Governance Interface

A centralized view for discovering, filtering, and tracking governance proposals. Key elements include:

• Proposal Status (Pending, Active, Succeeded, Executed, Defeated)
• Title & Summary for quick scanning
• Voting deadline and quorum status
• Links to full discussion threads (e.g., on forums like Commonwealth or Discourse)

The interface connects the user's wallet to execute on-chain votes. It supports various voting models:

• Token-weighted voting (1 token = 1 vote)
• Quadratic voting to reduce whale dominance
• Conviction voting for continuous signaling It clearly displays voting power, confirms transaction details, and shows real-time tally updates.

A feature for users to delegate their voting power to experts or representatives, enabling participation without constant engagement. It typically includes:

• Delegate profiles with statements and voting history
• Track record and participation metrics
• Easy tools to delegate or undelegate voting power This system is foundational for representative democracy models in DAOs.

A transparent view into the protocol's treasury, enabling proposal-driven financial management. Users can:

• View treasury balances across assets
• Track inflows and outflows from grants and payments
• Create and vote on spending proposals with multi-sig execution This turns the interface into a critical tool for on-chain budgeting.

Integration with or display of off-chain discussion to inform on-chain decisions. This may embed or link to:

• Governance forums for proposal ideation and refinement
• Snapshot for gas-free sentiment polling
• Real-time comment feeds on active proposals This bridges the gap between community debate and formal voting.

Data visualization tools that provide insights into governance health and participation. Common metrics include:

• Voter turnout rates and delegation concentration
• Proposal passage rate and execution history
• Whale watch dashboards showing large holder influence These analytics are crucial for assessing the legitimacy and resilience of the governance process.

The governance interface is a central point of failure. If the web server hosting the interface is compromised, users can be tricked into signing malicious transactions. This risk is mitigated by using IPFS or Arweave for decentralized hosting and encouraging direct interaction with the smart contract via Etherscan for critical votes.

The interface must securely connect to user wallets (e.g., MetaMask, WalletConnect). Key considerations include:

• Transaction simulation: Previewing outcomes before signing.
• Signature replay protection: Ensuring signed messages are only valid for the intended proposal.
• Phishing defense: Verifying the correct contract addresses and preventing address poisoning attacks.

A secure interface must clearly display the proposal lifecycle and enforce timelocks. Critical features include:

• Visualizing the delay between a vote passing and execution (the timelock period).
• Highlighting queued vs. executable proposals.
• Preventing execution of proposals that have not met quorum or have not passed the review period.

Delegating voting power introduces specific trust vectors. The interface must:

• Clearly show delegatee activity and voting history.
• Allow easy revocation of delegation.
• Securely handle meta-governance votes, where a delegated token is used to vote on another protocol's proposals.

The interface displays data (e.g., proposal descriptions, vote tallies) that must be cryptographically verifiable. Risks include:

• Relying on a centralized API for proposal metadata.
• Snapshot-style off-chain voting requires trust in the Snapshot's infrastructure and the integrity of the IPFS hash.
• On-chain interfaces must query blockchain state directly from reliable RPC providers.

The interface enforces the governance system's access control rules. It must accurately reflect:

• Token-weighted voting based on a snapshot block height.
• Quadratic voting or conviction voting calculations.
• Sybil resistance mechanisms, ensuring one person ≠ many voting identities, often tied to proof-of-personhood or token ownership.

A cryptographic asset that grants its holder the right to participate in a decentralized protocol's governance. It is the primary credential for voting power, often using mechanisms like token-weighted voting or delegation. Examples include UNI for Uniswap and AAVE for Aave.

The smart contract system that enforces the core logic of a governance process. This on-chain backend defines rules for:

• Proposal submission (e.g., minimum token threshold)
• Voting period duration
• Quorum requirements
• Timelock execution delays Popular frameworks include OpenZeppelin Governor and Compound's Governor Bravo.

The process where a token holder (delegator) assigns their voting power to another address (delegate) to vote on their behalf. This enables representative democracy within DAOs, allowing experts or engaged community members to vote without requiring constant participation from every token holder.

A security mechanism and smart contract that enforces a mandatory delay between when a governance proposal is passed and when its encoded actions can be executed. This delay provides a critical window for the community to review executed code and potentially exit the system if a malicious proposal is approved.