Discussion on the implementation of the Polygon Ecosystem DAO DApps Council

DApps Council

One of the main innovations that will debut in Season 1 of the Polygon Ecosystem DAO is the DApps Council.

The DApps Council will consist of projects that want to contribute to the growth of the Polygon ecosystem and that will make their contribution to the treasury of the DAO.

Once this onboarding process is completed, the projects will participate in issuing grants that are requested from Polygon Ecosystem DAO.

The Council will be implemented on a tiered system, where the pledged amount will be directly proportional to the size of the grants that individual projects can vote on.

Implementation methods

We now invite you to participate in discussing which voting mechanism should be implemented.

To date we have identified different implementation methods, all linked to a one-project-one-vote voting system:

  1. Off-chain vote, linked to a recognition system granted arbitrarily through the platform that will be used;
  2. On-chain vote granted to participant wallets, keeping a constant one wallet - one vote;
  3. On-chain voting using tiered NFTs distributed to participants, with a voting system one NFT - one vote.

The preference of the DAO Team and the Polygon Team is in the implementation of on-chain voting systems.

We have identified some pros and cons of solutions B and C, mainly discussing the possible imbalances and supposed privileges that today’s granting of these NFTs could entail in the future.

We would like to know your opinion and the solutions you suggest.


I am also in support of the on-chain solutions because of the obvious transparency. I would lean towards Solution C because would give members a tangible reward for what NFTs could entail in the future.


I also support the on-chain solution for transparency. And an NFT could be the perfect gateway as it could easily be later on transferred as per need.


I support option 3 -
Using NFTs to peg votes in (governed) tiers would enable voting to be based on more value drivers like desirability, involvement, credibility, etc, that may help decentralise the voting process :

  • We can have different NFT tiers that can be earned by direct payment, community engagement/involvement, peer referrals, and impact created in the space
  • The NFT tiers can be pegged to a voting system that distributes voting power across tiers in standard natural number models, fibonacci increments, etc
  • Desirability can be factored in through quadratic funding for NFTs (the first NFT you buy is at a base price, but every NFT after that costs more on a quadratic curve) thereby decentralising early adopter advantage for new entrants to the ecosystem
  • We can also introduce voting NFTs to other projects as rewards to bring in ecosystem incentives to participate in different degrees of governance
  • Pegging of voting power to NFTs can themselves be governed by standard token voting process to have a standardised base governance layers.

I think this would provide a lot of fidelity to voting importance, making the outcome of votes a lot more impactful, and remove the bias from early adoption advantage to the token system.

Would LOVE to hear other thoughts from the community!


I think these are great ideas. I’m not sure the lift to whitelist addresses to prevent gamification on 1 wallet 1 vote.

NFT’s would be preferable. If there’s concern around imbalances and “privileges” in the future we can make it clear it’s a recognition badge > anything else.


I also support number 3), although we have to find out a method to implement different voting weights IMO. Projects that supported the Council more should perhaps have more voting power.


I find both options of on chain voting great. As far as NFTs are concerned, quite some thought needs to be given to tiers and their voting power

1 Like

I like the on-chain with nfts too, with different tiers of nfts.

Only concern is elaborating a fair way to distribute those nfts with a system that avoids any abuse that could leads to single entities getting too much voting power.

Without getting in to more complex mechanics like holographic consensus and conviction voting, I think that we need to decide if we want to go for a quorum model or not. Both the solutions aren’t perfect so we should define what we actually want to achieve for the voting process. Fast and agile but with less “control” or slower and more reasoned with the risk of becoming a little “pachidermic”.


I also like option 3/C, NFTs can easily be tiered in several ways to allow for voting. Also we could then also in theory tie these NFTs and that tier to a date or a wallet and if the project is no longer supporting the DAO their tier/voting could change over time based on involvement.

So I very much like the flexibility of NFT voting!


I will support the NFT voting system, we can create a voting power algorythm by mixing different type of NFTs (1155) that will create something more complex than 1-wallet-1-vote. I was thinking even on nfts with expiration time, so if you don’t vote in X time your vote-power will be lost (just ideas of course).

Of course as PolygonME dad i will support with the identity layer too!

I’ll be happy to be part of this working group :muscle:


On-chain. Option 2.

Simple is better, and allows for more functionality to be added at a later date.

1 Like

Both of the on-chain options are most attractive to me as they set the stage for future growth within the dao.

1 Like

Hi everyone,

I’m Raf from Tally! We run a frontend for on-chain voting.

If the Polygon DAO wants to do on-chain voting, we can help with that! We support Governor-style voting contracts like OpenZeppelin’s version.

One of the advantages of on-chain voting is that you don’t need to trust multi-sig holders to interpret and implement the will of the voters. The voters can see the transactions that their proposal will execute if it passes. The big disadvantage is that users pay gas to vote.

We’d be happy to help deploy the contracts, too, if needed. We should note that Tally wouldn’t control the contracts. Only the DAO voters could upgrade it. Also, Tally wouldn’t have to be the only interface. The smart contract is an open API, so anyone could deploy an interface, such as Uniswap’s Sybil Interface, to provide an alternative for voters.

Happy to answer any questions about how we think about on-chain DAO voting or any other ways we might be able to help!

Edit: one other note is that a Governor-style DAO has a token, so it’s most similar to option 3 rather than option 2. If you want the NFTs to be vanilla pointers only useful for voting, you can make them non-transferrable.


Great initiative… Also some references to dappradar would be beneficial for the dao community


Excellent Polygon my love

1 Like

Hey @Grendel when the changes of a new grant process will take a place? And if we plan to submit it this week, what is the best place to do it ?

We have a unique concept with a working product and 2,000 DAU

1 Like

Hey Friend,

The new process is estimated to start with S1 in the middle of February. To submit this week use the forum linked on the DAO annoncement, I’m on mobile so its hard to link it. But otherwise ping me in discord and I’ll help you out!


1 Like

Hey @colonyfather as indicated in the other message, feel free to ping me on the Discord server 0xPolygon Ecosystem DAO and we will be able to find the best way

1 Like

Sure, jumping in discord :slight_smile:

1 Like