Voting Aggregator

Aggregators connect to the on-chain governance modules of various protocols (e.g., Uniswap, Aave, Compound). This allows a user with delegated voting power across different DAOs to view all active proposals and vote without switching between multiple interfaces or wallets.

A core feature is simplifying the management of delegated votes. Users can:

• See all voting power delegated to them across protocols.
• Batch-delegate their own tokens to different delegates or stealth addresses.
• Track the voting history and performance of delegates they follow.

Aggregators handle the transaction complexity of on-chain voting. They often provide:

• Gasless voting via meta-transactions or sponsored transactions.
• Batch voting to cast votes on multiple proposals in a single transaction, reducing gas costs.
• Support for various voting standards like EIP-712 for signed messages.

These platforms act as a dashboard for governance activity, featuring:

• A unified feed of active, pending, and executed proposals.
• Voting sentiment indicators and quorum status.
• Analytics on voter turnout, delegate influence, and historical proposal data to inform decisions.

Voting aggregators integrate with the broader DeFi ecosystem. Key integrations include:

• Liquid staking tokens (e.g., stETH) that carry governance rights.
• DeFi yield vaults where deposited assets may have attached voting power.
• Cross-chain messaging protocols to facilitate governance on non-native chains.

As custodians of voting power, security is paramount. Features include:

• Non-custodial design; the aggregator never holds user funds or private keys.
• Transparent vote verification on-chain, ensuring votes are cast as instructed.
• Delegate reputation systems to mitigate vote buying or malicious behavior.

A core feature where users can delegate their voting power to experts or delegates without transferring tokens. Aggregators track delegate platforms, voting records, and statements, enabling an informed representative democracy model within DAOs.

Advanced aggregators are evolving to unify governance across multiple blockchains (e.g., Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum). This solves fragmentation for multi-chain protocols, allowing users to vote on proposals affecting all deployed instances from one place.

Aggregators enable complex vote calculation logic, such as:

• Token-weighted voting: Based on token balance.
• Quadratic voting: To reduce whale dominance.
• Cross-space voting: Weighting votes from tokens held in different DAOs or chains. These strategies are defined per proposal space within the aggregator.

Sums a user's voting power from various sources (e.g., native tokens, staked tokens, liquid staking tokens, delegated votes) to present a unified power score for each proposal. This solves the vote fragmentation problem where power is spread across different wallets or DeFi positions.

Allows users to express voting intents (e.g., "Vote Yes on all Treasury-related proposals") which are then executed automatically by keepers or bots. This shifts the model from manual transaction signing to declarative preference setting, improving participation for less active delegates.

Provides analytical dashboards showing:

• Voter turnout and delegation trends across ecosystems.
• Proposal success rates and historical data.
• Whale wallet activity and voting patterns. This data is crucial for DAO analysts and researchers assessing governance health.

Aggregators face several technical and governance challenges:

• Security: Must securely handle signature requests and private keys.
• Data Integrity: Relies on accurate, real-time data feeds from source protocols.
• Composability: Must adapt to diverse governance mechanisms (token-weighted, quadratic voting, etc.).
• Sybil Resistance: Often depends on underlying protocols for identity verification.

The fungible token that confers voting rights within a decentralized protocol. Voting aggregators tally the voting power of these tokens across multiple platforms. Examples include UNI (Uniswap), AAVE, and MKR (MakerDAO). The token's distribution and lock-up mechanisms directly influence governance outcomes.

The process where a token holder (delegator) assigns their voting power to another address (delegate). Aggregators must track these delegation flows to accurately represent voting power. Systems can be:

• Platform-specific (delegate within one DAO).
• Cross-protocol (delegate to an entity across multiple DAOs, a key aggregator feature).

A system where governance proposals and votes are executed as transactions directly on the blockchain (e.g., Compound, Uniswap). Contrasts with off-chain systems like Snapshot. Aggregators may integrate both types, but on-chain votes require paying gas fees and result in immutable state changes.

A weighted voting mechanism where the cost of casting additional votes for a single option increases quadratically. This aims to reduce the influence of large token holders (whales). Aggregators must implement specialized math to calculate and display voting power under such models, which differ from simple token-weighting.