user : Governance participation assistant : ### What specific governance challenge or problem are you observing related to governance participation? Please be as concrete as possible about what's happening and why it matters. user : There are several problems related to governance participation in the space. First is a complete disregard for governance frameworks in protocols and DAOs. Governance starting to seem unnecessary. assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : Low participation rate in governance proposals and discussion. Lack of interest from the "right" audiences. For example, a marketing or a proposal should have marketing experts discussing and trying to push that particular decision forward. Most DAOs have threshold in which only participation from the core team is enough to pass proposals, so there are usually no need to involve the right audience fit. assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : Confidentiality vs transparency. Most governance proposals are usually not detailed or contextual enough because adding all the details may compromise or hand product features, trade secrets etc. Or some decisions are shrouded in confidentiality agreements (mostly for good reasons) but this creates a problem regarding transparency. And poses the question of if I am voting for a decision which I just have little or half context, then what really am I voting for? assistant : ### What evidence or examples demonstrate this is a real problem? This could include failed proposals, low participation rates, specific incidents, data you've observed, or patterns you've noticed across projects. user : Proposals involving partnership agreements, fund raising proposals l, terms are usually confidential, listing terms especially on cexs etc assistant : Would you like to share another governance problem, or should we move on to exploring solutions and who's working on them? user : Let's move to the solution, i really do not have an idea who is working on all of this. But i have seen Aragon talk about ownership tokens which I think would help combat some of this... if token holders hold all rights to a protocol or dao then they will have more interest in the decision making of the protocol assistant : ### What approaches, tools, or mechanisms could address the governance problems we've discussed? Share any potential solutions you're aware of or have considered - these could be technical tools, process innovations, research directions, or organizational approaches. user : Ownership tokens, research on attention economy (how to capture the right audience in a space or world of short attention span), confidentiality and transparency intersection research, providing as much information as legally possible to better inform the right audience assistant : ### Which teams, projects, or researchers do you know are actively working on these solutions or related governance innovations? This helps us map who's contributing to solving these challenges. user : I am planning to work on some, i know the harmony team, Aragon and Metagov researchers are also hard at work trying to provides some insights and solution to this assistant : Would you like to share more solutions or identify additional actors working in this space, or should we move to wrapping up? user : Let's wrap up assistant : ### Thank you for mapping governance challenges and solutions Here's a summary of your contributions: **Problems Identified:** 1. **Governance participation crisis** - Complete disregard for governance frameworks in protocols and DAOs, with governance starting to seem unnecessary 2. **Confidentiality vs transparency tension** - Governance proposals lack sufficient detail or context because full disclosure could compromise product features, trade secrets, or violate confidentiality agreements, leaving voters with incomplete information **Evidence Provided:** 1. Low participation rates in governance proposals and discussions; lack of engagement from domain-appropriate audiences (e.g., marketing experts on marketing proposals); threshold structures that only require core team participation to pass proposals, eliminating need for broader community involvement 2. Proposals involving partnership agreements, fundraising, and exchange listing terms (especially CEX listings) where terms must remain confidential **Solutions & Approaches:** - Ownership tokens to increase stakeholder interest in decision-making - Research on attention economy to capture the right audience in an environment of short attention spans - Research at the intersection of confidentiality and transparency - Providing as much information as legally possible to better inform the right audience **Active Contributors:** - You (planning to work on some of these solutions) - Harmony team - Aragon - Metagov researchers Your input will be synthesized with other participants' contributions to help build the gov/acc research roadmap. This will inform the visualization and workshop at EthCC, where we'll work on coordinated solutions to these governance challenges. Does this summary capture your main points accurately, or would you like to clarify or add anything?