Creating a Governance Dashboard

  • Title: Creating a Governance Dashboard
  • Author(s): Raslambek
  • Submission Date: 06.10.2022

Simple Summary

This proposal offers to develop and integrate a dashboard into the dapp with visual information of various governance related parameters.


Since the very launch of the EulerDAO the community members have asked numerous questions on the token distribution. Leaving the trading aspect aside, various aspects of the distribution process are valuable parameters of a DAO. Despite this information could be found on the popular aggregators websites like Coinmarketcap or Coingecko, a visual dashboard integrated into the EulerDapp would be of a great help for users and delegates to understand the state of play.

A good example of such a dashboard could be found on the Compound governance page.

The Compound dashboard shows the number of tokens yet to be distributed, the number of votes delegated and the number of voting addresses. Despite all the information being more than relevant, it is still not comprehensive.

I would suggest the dashboard to include the following elements:

  • The number of tokens already distributed in comparison to the total supply (instead of a simple number of tokens yet to be distributed) with a visual diagram like on the screen above.
  • The % of votes delegated in comparison to the current circulation.
  • The number of voting addresses (including official delegates and self-delegated wallets)

The next section of a dashboard could include information on the current governance process.

The potential Euler’s dashboard would include the same elements as the Compound’s one does with some additional adjustments:

  • The dashboard should reflect the active proposals only and their progress.
  • The ended proposals should be available on a separate page, when clicking “view ended proposals”.
  • The ended proposals should be classified in the following manner: Failed (voted against or lacked quorum), Approved (successful proposal yet to be implemented) and Executed (those proposal that have already been approved and implemented).

Another section of a great importance would be top addresses by voting weight:

The need behind this is that currently only the information on official delegates is available. At the same time, there are big wallets that are self-delegated. For example, the eGP 3 passed largely due to the wallet 0x1423D630d5Ec2F8b97002A01AEdFC996b964a1dF (11k EUL). At the same time, given this wallet is not registered as a delegate, one could think that it should not have taken part in the voting in principle.

Apart from enumerating wallet addresses, it would be good, if possible, to indicate who those wallets belong to. It would be good to know the wallets of investors and EulerLabs team members.


The question of implementation is still open. I see the two possible ways:

  1. Ask the EulerLabs team to develop and integrate it into the dapp.
  2. Open a grant call for developers to develop it and ask the EulerLabs team to integrate it then.

All in all, the EulerLabs team should be involved as they have necessary information, on the ownership of wallets for example, and have access to the dapp to implement changes.


Once the implementation question is resolved, this section will be modified accordingly.

1 Like

I fully support this, it seems to be a very useful thing for transparency and better UI experience.

I would be strongly against doxxing wallet addresses of team members, investors or advisors.
Could be done on an opt-in basis though.

1 Like

I am personally against doxxing. For security purposes people tend to split funds across multiple wallets too.

1 Like

is dis web 2.5 or web 3, i’m confused

1 Like

Hey guys! @seraphim @Mick @uhhhh thank you for the feedback. Just to clarify, it is not about doxxing all the wallets, but just those participating in the voting (self-delegated or delegated to). Anyway, I perfectly understand your worries. So what do u think if we delete the paragraph about doxxing and leave just delegates’ and self-delegated wallets (just addresses without doxxing) ?

Maybe something is getting lost in translation here.

I think all that @Raslambek means by “doxxing wallets” is to be able to identify how delegates vote on governance proposals. If that’s correct, I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that. Delegate voting should be transparent and accountable.

1 Like

Hey @defioperator.eth ! Tbh initially, I suggested that some wallets owned by VC for example to be indicated (like in Compound’s example). However, I would not push it and actually your understanding is exactly what I have in mind right now. Thanks!

1 Like