ANV-1 Feedback Survey Results
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Did you use your ANT to vote in Aragon Network Vote #1? (January 24-26, 2019)If you did not vote, why not?If you did vote, what did you like about the process? What did you not like or find confusing?Do you have any suggestions about how the Aragon Governance Proposal process could be improved in the future? (Both submitting AGPs and voting on them.)If we funded an in-depth analysis of the vote data, what questions would you like to have answered or what information would you like to know about the vote?
2
NoI think that having independent community members doing proposals review would be great. Also having most proposals a month before helpsWhen did the voters get into the community, or at least acquired their ANT?
3
Notime window was too shortdidn't voteplease allow more time for voting!number of wallets that had ANT but didn't vote
4
NoWas not aware that it was happening.N/AN/AN/A
5
NoThe voting period is too short. Missed it due to being away on a business trip.Proposals should better be presented in a human-readable format such as newsletter over email. Browsing through GitHub is intimidating.Vote distribution - how many addresses participated in the voting and their shares. Also, why some votes require 50% support while other 67%?
6
YesOverall it was highly positive, the feeling is great. However while I think the tech looks nice and works well, progress could still be made to make it SUPER for voters to build an opinion and vote without efforts.- Don't know about feasibility (in regard of whitepaper, promises to investors...) but I think establishing two distinct proposal tracks could be nice. One with major AGP decisions like Meta, Flock & Nest, important proclamations... And another one for smaller impact decisions. But it looks like the Community funding DAO could do this so let's see how it goes. - I think proposals have to be more standardized and be easier to skim. Not too standardized though, not to kill info quality. - During AGP periods, I think its important that everywhere you see Aragon (social media, websites, articles etc...) the first thing you should see is a !!!CLICK HERE TO VOTE!!!. It has to be crazy obvious. At the same time, it would act as a communication campaign for Aragon's top-notch governance.I think boundaries have to be set, but there are a lot of data points we could think of: - How long the AGP was uploaded before vote vs. involvement - Participation rate in flocks vs. others. To evaluate interest in each category - Compare the participation rate according to the word length of the proposal on Github - Compare participation rate between tracks - Check AGP participation rates vs activity on the forum - Compare participation rate between proposals Tweeted by Luis & Jorge vs. other proposals - Try to check the channel that brought the voter (website, twitter, Aragon team, forum...)
7
YesHaving to submit so many transactions (one for each vote) was kind of a pain.
8
YesSlightly confusing format for linking between proposals and voting. Standardized summary format for each proposal in single doc would be goodSplash page that allows linking ledger. Bundle votes into one or two transactionsLevels of centralization. Who - what type of person- is holding all non voting funds
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...