I’ve been spending more time using the Namadillo Governance UI lately and wanted to share a couple suggestions that might make things a bit smoother and more transparent, especially for folks who want to give and get quick context when voting.
Optional Comment Field for Votes
It’d be nice to have a simple comment box in the voting flow where users can optionally add a short note about why they voted Yay, Nay, or Abstain. Not meant to replace the forum - just a lightweight way to tie some reasoning directly to a vote.
There are a couple ways I believe this could work. One option is to take inspiration from Snapshot, a DAO gov tool i’m sure most of you familiar with. Snapshot has an optional plugin called “Comment Box”, which lets voters include a short note alongside their vote that gets published offchain. The front-end then just displays that comment with the vote. It’s simple, flexible, and doesn’t require much overhead, but it does rely on some outside infra and those comments aren’t part of the onchain record.
The other route would be to use Namada’s built-in memo field. Since memos are part of the vote transaction itself, any comment would live onchain and be permanently tied to that vote. That means no extra backend is needed, and everything’s fully verifiable. The tradeoff is that memos are short, can’t be edited, and do slightly increase the transaction load.
Both options have +/- depending on whether the priority is flexibility or permanence, but either would make it easier to understand not just how people are voting, but why.
Show Quorum in Units, Not Just Percentages
Another small tweak - it’d be helpful to show quorum not just as a percentage, but also as a raw amount of NAM. Makes it a bit easier to see how close something is to passing at a glance without having to do the math.
I think strongly that having a parallel offchain repository of vote comments are a super bad idea. Should be on-chain, ideally via a protocol change imo. (I can see how memo could be used, but I would prefer a design which had a comment built in by design)
Whether or not we need vote comments in a different matter, I don’t have strong opinions on that.
Appreciate this post, echoing a lot of what I’ve been thinking too. A few quick thoughts + some additional ideas below:
Fully agree. Giving voters a lightweight way to share why they voted a certain way, without forcing them to switch apps or write a full forum post, is a UX win.
+1 for the Namada memo approach. My bias is toward onchain memos for verifiability as well(especially given Namada’s focus on shielded integrity), but totally agree the tradeoffs are worth weighing. I was thinking of using Realms as an example of where they integrate on-chain memos once a vote is submitted.
Also a big +1 here. A simple % isn’t always intuitive, showing “X of Y NAM reached” alongside it (ideally with a progress bar) would go a long way in improving readability.
Lastly, some suggestions… let users view who voted not just by Yay/Nay/Abstain, but by stakeholder type: validator, delegator, multisig, etc. This could surface whether one group is dominating or if it’s broadly distributed. It would also be good practice to require a link back to the forum discussion of the corresponding proposal.
I think this discussion is partly split between Namadillo UI design and broader protocol suggestions. Some of these suggestions makes sense as Namadillo UI enhancements, but note many go to various explorers for information on proposals, votes, etc. Namadillo is not the one stop solution.
Ahh good ideas. Realms is a great comp (one I hadn’t thought of). Also, I agree showing the type of voter would be really helpful. Definitely worth exploring!
@preto thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you - an onchain solution is (in most cases) the optimal/long-term path for these kinds of features. If we’re going to support vote comments in a meaningful way, having them embedded into the protocol would be ideal.
That said, I still think a simple offchain version (while imperfect) would be a meaningful improvement from the clarity we have today. This space (myself included) has a tendency to overengineer before testing real demand/impact. The last thing I’d want is someone spending time on a protocol change for something we haven’t validated in practice. A lightweight version could help us learn what works before real resources are spent.
I definitely agree with your second point - this sits at the intersection of Namadillo UI vs broader protocol discussion. This post was mean to be more about UI-level improvements that feel actionable (now). Appreciate the push for clarity here.
Thank you, appreciate you not taking offense at my tendency to be a bit blunt at times (not the least above).
The issue as I see it is that Namadillo is not the one stop solution for looking at governance proposals. People will use explorers, other UI’s (such as the one Hector’s team is making) and tools not yet in existence. I was wondering the other day if we need comments on votes beyond what people can write in this forum, but if we do, I don’t think it can be limited to one source only (Namadillo).
I guess my standpoint atm is either not having it or using memo by convention (but ultimately I do feel a specific field in protocol would be good).
