argumentree.io : improve decision making processes & decision quality, for a better allocation of DAO treasury funds!
Overview:
OpenGov faces challenges due to the prevalent use of social media, Telegram, and Discord groups, as well as traditional discussion forums, which exhibit certain limitations e.g: Lack of structured debate, no argument visualization, potential for echo chambers, inefficient fragmentation of community discussions, risk of misinformation, decision making intransparency, tendency for off-topic discussions and risk of misinformation. These reasons and the lack of transparency in the opinions and views of OpenGov user/voters can lead to user disengagement and potentially bad and expensive DOA decisions.
I would like to suggest a new way of discussing OpenGov proposals.
We should aim for a discussion forum designed to facilitate structured, thoughtful discussion on a wide range of topics. The discussions should also be in a clear, tree-like structure, making it easy to follow the logical flow of arguments and counterarguments. It should offer a unique debate format that allows users to constructively explore arguments for and against various positions, with the aim of promoting critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues.
The setup should encourage users to contribute thoughtfully and to consider multiple perspectives, enhancing the quality of discourse on the platform. The discussion platform should integrate a system for tracking and reflecting changes in consensus, allowing users to see how opinions evolve over time. We should be fostering structured and focused debates, and significantly enhancing the quality of online discussions and decisions.
Proposed Solution: We propose a new discussion forum with features designed to enhance transparency and effectiveness:
- Structured Debates: Logical organization of arguments with interactive tree structures and easy pro/con identification.
- Enhanced Navigation: Features for efficient exploration and tracking debate evolution.
- In-Depth Analysis: Tools for argument evaluation, consensus highlighting, and source integration.
- Q&A: Ask argument specific questions to the proposal author. Users can rate the question and answers for immediate feedback.
- Compromise: Tools for suggesting and evaluating compromises facilitate collaborative problem-solving, benefiting the negotiation process.
- Analytics Dashboard: Real-time updates on argument strength and community focus.
- Timeline Slider: Visualize argument development and discussion shifts over time.
Benefits: This platform will streamline discussions, prevent misinformation, enhance transparency, and encourage meaningful engagement by integrating diverse opinions and structured analysis tools. It aims to build a more informed and participative OpenGov community.
After so many years with traditional forums, discord, telegram and social media, its time to try something new to improve the DAO decision-making process & decision quality for a better allocation of DAO treasury funds.
Check out argumentree.io
The request of 1k ksm (15k $) is for a 90-day trial period use of the argumentree platform for Kusama.
Thank you for your support and participation!
Update 25.07.2025
Not clearly mentioned was, that after the trial period there will be a new proposal for eg. 1 year.
The idea was that during the trial period the community can discuss how such a proposal should look like and which features it should include,
but I also understand that some may want to have the discussion and clarity around that possible proposal already now, so the options are and I'm open for suggestions:
1.) treasury funding of a decentralized innovative web3 discussion app in what ever form the community likes, which will then be opensource.
2.) or funding through the "New Kusama Vision" Ref498 grant, of course then opensource.
3.) or continue as Service but where the app is storing key metadata onchain, if this is an option...
But looking at the current ChaosDAO vote, the effort discussing this now seems not worth it, without talking to that central authority!
Comments (4)
Requested
Proposal Failed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (6)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (27)0.0 DOT
PolkaWorld votes NAY.
We recommend developing the platform first and guiding the community to use it for a period of time before requesting retrospective funding. There are already mature governance platforms in use, and unless this is truly innovative or solves a real pain point, changing user habits will be very difficult. It still needs time to be validated.
See all feedback here.
JAM DAO votes NAY on this Proposal
We’re voting NAY on this proposal due to multiple unresolved concerns around transparency, architecture, and community alignment:
Lack of clarity and awareness: The proposer was unable to confidently answer where critical governance data is being stored - a major red flag for a governance tooling proposal.
Centralization risks: Reliance on MongoDB raises concerns over censorship resistance and long-term data availability, especially with only a 90-day data retention window and no clear on-chain backup or migration plan.
Closed source status: Despite committing in Kusama Proposal #433 to open-sourcing the project under an MIT license, they’ve made no mention of honoring that commitment in the current Polkadot Proposal #561, which is claimed to be a continuation of the earlier effort.
Insufficient ecosystem collaboration: There’s no clear indication that the project is being built in dialogue with existing governance toolmakers or end-users in the Kusama or Polkadot ecosystem.
Missing accountability: The absence of clear deliverables, open code, or on-chain archival plans makes it hard to justify this as trustworthy infrastructure for governance.
While JAM DAO welcomes experimentation in governance tooling, it must be held to a standard that reflects the importance of that role. We strongly encourage proposers to:
Be transparent about architecture and data practices
Meet open-source commitments
Collaborate with ecosystem stakeholders
Move key metadata and logs on-chain when feasible
Until those expectations are met, JAM DAO maintains its NAY.
@JAM Implementers DAO
Thank you for your feedback.
please see my answers below:
We’re voting NAY on this proposal due to multiple unresolved concerns around transparency, architecture, and community alignment:
Lack of clarity and awareness: The proposer was unable to confidently answer where critical governance data is being stored - a major red flag for a governance tooling proposal.
-> Its a mongodb, therefore all the data is in the mongodb, I know that.
Centralization risks: Reliance on MongoDB raises concerns over censorship resistance and long-term data availability, especially with only a 90-day data retention window and no clear on-chain backup or migration plan.
- Its a trial period, I'm open for feasible short term solutions. If you like you can host the mongodb where ever you want, be admin, and do what ever you want.
Closed source status: Despite committing in Kusama Proposal #433 to open-sourcing the project under an MIT license, they’ve made no mention of honoring that commitment in the current Polkadot Proposal #561, which is claimed to be a continuation of the earlier effort.
- if the development would have been funded then the code would be opensource.
Insufficient ecosystem collaboration: There’s no clear indication that the project is being built in dialogue with existing governance toolmakers or end-users in the Kusama or Polkadot ecosystem.
- we had this discussion last year already, some said it should be integrated as I have shown in my early 2024 slides, others said that we should first test it before we make the effort of funding and integrating into existing platforms.
Missing accountability: The absence of clear deliverables, open code, or on-chain archival plans makes it hard to justify this as trustworthy infrastructure for governance.
- Its currently a software as a service offer, so providing the platform is the deliverable.
- no open code, because of no development funding.
- on-chain archival plans was not intended during the trial period,again I'm open for feasible short term solutions.
While JAM DAO welcomes experimentation in governance tooling, it must be held to a standard that reflects the importance of that role. We strongly encourage proposers to:
Be transparent about architecture and data practices
- Its a mongodb, all data is stored in the mongodb, nothing else is mentioned.
Meet open-source commitments
-In #433 I have committed to MIT, based on the assumption or prerequisite that the development gets funded. No development funding, no open source!
Collaborate with ecosystem stakeholders
- One step after the other, so testing it first and then decide about the funding of a possible integration into existing platforms.
- depended on your definition of collaborate with stakeholder, I talked to Bill Laboon, Shawn, Jay, Leemo etc... All liked the innovative ideas, some adoption concerns because its new, which is fine.
Move key metadata and logs on-chain when feasible
- you can host the db, or you can tell me the easiest, most effortless way of achieving this for/during/after the trial period.
Thank you!