Cosmos Hub X DAO DAO

20240613_DAODAO 1200×800 76.9 KB Greetings community, With the passing of proposal 895 the community has voted to support permissioned CosmWasm on the Cosmos Hub - unlocking a variety of potential smart contract use cases that can help build additional utility for $ATOM stakeholders. The first among these we believe could be extremely useful would be DAO DAO - decentralized governance tooling and human organization tooling in Web3 - empowering communities to rapidly turn tokens into meaningful votes and actions. DAO DAO smart contracts are audited and widely used across the broader Cosmos. DAO DAO Github Link | DAO DAO App The following is a list of some of the key utilities that DAO DAO can unlock for the Cosmos Hub: • No-code UI for making proposals, voting, and exploring DAOs • Sophisticated organizational structures using SubDAO hierarchies and Authz • Seamless cross-chain accounts, allowing for Interchain staking and app integrations • Vesting payroll management and retroactive compensation solutions • Treasury spends and swaps • Manage staking and rewards • On-chain, governance gated key / value store • Proposal inbox, push, and email notifications •…

Excerpt (1197 of 9547 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

ATOMAcceleratorDAO:

At AADAO, we use DAO DAO extensively for our own operations and are actively developing a grant for DAO DAO to deploy onto Gaia. Our grant will likely cover costs related to the infrastructure, maintenance and continuous development of DAO DAO, as well as some customizations and feature requests to better align DAO DAO with the Cosmos Hub.

I have some input on some DAO features I’m intrested in exploring/contributing for some of the RWA/RWP I’m currently in negotiations on. Not much different than the UX of proposals so the feature requests should be minimal, but also a little extensible.

I haven’t explored the whole blockchain universe of DAO frameworks, but can anyone tell me a DAO framework they like more than DAO DAO? No bias.

As a side note here are some DAOs I know:

• Aragon
• Colony
• Moloch

Being one of the most active users of DAODAO since elected on the Juno Development Department, I am in favour of this proposal, especially if it brings greater transparency and more participation to the Cosmos Hub and all of its teams & treasuries.

If you are looking for members to join, collaborate, provide feedback or help governing the to-be-formed DAOs, feel free to contact me on X (kopeboy), Discord (.kopeboy), or LinkedIn.

FYI, since you are talking about funding DAODAO, please note that itself is already governed as a DAO on Juno and it was already funded by JUNO community pool with Prop #285.

There is also realms.today on Solana ( DAOs and Governance | Solana ), that I tested. It can be powerful and has some interesting integrations with 3rd parties (like ID verification), but the UI is less intuitive, more complex than DAODAO imho and UX worse in general. Solana doesn’t have protocol on-chain governance so you could say DAODAO has the additional feature of showing and making any proposal (all Cosmos SDK chains’ x/gov and every DAO’s prop on each of them) look like they were part of the same, cross-border governance framework, and making you feel a cosmonaut citizen (thanks to IBC too). Another powerful governance system is the one of Polkadot & Kusama and their parachains, which have some important features that are still missing on Cosmos and DAODAO, both on-chain (like different tracks, voting conviction by time locking, voting-power delegation to any account, etc.), and off-chain, with nice UIs like Subsquare and Polkassembly that let you find on a calendar, filter, comment, etc. on each proposal (things that DAODAO UI still lacks). I think the most popular governance frameworks on EVMs usually don’t vote directly on-chain, so it’s a different paradigm (not…

Excerpt (1196 of 1270 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Good information.

I haven’t seen the Polkadot/Kusama and Solana DAO frameworks. I’m of the opinion that traditional businesses will function well under a DAO framework and DAO organizational structure, understanding the pros and cons of different DAOs and their underlying protocols could make a difference in how efficiently those organizations function.

Paypal fits into this nicely too. Being able to send proposals and invoices to customers and be paid in crypto, cash or credit after the work is completed adds flexibility and meeting your customer where they do business. Exploring a paypal DAO-DAO integration would be worthwhile.

It’s would be nice to see a thorough study done with the strengths and limitations of different DAOs. I think DAO DAO will excel with the RWP and Cosmos can too in general.

I love the initiative, DAO DAO and its team.

However, I wonder how you envision contract security upgrades to work. State of the art is that for permissioned CosmWasm setup with no address allow listing every security patch has to go through a 2 weeks govenance voting period. In the Open Source space those patched are released as source code and if not they can likely be reverse-engineered. That means any security fix to DAO DAO or any of its dependencies leaves all instances unprotected for more than 2 weeks. In cosmwasm-std we had security issues that could only be fixed by updated contracts twice now. Only a small number of dapps were affected but that was pure luck.

This question is relevant for any contract but I just heard the spaces about DAO DAO today.

hey simon, we’re planning to go the whitelisted address route. requiring the whole chain to vote to deploy 15+ contracts every time we want to release new features/security upgrades is too much and poses the security risks you mention. that is just unreasonable, and the chain should only have to decide if we are allowed to deploy and maintain these contracts. this privilege can always be revoked later, so there are the sufficient checks in place IMO. to keep everyone safe, i believe we need to be able to deploy new versions ASAP, so the whitelisted address route makes the most sense to me. DAO DAO’s security model is different from other dApps because we don’t actually host contracts for you to interact with—we just write and audit them, and you instantiate your own when you make a DAO. thus DAO DAO DAOs are entirely sovereign—i.e. the DAO DAO team cannot upgrade anyone’s contracts. a DAO is the admin of all of its own contracts, including itself (dao-dao-core). while this adds some friction to upgrading DAOs, requiring social systems in place for communicating when there are necessary security upgrades, it also ensures that there is no single point of failure . it’d be…

Excerpt (1194 of 1956 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This helps a lot, thank you!

I agree with allow-listing the dev team of the contracts as this helps with upgrading software.

You can always do something similar to what I seen on ETH some years ago on a smaller project. Each contract, etc that was supposed to go into the code, was first published for review on a forum, where it went through a set of stages basically:

• dev review
• peer review (community engagement, bug program, etc)
• dev review

this skips the onchain review, yet retains a peer review feel (not each contract has to be checked, its up to the community)

Thank you, AADAO , especially for including the potential risks section.

A quote from the previously proposed constitution post:
“…adding excessive functionality to the Hub will increase attack vectors and detract from its central role of providing security for the ecosystem.”

By adding extra functions onto the Cosmos Hub, i.e. CosmWasm, and now potentially DAODAO (which, as a product/tool seem useful/great), for greater collective confidence and transparency, could you share who exactly is a part of the DAODAO team + Oak Security team? Strongly believe sharing this would align with one of the Cosmos Hub’s core values of transparency and increase general confidence in enabling cosmwasm (long term), particularly making known any conflicts of interest + affiliations.

Transparently communicating this would be extremely helpful and arguably, absolutely necessary, simply due to the fact that there is not one “community,” but many, within the Cosmos/Cosmos Hub - both / / and everyone in between.

Thank you!