Gov-Acc Pipeline.

user : Governance isn't truly decentralized. assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : Funding decisions or project vetting are done by a central committee. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : I observe this pattern in many DAOs that use stewards to vet proposals. I also see platforms like Gitcoin having central committees to gatekeep participation in making proposals. assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : When DAOs do try to decentralize, there is low participation because of the time required to research proposals and the lack of incentive to do so. assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : When DAOs do try to decentralize, there is low participation because of the time required to research proposals and the lack of incentive to do so. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : I observe the same few people with large balances voting in DAOs assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : another problem assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : People with low token balances don't bother voting because they know they can't affect the outcome. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : In many votes, I only see voters or delegates with large balances assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : another assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : The process for submitting a proposal is too hard to understand, preventing new participation. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : I observe the same few people make decisions assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : another assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : Signaling and debating are done through a centralized platform administrated by a small group, and participation rules are different than those for voting. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : 1. Pre-voting discussions on centralized message boards can be overrun in ways that bypass the protections set up for other types of participation, like voting. 2. There's no check on admin power in DAO message boards. assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : That's enough for now. Let's move on. assistant : Great, let's shift to exploring solutions and who's working on them. ### What approaches, tools, or mechanisms could address the governance problems we've discussed? Share any potential solutions you're aware of or have considered - these could be technical tools, process innovations, research directions, or organizational approaches. user : I created Updraft (https://updraft.fund) to make it easy for anyone to create or join an idea (proposal) and to potentially get paid just for the act of signaling. assistant : ### Which teams, projects, or researchers do you know are actively working on these solutions or related governance innovations? This helps us map who's contributing to solving these challenges. user : 1. Participant 28 Participant 28 is working on Updraft, which launched June 2025. 2. Gardens added conviction voting to DAOs years ago to allow proposals with small budgets to pass with fewer voters. 3. BrightID created Aura as a way to decentralize the process of vetting. assistant : Would you like to share more solutions or identify additional actors working in this space, or should we move to wrapping up? user : that's enough for now assistant : ### Thank you for mapping governance challenges and solutions Here's a summary of your contributions: **Problems Identified:** 1. Governance isn't truly decentralized - funding decisions and project vetting are done by central committees 2. Low participation when DAOs try to decentralize due to time required to research proposals and lack of incentives 3. People with low token balances don't vote because they can't affect outcomes 4. Proposal submission process is too hard to understand, preventing new participation 5. Signaling and debating happen on centralized platforms with different participation rules than voting **Evidence Provided:** - Many DAOs use stewards to vet proposals; platforms like Gitcoin have central committees gatekeeping proposal participation - Same few people with large balances consistently vote in DAOs - Only voters/delegates with large balances visible in many votes - Same few people repeatedly making decisions - Pre-voting discussions on centralized message boards can bypass voting protections; no check on admin power in DAO message boards **Solutions & Approaches:** - Updraft - makes it easy for anyone to create/join proposals and get paid for signaling - Conviction voting - allows proposals with small budgets to pass with fewer voters - Aura (BrightID) - decentralizes the vetting process **Active Contributors:** - Participant 28 Participant 28 - Updraft (launched June 2024) - Gardens - conviction voting implementation - BrightID - Aura vetting system Your input will be synthesized with other participants' contributions to help build the gov/acc research roadmap. This will inform the visualization and workshop at EthCC, where we'll work on coordinated solutions to these governance challenges. Does this summary capture your main points accurately, or would you like to clarify or add anything? user : Updraft was launched in June 2025 , not June 2024 assistant : Thank you for the correction! I've updated the summary: **Active Contributors:** - Participant 28 Participant 28 - Updraft (launched June 2025) - Gardens - conviction voting implementation - BrightID - Aura vetting system Is there anything else you'd like to clarify or add before we close? user : That's it assistant : Thank you for participating in phase 1 of gov/acc research! Your insights on centralization challenges, participation barriers, and solutions like Updraft will help inform the research roadmap and the work at EthCC. We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective as a tooling provider working directly on these problems.