Project DAVOS – AI Delegate Matching Assistant for Polkadot OpenGov

8hrs 29mins ago
3
TimedOut
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
25,000USDC
Tally
0%Aye
100.0%Threshold
100%Nay
Aye
21.46KDOT
Nay
45.71MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
25.5KDOT
Issuance
1.58BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline2
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The referendum received mixed feedback from voters. While some found the initiative interesting, they expressed concerns about its high cost and lack of proven utility. Several voters questioned the necessity of the proposed tool, suggesting that existing solutions were sufficient. Others highlighted the need for more detailed information regarding the data processing and the project's overall viability. A couple of participants chose to abstain due to potential conflicts of interest or curiosity about the initiative's future impact. Overall, skepticism prevailed among those who voted.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up

PolkaWorld votes NAY

PolkaWorld will reject any proposal with an hourly rate above $100 until a standardized compensation framework is established for the Treasury.

This proposal lacks basic transparency — no team background, past work references, or GitHub links — only a personal name, making it impossible to verify credentials or delivery capability.

It also vaguely mentions “future proposals” without outlining a roadmap, business model, or long-term sustainability plan. There’s no clarity on whether the tool will be open-access, monetized, or integrated with existing voting systems. Without a clear growth path, it risks becoming yet another one-off effort — something we’ve seen far too often in the ecosystem.

Moreover, the heavy reliance on AI-generated content raises concerns about reliability. While the proposal mentions using RAG to reduce hallucinations, key outputs like proposal summaries and matching results are still LLM-generated. This creates a “governance suggestion black box” that could mislead users or introduce bias. In a sensitive governance context, such missteps can erode trust.

Read all feedback here.

Reply
Up

✅ Why vote YES:
• Improves governance transparency: Makes it easier to understand each delegate’s voting style.
• Addresses a real need: Many users delegate blindly or don’t participate at all.
• Explainable and traceable AI: Combines multiple LLMs with RAG methodology to reduce hallucinations.
• Clear deliverables: MVP delivered in 2 milestones – interface, AI matching, and a dashboard.
• Experienced team: Developers have already completed 2 Fast Grants.
• Small budget, high potential impact: $25k USDC for a tangible improvement in engagement.

❌ Why vote NO:
• Centralized at first: Decentralization through TEEs is planned later, not included in this MVP.
• Subjective matching: Value-to-vote alignment may not always reflect reality.
• Risk of gaming the system: Delegates might adjust their voting to optimize their AI score.
• Doesn’t solve everything: Abstention is multifactorial (UX, incentives, general interest, etc.).

🎯 A serious and structured project, but some may prefer to wait for a more decentralized version or a more organic adoption of participatory governance.

Reply
Up