockchain sources. You will need to integrate with Governance APIs and indexing services to pull proposal metadata, voting power, and execution status. Key data points include proposal ID, title, description, proposer address, voting start/end blocks, current vote tally, and execution state (e.g., Pending, Active, Succeeded, Executed, Defeated).

For most major protocols, you have two primary integration paths. The first is using official subgraphs on The Graph network, such as the Uniswap Governance Subgraph or the Compound Governance Subgraph. These provide a GraphQL interface for querying structured event data. The second path is direct interaction with smart contract RPC calls using libraries like ethers.js or viem, which is necessary for fetching real-time token balances or calculating voting power at specific block heights.

Start by setting up a backend service or serverless function to poll these data sources. A typical architecture involves a cron job that queries subgraphs every minute for new proposals and updates existing ones. For example, a query to fetch active proposals from a Compound-style governor might look for proposals where state = "Active" and startBlock <= currentBlock < endBlock. You must also handle chain reorganizations by verifying proposal data against a block's finality, especially for networks with shorter finality times.

Your data model should normalize information from different protocols into a common schema. While Uniswap uses a ProposalCreated event with specific parameters, Aave's governance contract may have a different ABI. Create abstraction layers in your code to map these variances. Essential fields to standardize include: a unique cross-protocol ID (e.g., chainId:contractAddress:proposalId), the target protocol name, proposal status, and the associated token symbols (e.g., UNI, COMP, AAVE) for voting.

Finally, implement caching and rate limiting. Public subgraph endpoints have query limits, and direct RPC calls can be expensive. Cache proposal data that doesn't change frequently, such as descriptions and titles, while updating live vote counts and states more regularly. Use environment variables to manage API keys for services like Alchemy or Infura, and consider implementing retry logic for failed requests to ensure data resilience. This foundational integration is critical for all subsequent features like proposal display, simulation, and vote submission.

A governance portal aggregating proposals from multiple DAOs requires a normalized data model. Without standardization, comparing a Compound proposal with an Aave proposal is impossible. The goal is to extract the core, universal attributes from any governance system—such as title, description, choices, start/end timestamps, and status—and map them into a shared schema. This schema acts as a universal translator, allowing the portal's frontend and indexing logic to treat all proposals uniformly, regardless of their origin on Ethereum, Arbitrum, or Optimism.

Implementing this involves creating a canonical interface in your application code. For a TypeScript-based indexer, this might be a Proposal type or class. Key properties include a unique id (often a combination of chain ID and proposal identifier), the dao name and address, the blockchain network, and the voting outcome. Crucially, you must also define an originalData field containing the raw, platform-specific proposal object from the source API (like Snapshot's GraphQL schema or a Tally subgraph). This preserves fidelity for advanced analysis or fallback display.

The standardization process occurs within your data ingestion pipeline. As your indexer fetches proposals from each integrated DAO's API, it transforms the raw data into your canonical format. For example, a Snapshot proposal's state (e.g., 'active') is mapped to your schema's status enum. An OpenZeppelin Governor proposal's proposalId (a uint256) is formatted into a string ID. This transformation layer is where you handle inconsistencies, such as different timestamp formats or choice structures (e.g., single-select vs. ranked choice).

Practical implementation requires robust error handling and validation. Use a library like zod or joi to validate each transformed proposal object against your schema. This catches mapping errors early and ensures data quality. Log any proposals that fail validation for manual review, which helps identify edge cases in new DAO integrations. Consistent data is useless if it's incorrect; validation guarantees the integrity of the information presented to users in the portal.

Finally, this standardized data set enables powerful cross-community features. With all proposals in a uniform format, you can build a unified search across DAOs, filter proposals by common parameters (like 'ending soon' or 'high quorum'), and calculate aggregate statistics. The data layer becomes the foundation for the user-facing components built in subsequent steps, turning a collection of isolated governance events into a coherent, comparable feed of decentralized decision-making.

The frontend is a React application built with TypeScript and Vite for a fast development experience. We use wagmi and viem for Ethereum interaction and RainbowKit for a seamless wallet connection UI. The core application state, including connected chain, wallet address, and loaded proposals, is managed via React Context or a state management library like Zustand. This setup allows components across the app to react to user authentication and network changes instantly.

The portal's main view is a dashboard that fetches and displays live proposals from multiple DAOs. We query on-chain data using The Graph subgraphs for each supported protocol (e.g., Uniswap, Aave, Compound). Each proposal card shows essential metadata: title, description, current votes (For/Against), quorum status, and voting deadline. A key feature is a unified voting power indicator that calculates the user's combined voting weight across all linked DAO tokens, displayed clearly in the header.

For the voting interaction, we implement a modal that appears when a user selects a proposal. This modal uses wagmi's writeContract hook to prepare and send the transaction. It must handle gas estimation, transaction signing, and status feedback (pending, success, error). The UI should guide users through switching to the correct network if their wallet is on an unsupported chain, using RainbowKit's network switching capabilities.

We also build an initiation form for creating new cross-community proposals. This form captures the proposal title, description, and the specific executable calldata for the target smart contracts. A preview function simulates the proposal's effects using Tenderly or a local fork before submission. Upon finalization, the form bundles this data and triggers a transaction to the proposal management smart contract deployed in Step 2.

Finally, we ensure a responsive design with a mobile-first approach using Tailwind CSS. Accessibility is critical: all interactive elements must have proper ARIA labels, keyboard navigation, and clear feedback. The code should be modular, with components like ProposalCard, VotingModal, and NetworkIndicator being reusable and independently testable with tools like Vitest and Testing Library.

The core function of this step is to take the calldata from a passed proposal—which includes the target contract address, function signature, and encoded arguments—and execute it on the destination blockchain. This requires a transaction relayer or executor service that is authorized to submit the transaction. In many DAO frameworks like Compound Governor or OpenZeppelin Governor, a designated Timelock contract or a privileged Executor address holds this role, ensuring only approved proposals are executed after any mandatory delay.

Security is paramount during execution routing. Key considerations include gas optimization to prevent out-of-gas failures, nonce management to ensure transactions are processed in the correct order, and failure handling for scenarios like reverts or sudden gas price spikes. For multi-chain governance, this step often interacts with a cross-chain messaging layer like Axelar, Wormhole, or Hyperlane. The executor must verify the validity of the cross-chain message and its proof before submitting the final transaction on the destination chain.

A practical implementation involves monitoring the governance contract for the ProposalExecuted event. Once detected, your portal's backend service should fetch the proposal details, construct the final transaction, estimate gas, and submit it via the authorized executor wallet. Here is a simplified code snippet illustrating the transaction construction logic:

javascriptCopy
async function executeProposal(proposalId, governorContract, executorSigner) {
  const proposal = await governorContract.proposals(proposalId);
  // Ensure proposal is in a "Queued" or "Succeeded" state
  const state = await governorContract.state(proposalId);
  require(state === 4 || state === 7, 'Proposal not executable');

  // For a single-target proposal
  const tx = await governorContract.connect(executorSigner).execute(
    [proposal.target],
    [proposal.value],
    [proposal.calldata],
    proposal.descriptionHash
  );
  await tx.wait();
  console.log(`Proposal ${proposalId} executed in tx: ${tx.hash}`);
}

After successful execution, the portal must update the user interface to reflect the new state—typically changing the proposal status from "Passed" to "Executed"—and log the transaction hash for full transparency. This creates a verifiable on-chain record that the community's decision has been enacted. Failed executions should trigger alerts and be routed to a manual review process to diagnose issues like insufficient executor balance or unexpected contract state changes that cause the transaction to revert.

This final step closes the governance loop. By reliably routing and executing transactions, the portal ensures that decentralized decisions result in concrete, on-chain actions, which is the ultimate measure of a functional governance system. The design should prioritize reliability and auditability above all, as failed executions can undermine trust in the entire governance process.

Launching the portal is the beginning, not the end. The first critical step is a comprehensive security audit. Engage a reputable firm to review your smart contracts, frontend integration, and access controls. For on-chain components, consider using platforms like Code4rena or Sherlock for crowdsourced audits. Simultaneously, establish a clear incident response plan detailing steps for pausing proposals, freezing funds, or executing emergency upgrades via a multisig wallet. Document all findings and remediation steps transparently for your community.

Governance is driven by participation. To bootstrap activity, consider running a test proposal campaign with mock tokens to familiarize users with the interface and voting flow. Use analytics tools to track key metrics: proposal submission rate, voter turnout, delegation patterns, and gas costs. Tools like Dune Analytics or The Graph can be integrated for real-time dashboards. Based on this data, you may need to adjust parameters like proposal thresholds, voting periods, or quorum requirements defined in your Governor contract to optimize for engagement and security.

For long-term sustainability, plan the decentralization of operational control. This involves transitioning admin functions from a development multisig to a community-controlled DAO or security council. Framework this transition as a formal governance proposal itself. Furthermore, stay updated with the evolving ecosystem; new standards like ERC-5805 (Delegation by Signature) or layer-2 governance solutions can offer gas savings and improved UX. Regularly update your portal's documentation and contributor guidelines to encourage open-source development and long-term maintenance by the community.