governance participation analysis

[Pfed-prog]

Similar to what what we have done with @BadmWe https://dspyt.com/gitcoinbetaroundanalysis

But an analysis of on-chain governance participation rate, defined by messari:

Besides, low quorum is a pervasive issue, most DAOs struggle to achieve a maximum of 40% voter participation. According to Karma, in Q3/Q4 of 2022 𝙂𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝘿𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 made up on avg. 53% of all delegates. They defined ghost delegates as delegates who have received voting power but have NOT VOTED ONCE! This number is even higher when we count no activity in the forum or community calls.

Goals

1. Increase Participation Rates in On-Chain Voting

2. Enhance DAO Legitimacy

Potential Milestones

Data collection

• Collect data on token holders and their participation in governance proposals voting. Compare with collected data from Karma, and Tally using python selenium.

Data Analytics

• Conduct comprehensive analytics on on-chain voting participation rates.
• Examine correlations between variables related to participation patterns to provide recommendations and insights.
• Analyze how Karma, Tally, and Snapshot affect participation in on-chain voting, which categories of users take part more often, and who publishes proposals most often.
  

[Pfed-prog]

[epowell101]

hey @Pfed-prog what do you think about splitting this into two pieces, one a data layer and pipeline and the second the actual analysis? Also do you see there as being overlap with issue #6 from @poupou-web3

Thank you thank you for creating this issue BTW! Some insights and great context in this issue IMO.

[Pfed-prog]

@epowell101 there is an overlap, absolutely

I believe that that most of the delegates do not leave data on arbitrum governance forum to enable a comprehensive analysis.

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/self-voting-policy-discussion-arbitrumdao-constitution/20886/8?u=pfedprog