Edit history
21 Jun 2026, 13:38 UTC · +1 / -0
Hello,
I was reading mpizenberg 's survey of group-decision platforms and two tools may be relevant to how we do discussion here in the future: Polis and Loomio. (Thinking out loud, would love input)
Right now each governance action gets a thread with comments and up/down reactions, and the real vote happens on-chain (DReps, stake-weighted). The up/down tells us "good comment," not "where does the community actually stand on this proposal."
Polis is the interesting one. It's not a comment tool, it's a sentiment map: people submit short statements, everyone votes agree/disagree/pass, and it clusters folks into opinion groups while surfacing the statements that bridge the camps. So instead of a 60-comment thread you get "here are the two camps, and here's what 80% of both actually agree on."
It would pair nicely with what we already show: the on-chain DRep tally (stake-weighted) next to a community sentiment map (one person, one vote). That gap, "the big stake voted X but the room leans Y," is exactly the thing a governance forum should make visible. Bonus: people who can't post could still weigh in by voting on statements. (On the other hand, I also see this as contrary to the original idea that you can only post on DRepTalk if you hold an on-chain role.)
Open questions:
- Do our proposals draw enough people yet for clustering to mean anything, or is this too early?
- Sentiment as pure signal, or could it feed into something?
- How do we show head-count next to stake-weight without implying the head-count is the "real" result?
- Loomio mostly overlaps with our on-chain voting, so probably not the whole tool. But one small pattern is worth stealing: pick your stance, write one line of why, thread renders grouped by stance. Could be nice for general discussions that have no on-chain action behind them.
- So I'm mostly curious whether the Polis layer is worth building, or whether it needs more discussion volume first to be useful.
References: