How to Design a Multi-DAO Voting Portal

A Multi-DAO Voting Portal is a single application that aggregates governance proposals and voting power from multiple DAOs, such as Uniswap, Aave, and Compound. The core design challenge is creating a unified interface that abstracts away the complexities of interacting with different smart contract standards—primarily OpenZeppelin Governor and its variants—while maintaining security and user control. The portal must never hold user assets; instead, it acts as a read-and-relay layer, fetching on-chain data and facilitating signed transactions that users broadcast to the respective DAO contracts.

The architecture rests on three pillars: a data aggregation layer, a wallet integration module, and a transaction relayer. The data layer uses The Graph subgraphs or direct RPC calls to index proposals, votes, and delegate information from each integrated DAO. The wallet module, typically via WalletConnect or EIP-6963, enables users to connect their self-custodied wallets like MetaMask. The transaction relayer constructs, signs, and submits the correct calldata for actions like casting a vote or delegating tokens, ensuring compatibility with each DAO's specific Governor contract version.

A critical implementation detail is handling cross-chain governance. DAOs like Arbitrum or Optimism often have governance tokens and voting on L1 (Ethereum Mainnet) but execute proposals on their L2. Your portal must manage this separation, potentially requiring users to sign messages on multiple networks. Furthermore, you must calculate voting power correctly, which can involve checking token balances, delegated votes, and time-locked weights (e.g., for ve-token models like Curve's). Failing to accurately reflect voting power is a major UX and trust failure.

For developers, start by defining a standard schema for a Proposal object that normalizes data from different sources. Key properties include id, title, daoName, startBlock, endBlock, forVotes, againstVotes, and the contract address and abi needed to interact with it. Use a state machine to track proposal status (Pending, Active, Succeeded, Defeated, Executed). Always display the source of truth, such as a link to the proposal on Etherscan or the DAO's own interface, to maintain transparency.

Security considerations are paramount. Your portal should implement EIP-712 typed data signing for vote transactions, providing users with a clear, verifiable message in their wallet. Audit all contract ABIs and function calls to prevent malicious proposal execution. Consider integrating Snapshot for off-chain signaling votes, which requires a separate flow for message signing without gas fees. The end goal is a portal that reduces friction for active governance participants without introducing new centralization risks or trust assumptions.

A multi-DAO voting portal is a full-stack application that interacts with multiple smart contract systems. You will need proficiency in a modern frontend framework like React or Vue.js for the user interface. For blockchain interaction, the Ethereum JavaScript API (ethers.js v6) or viem are the standard libraries. You must also be comfortable with TypeScript for type safety and a CSS framework like Tailwind CSS for rapid UI development. A basic understanding of Node.js and npm/yarn/pnpm for package management is assumed.

On the blockchain side, you must understand DAO governance standards. The most critical is ERC-20 for governance tokens and ERC-721 for NFT-based voting. For the voting logic itself, you will interact with implementations of Governor Bravo (used by Compound and Uniswap) or OpenZeppelin Governor, which are the de facto standards for on-chain governance. Familiarity with The Graph for indexing proposal data or Covalent for multi-chain data is highly recommended to avoid excessive RPC calls.

Your development environment must include a wallet provider for testing. Use MetaMask or WalletConnect for browser-based wallets. For local development and testing, set up Hardhat or Foundry. These frameworks allow you to fork mainnet states to test against real DAO contracts. You will also need access to RPC endpoints from providers like Alchemy, Infura, or QuickNode for querying multiple networks like Ethereum Mainnet, Arbitrum, and Polygon.

A key architectural decision is how to manage multi-chain state. Your portal must aggregate data from several blockchains. You can use specialized SDKs like SocketDL for liquidity and message bridging or Hyperlane for interoperability. Alternatively, you can implement a backend service using Node.js or Python to index and cache cross-chain proposal data, using PostgreSQL or MongoDB as a database.

Finally, ensure you have the correct access and knowledge of the DAOs you intend to support. You will need the contract addresses for their governance tokens and governor contracts on each relevant chain. Review their official documentation, such as the Uniswap Governance Docs or Compound Governance, to understand specific parameters like voting delay, voting period, and proposal threshold.

A multi-DAO voting portal is a unified interface that aggregates governance activity from multiple DAOs, allowing users to view, discuss, and vote on proposals without switching contexts. The core architectural challenge is designing a system that is modular, secure, and chain-agnostic. A typical architecture involves three primary layers: a data aggregation layer (indexers, subgraphs), a business logic layer (smart contracts, APIs), and a presentation layer (frontend client). This separation ensures that changes to one DAO's governance contracts or the addition of a new blockchain don't require a full system rewrite.

The data layer is responsible for fetching and normalizing on-chain governance data. For Ethereum-based DAOs like Uniswap or Compound, you would use The Graph subgraphs to index proposal creation, voting power snapshots, and vote casting events. For non-EVM chains, you might run custom indexers or rely on provider APIs. This layer must handle finality delays and re-orgs gracefully, often implementing caching strategies and real-time WebSocket connections to RPC nodes for live updates. The output is a standardized data model (e.g., a Proposal object with id, title, choices, scores) fed to the upper layers.

The business logic layer, often implemented as a backend service or a set of smart contracts, manages user-specific operations and cross-DAO interactions. Key functions include: wallet connection and signature verification, voting power calculation (which may involve querying ERC-20, ERC-721, or staking contracts), and vote delegation logic. For security, this layer should never hold private keys; instead, it verifies signed messages. It also orchestrates the vote transaction, constructing the correct calldata for each DAO's unique governance contract (e.g., Governor Bravo vs. OZ Governor).

The presentation layer is the React, Vue, or Svelte frontend that users interact with. Its design must prioritize clarity and actionability. Implement features like: a unified dashboard showing proposals sorted by voting deadline, vote simulation that shows how a user's vote would affect the outcome, and notification systems for proposal updates. Use state management libraries (e.g., Zustand, Redux) to handle the complex, real-time data flow from the backend. The UI must clearly distinguish between different DAOs and voting mechanisms (e.g., token-weighted vs. NFT-based).

Critical security considerations for the architecture include proposal verification (ensuring the UI displays the correct, unaltered proposal data from on-chain sources) and transaction safety (preventing malicious calldata injection). Implement multi-signature schemes for high-value votes if required by the DAO. Furthermore, the system should be designed for upgradeability without sacrificing decentralization; using proxy patterns for your own contracts and allowing DAO admins to update their integration parameters via on-chain config are common patterns.

To test and deploy, use a staging environment that mirrors mainnet conditions. Write comprehensive integration tests that simulate voting across forked versions of live DAO contracts (using tools like Hardhat or Foundry). Monitor key metrics such as vote submission success rate, indexing latency, and RPC error rates. Successful examples of this pattern include Snapshot's multi-space interface and Tally's governance dashboard, which abstract the complexity of individual DAO contracts into a consistent user experience.

A multi-DAO voting portal is a vote aggregator that allows users to view and participate in governance across different decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) without switching interfaces. This solves a key user experience problem in Web3 governance, where managing positions in protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound requires navigating to each of their separate governance portals. The core smart contract must securely interact with each DAO's unique voting contract—which may use different standards like OpenZeppelin Governor or Compound's Governor Bravo—to fetch proposals, delegate votes, and cast ballots.

The system architecture centers on a registry contract that maintains a whitelist of supported DAO governance addresses and their respective adapter contracts. Each adapter is responsible for translating generic function calls (like castVote) into the specific format required by the target DAO. For example, voting on an Aave proposal might require calling submitVote(uint256 proposalId, bool support), while a Compound proposal uses castVote(uint256 proposalId, uint8 support). The aggregator must also track user voting power, which typically involves querying the underlying governance token's balance or delegated votes at the specific block number of each proposal.

Security is paramount. The aggregator must prevent vote replay attacks and ensure the integrity of vote data. A common pattern is to implement a commit-reveal scheme for votes to preserve anonymity until the voting period ends, or to use a relayer with EIP-712 typed structured data signatures for gasless voting. The contract should also include pausability and upgradeability mechanisms (via a proxy pattern like TransparentUpgradeableProxy) to respond to vulnerabilities or add support for new DAO standards. All state changes, especially vote casting, must emit clear events for off-chain indexing and UI updates.

Here is a simplified code snippet for the core aggregator interface:

solidityCopy
interface IVoteAggregator {
    struct ProposalInfo {
        uint256 daoId;
        uint256 proposalId;
        uint256 snapshotBlock;
        uint256 endBlock;
    }
    function castVotes(uint256[] calldata proposalIds, uint8[] calldata support) external;
    function getVotingPower(address user, uint256 daoId, uint256 blockNumber) external view returns (uint256);
}

The daoId maps to an entry in the registry, routing the call to the correct adapter. Batching votes (castVotes) in a single transaction reduces gas costs significantly compared to voting on each proposal individually.

When designing the data layer, consider indexing services like The Graph to efficiently query active proposals across all integrated DAOs. The subgraph would listen to events from both the aggregator and the underlying DAOs, creating a unified dataset of proposals, votes, and user delegations. For cross-chain governance (e.g., voting on a Polygon proposal from Ethereum Mainnet), the architecture must incorporate a cross-chain messaging layer like Axelar or LayerZero, adding complexity for message verification and execution. Always audit the final contract suite, focusing on adapter logic and vote power calculations.

A cross-DAO voting portal is a smart contract system that aggregates governance power from multiple decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Instead of requiring users to visit each DAO's interface separately, it allows them to cast votes or create proposals in a single place, provided they hold the requisite tokens. The core challenge is designing a secure and gas-efficient token gating mechanism that can verify membership across different token contracts, often on various chains, and accurately calculate a user's total voting weight.

The architecture typically involves a central VotingPortal contract that interacts with multiple TokenGate adapters. Each adapter is tailored to a specific token standard (like ERC-20, ERC-721, or ERC-1155) and chain (via cross-chain messaging). When a user interacts with the portal, it queries each adapter to check the user's token balance and compute a voting power score. This design follows the Adapter Pattern, making the system extensible to new tokens without modifying the core voting logic. Key considerations include snapshotting balances to prevent manipulation and handling delegated votes from other token holders.

Here is a simplified code snippet for a basic ERC-20 token gate adapter in Solidity. It uses a snapshot of token balances taken at the start of a voting epoch to determine voting power.

solidityCopy
interface IERC20Snapshot {
    function balanceOfAt(address account, uint256 snapshotId) external view returns (uint256);
}

contract ERC20TokenGate {
    IERC20Snapshot public token;
    uint256 public snapshotId;
    address public votingPortal;

    constructor(address _token, uint256 _snapshotId, address _portal) {
        token = IERC20Snapshot(_token);
        snapshotId = _snapshotId;
        votingPortal = _portal;
    }

    function getVotingPower(address user) external view returns (uint256) {
        require(msg.sender == votingPortal, "Unauthorized");
        return token.balanceOfAt(user, snapshotId);
    }
}

This contract ensures voting power is based on a historical state, preventing users from borrowing tokens to gain influence.

Security is paramount. The portal must guard against double-counting votes if a user holds the same token in multiple wallets, and sybil attacks where users fragment holdings. Implementing a unique identity system or requiring a staking period can mitigate this. Furthermore, cross-chain designs introduce oracle or bridge risk. Using a robust messaging layer like Chainlink CCIP or Axelar is recommended over custom bridges. Always conduct thorough audits on the adapter logic and the integration points with the external token contracts.

For production, consider gas optimization. Querying multiple adapters on-chain can be expensive. An off-chain proof system, where users generate Merkle proofs of their token holdings which are verified on-chain, can reduce costs. Alternatively, use an indexer (like The Graph) to compute voting power off-chain and post the results to the contract. The final design should balance decentralization, cost, and user experience based on the specific use case, whether it's for a meta-governance platform or a shared treasury managed by several DAOs.

A multi-DAO voting portal is a frontend application that aggregates governance proposals from multiple DAOs, allowing users to view, discuss, and vote on them from a single interface. Unlike a single-DAO dashboard, it must handle diverse governance frameworks like Compound Governor, OpenZeppelin Governor, and Aragon OSx. The core challenge is abstracting protocol-specific complexities—such as different voting tokens, quorum calculations, and timelock mechanisms—into a consistent user experience. Key frontend responsibilities include fetching on-chain proposal data via The Graph or direct RPC calls, managing wallet connections for multiple chains, and presenting a unified view of a user's voting power across various treasuries.

The user interface must prioritize clarity and actionability. A standard layout includes: a proposal feed showing active votes across all connected DAOs, filterable by status (Active, Pending, Executed) and organization; a detailed proposal view with the full description, voting options, and real-time tally; and a user dashboard summarizing delegated voting power. For voting, implement a clear, multi-step flow: 1) Connect wallet, 2) Review proposal and voting power breakdown, 3) Cast vote with a transaction confirmation. Use wagmi or ethers.js to handle the blockchain interactions, and React Query or SWR for efficient, cached data fetching to minimize loading states.

State management is critical for tracking user context across chains and contracts. Use a global store (e.g., Zustand or Redux Toolkit) to manage: the list of integrated DAO addresses and their ABIs, the user's connected wallet address and chain, and cached proposal data. For each vote, the frontend must construct the correct transaction calldata. For example, voting on a Compound proposal requires calling castVote(proposalId, support), while an Aragon vote might use vote(proposalId, choice, metadata). Always display gas estimates and simulate transactions using Tenderly or the eth_call RPC method before prompting the user to sign, enhancing trust and reducing failed transactions.

To improve UX, implement off-chain voting signatures (like EIP-712 typed data) where supported, allowing users to sign votes gaslessly, with relayer services handling submission. Integrate discussion threads for each proposal by pulling data from Snapshot forums or Discourse APIs, fostering informed participation. For advanced users, provide raw transaction data previews and links to block explorers like Etherscan. Ensure the design is fully responsive and accessible, using component libraries like Chakra UI or Radix UI for consistent, WCAG-compliant interactions. The portal should ultimately reduce friction, making cross-DAO governance accessible without requiring deep technical knowledge of each underlying protocol.

The security of a multi-DAO voting portal is paramount, as it directly impacts governance outcomes and user funds. A primary consideration is smart contract vulnerability. All voting logic, including vote tallying, proposal validation, and execution, must be implemented in audited, immutable contracts. Use established libraries like OpenZeppelin's Governor contracts to inherit battle-tested patterns. A critical vulnerability is the front-running of proposal execution, where a malicious actor can execute a proposal before the legitimate voter, potentially draining funds. Mitigate this by using a TimelockController to delay execution, allowing the community to review the final transaction before it's applied on-chain.

Sybil resistance and delegation security form another core pillar. While many portals rely on token-weighted voting, the system must prevent vote manipulation through token borrowing or flash loans. Implement a checkpoint or snapshot mechanism, like the ERC20Votes extension, to record token balances at a specific block number when a proposal is created. This prevents users from borrowing tokens to inflate voting power. For delegated voting, ensure the delegation process is explicit and revocable, and that delegates cannot vote on behalf of users who have already cast a ballot directly.

The user-facing application layer introduces its own risks. Transaction signing security is crucial; the UI must clearly display what a user is signing, including the proposal ID, vote choice (For/Against/Abstain), and any attached calldata for execution. Never ask users to sign arbitrary eth_sendTransaction calls. Use wallet connection best practices by integrating with established providers (e.g., MetaMask, WalletConnect) and validating network connections to prevent users from signing transactions on the wrong chain, which could lead to lost votes or funds.

Data integrity and availability are often overlooked. The portal must source proposal and vote data from reliable, decentralized endpoints. Relying solely on a centralized backend creates a single point of failure and censorship. Use a combination of The Graph subgraphs for efficient historical querying and direct RPC calls to the blockchain for real-time state. For multi-chain portals, implement robust fallback RPC providers to maintain uptime if a primary provider fails, ensuring users can always access and submit their votes.

In conclusion, a well-designed multi-DAO voting portal is a complex system integrating secure smart contracts, Sybil-resistant mechanisms, and a transparent user interface. Key takeaways include: using audited governance contracts with timelocks, implementing snapshot-based voting to prevent manipulation, ensuring clear transaction signing UX, and building on decentralized data infrastructure. By addressing these considerations, developers can create portals that are not only functional but also trustworthy custodians of decentralized governance. For further reading, review the OpenZeppelin Governance documentation and the Snapshot strategy guide.