Having experience in voting on various platforms and in connection with the increase in delegates and the development of delegation in Lido, I would like to have a more convenient interface for voting:
It is possible to add sorting of votes by vote power.
It is often necessary to see who makes the main contribution to the vote or to see whether a certain delegate has voted, knowing his VP.
Add the ability to sort by the voting option (For, Against, Abstain).
This is necessary to quickly find delegates who voted in some way and read their justifications.
Accordingly, it is necessary to add the Abstain option to the vote. For example, this may be necessary if the fact of voting is needed (if this is an active delegate receiving rewards for this), but has some kind of conflict of interest, which does not allow him to honestly vote For or Against.
Ability to download a voting file (as implemented in Snapshot. This is convenient for subsequent analysis
When clicking on a delegate in the voting list - add a link to his Delegate Thread.
I have listed all the functions that I use on other voting platforms and that would be useful to the entire community
If anyone has any other suggestions, please add them.
Ultimately, I unfortunately donāt know who is responsible for the frontend at Lido, it would have been good of Lido to suggest who is responsible for this and formulate their opinion - can this be implemented in the near future?
Whatās the goal / what metrics would the UI change affect? Product development through the forums is a notorious malpractice (ādesign by the committeeā), so I would be extra cautious of following that path.
On line by line basis:
Sorting & voting file download (1,2&4) helps with analysis, but ultimately UI isnāt purposed for that; practically 1) big VP is quite visible in the list; 2) ānoā votes are quite rare ā in most cases tokenholders not supporting the initiative just donāt vote; 3) thereās no āvoting fileā ā the votes are onchain.
Abstaining (3). Adding this requires the voting contract upgrade, and seem to address only ādelegate wants to vote not actually votingā; in that case note in delegate thread shall suffice (100% participation isnāt requirement even for public delegates).
Adding the link to delegate thread near delegateās vote (5) seems very useful.
We have shared some similar concerns with the UI and think that a lot of these points would be great to have implemented.
1: Sorting by voting power would be great. It is nice to easily see who the top delegates voted for what proposal, and itās pretty customary in every DAO as the baseline default UI. Additionally, some way of seeing where your vote lines up in the list is nice as well, to see what voting power you had at that exact vote.
5: Delegate thread would be nice. If a User has a delegate thread
Additionally, the ability to search for a voter and see their vote as well would be nice.
We support the UI being rather minimalist in order to get a clean view of the vote, going over the top with features ends up bringing more noise so less is more in that aspect.
Being that said, sorting out by VP, seaching for a particular voter and having the delegates thread at hand should be useful since they are go-to actions when going through proposals and donāt scramble the visuals. With governance stepping up we think these UI enhancements make up to a more engaged and informed community as well as contributing to delegates accountability.
The Abstain option is arguable since itās not standarized in all DAOs, but on an early thought the lack of the option shouldnāt undermine the participation rate for DIP purpouses since itās the delegates will to cast the vote and not having the option. This is certainly an interesting topic to explore on DIP iterations.
Hi, for Abstain option, I think since some DAO votes are āAdministrativeā and may not fall within every DAO delegateās expertise, non-critical votes should have an āabstainā option. DAOs like Arbitrum and Aave already have this, and it seems to work well
When developing a DAO, there will be a very large number of delegates.
For example, in one of the DAOs, in which I participate, there are more than 200,000 delegates. How difficult is it to see something with your own eyes and analyze it?
Previously, a delegate could not vote to express his negative opinion. However, now, in order to be on the list of delegates, it is necessary to always vote and justify your choice, so I assume that more people will start voting against and it would be good to see this.
The voting file can be formed from chain data. Simply finding it manually is a very complex process, it could be simplified for users. In addition, you will be able to analyze how the new delegate system works, whether there is progress, etc.
@cp0x, under the interface for voting do you mean Aragon (on-chain) only, or Aragon and the Snapshot (off-chain)? For the latter, we have no power over the Snapshot platform product development (which imho hs introduced some very nice improvements), or potentially we do by interacting with the Snapshot team or via a grant, but I do not believe this is a priority for time and budget allocation now.
In my opinion, changing Aragon without changing the Snapshot has little to no sense as soon as, in a nutshell, the Snapshot plays two roles: (1) a signal vote and then move to Aragon; (2) the vote only here. So your suggested improvements should be also reflected there.
Regarding the changes themselves, 1,2, and 4,5 sound ok to me, although I am not sure there is a high demand for them across the community and LDO token holders. Nevertheless, they may be very helpful in case of any issues with the voting result or maybe for Lido contributors when evaluating the delegatorsā performance.
I do not support 3 āadd the Abstain optionā. A conflict of interest should not be an excuse for not voting, as in the Public Delegate Code of Conduct it is mentioned:
I understand the reasoning behind including the Abstain option as a signal from the delegate that the vote has not been missed (rather than not voting at all) if there is no expertise in a specific proposal, but it may become a loophole for any hard or tricky decision the delegate or another voter does not want to make.
Earlier, the question of improvement metrics was raised. Ultimately, considering that vote.lido.fi does not integrate any metrics and contributors do not collect any user data for ethical reasons, itās difficult to determine the impact significantly. I find it hard to believe that the changes described above can meaningfully affect voting user flow. However, I agree that some of them can improve transparency for the community.
The team is already working to make it clearer where a delegate has voted and what their total Voting Power (VP) was at the time of voting. In my opinion, this is currently the main UI challenge.
Yes, for DAOs with thousands of delegates, sorting is useful, but I wouldnāt rush ahead. Lido currently has 20 active delegates, with only 8 holding a VP of more than a million.
Regarding the list of votersāif you could share your analytical goals and areas of interest, perhaps it would be simpler to compile a query in Dune Analytics. Contributors are also planning to create a dashboard. If you let us know what you need and for what kind of analysis, it would be very helpful, and we might include it in the scope of the governance health dashboard.
I like adding a link to the delegate thread for public delegates. I agree that itās useful and shortens the user journey when making decisions. Thank you for this suggestion.
Thank you for pointing out that thereās also Snapshot. I think we should make efforts to make the data and flow on these two platforms as similar as possible, but without spending an excessive amount of resources, especially since we havenāt received feedback indicating that the flow is unclear or complicated.
Regarding the Abstain option, I think there is no pressing need for it. In the case of Lido DAO, where the quorum is 5% of the supply on one option, abstaining does not help in achieving a quorum and can dilute responsibility. Even without considering that a contract upgrade is required, I believe itās unnecessary.
Anthony from Aragon here. I trust the current DAO ops team to determine their needs to best drive governance forward. The Lido DAO contributors currently maintain and improve the UI. We have made it known that we are always here if and when they may need support in anyway.
Regarding āabstainā, typically in onchain DAOs this actually is not counted towards quorum. Which has been a huge pain point for many DAOs over the years in our industry. Offering abstain in this manner could reduce all the hard work to create a delegate system to more easily reach quorum. On OSx this is a novel problem to fix, on OS weād have to look into it. But as mentioned above it doesnāt seem like a burning problem especially with clear rules via the ācode of conduct.ā
Due to the lack of votes and failure to reach a quorum, I propose to further extend the voting period.
In Snapshot, voting lasts 7 days, although this is a preliminary vote before the on-chain vote.
In various on-chain votes, the duration reaches 3 weeks.
In this regard, I propose to increase the voting period - 6 days FOR and 1 day only AGAINST.
Extending the voting period isnāt without its cons, and thereās an ongoing investigation into the technical aspects of what might be impacted by a longer voting period and what adjustments would be required.
