Hello,
recently I was reading @gufmar's More Viable Governance (MVG) and it had one line that stuck with me:
Governance as data. Proposals, frameworks, disclosures, and votes use structured fields so DReps and tools can filter, compare, and pre-assess at scale.
DRepTalk is already one of those tools: it indexes actions, votes and DReps today. MVG describes the vision but on purpose leaves out the schema and the API. That gap feels like exactly where a tool like this could help: show what structured proposal data actually looks like when you consume it, and let that feed back into the bigger picture.
A few things that feel explorable, mostly on the data side:
- Surface the structured fields that already exist in proposal metadata (treasury share split, category, KPIs) and make them filterable, instead of burying them in free text.
- A compare view: proposals side by side, not one at a time.
- Institutional memory: tie a proposer to their past actions and outcomes across budget years, so a track record is visible at vote time.
- Show conflict-of-interest and third-party disclosures where the metadata carries them.
None of this needs MVG to be adopted on-chain first. Most of these fields don't exist in metadata yet, so we'd be prototyping the consumption side and effectively showing what the fields would need to be.
Open questions:
- Which of these is actually useful to DReps today vs. nice in theory?
- How much structured data is even in current proposal metadata to work with?
- Who is writing a CIP?
References: