Amir previously suggested in the AssangeDAO Telegram group that adopting Tally could upgrade the DAO’s governance system to a more robust, on-chain framework. However, he did not provide specific implementation steps or a detailed roadmap for this transition. It’s unclear whether Amir has the time or intention to submit a formal proposal draft on the AssangeDAO forum. We are seeking input from technically knowledgeable community members to develop and share a comprehensive feasibility plan under this topic.
The plan should:
Assess the feasibility of transitioning AssangeDAO’s current governance (based on JUSTICE token voting, primarily off-chain via Snapshot) to Tally’s on-chain governance system.
Outline specific implementation steps, including technical requirements, smart contract integration, and community engagement processes.
Estimate costs (e.g., gas fees, development, and deployment) and propose funding sources (e.g., DAO treasury or community contributions).
Address potential challenges, such as voter participation, gas cost barriers, and alignment with AssangeDAO’s decentralized ethos.
Propose a timeline for the transition and governance upgrade.
Optionally, suggest whether Tally’s MultiGov feature (for multi-chain governance) could be relevant, given AssangeDAO’s operations on Ethereum.
We encourage technically proficient members or teams to post their ideas or draft proposals on the forum, building on Amir’s suggestion and leveraging Tally’s capabilities as described in public resources (e.g., Tally’s documentation and case studies with DAOs like Uniswap and Arbitrum). If Amir or others have additional insights, we welcome their contributions to refine the plan.
In fact, as long as both proposers and multisig signers remain active and engaged, the current governance model can still function effectively. The core issue lies not necessarily in the structure itself, but in the inactivity . Ensuring that newly appointed multisig signers and proposers remain consistently active and fulfill their responsibilities—along with establishing clear onboarding and removal mechanisms—may also be a key direction for repairing the governance structure.
Yes, Tally is more decentralized, but it is harder to implement and less secure. No mechanism is perfect. Given the current situation, I believe getting the community active first might be a better choice.
hi, @Gabriel Now it seems to be stuck again, what do we need to do next? Do you have any plans? How long will it take to implement? communities require strong leadership rather than lengthy and ineffective discussions
1） I think the first thing to do now is to add new multi-signatures and delete the multi-signatures who have left the community, establish a proposer system, and quickly establish a governance system.
2） I am against promoting on-chain governance at this stage. The current snapshot is sufficient. There will be time to migrate to the chain later, but the priority is not high at present.
It has been almost two months since you initiated the AIP cast, and we have only decided on a GTU candidate, which is inefficient, helping the community establish governance is your leisure time
Some people were calling for decentralisation and a speedier proposal system with more equality among the membership. Current multisigs were not always available to sign off on approved projects. Current proposal system before GTU was limited to a list of approved proposal writers. The question remains as to how customisable Tally would be to incorporate a ‘Consensus Unit’ like feature. Tally may not be super user friendly for NESB (non-English speaking background speakers).
Not available - must advice the Governance “Dept” and Consensus unit. Multi sig status withdrawn otherwise or temporary replacement elected if a multi sig chooses a leave period and a return to work.