Signaling tools for the Ethereum governance processes


This topic aim to gather all the signaling tools the community has created in order to get feedback and insight for all stackholders who want to get involved in the governance process


Tenegraph is building out a nice solution for this.


I think it’d be cool if we let individual subnetworks determine how to gauge their own community interests and forward those signals forward. Treat the networks like delegates and let them each test solutions for gauging their communities wants.

So that would require weighting the impact of each community. Maybe by economy size, a factor for robustness of gathering opinions (no mechanism for gathering community consensus doesn’t get much weight cause it’s a poor delegate).

1 Like

what do you mean by “subnetworks” - as in dapps / classes of users? or reddit / twitter


Agree that signaling is crucial and not so great today.

In Minimum viable governance I proposed a hierarchical DAO structure where broad groups of stakeholders (e.g., miners, core devs, investors, EthMagicians, dapp devs, etc.) are each represented by a DAO that passes signals upwards. Regardless what you think about EIP-1890 and the funding piece of this proposal, I think it would be interesting to explore a system such as this to allow organic signaling structures to emerge, and to scale - since there’s no way that a single mechanism could capture all of the signals we need.


yea more dapps that have provable users in the network. Reddit/Twitter aren’t so good for proof of participation.

1 Like

Last year at the Fellowship of Ethereum Magician’s council of Berlin I presented on different ways to measure sentiment. Here are the slides.

As Eric said, Tennagraph is has already made huge progress on the signaling site and there is a semi-active signaling “ring” on the Ethereum Magicians forum.

I think gas voting is one of the most interesting signals we can have on Ethereum. Pioneered by Christoph Jentzsch from, gas voting works by measuring (ideally) two major groups: users and developers.

  • Users vote with their accounts, and add up the sum of the gas they’ve spent as their weight.
  • Developers vote with their contracts, and the gas spent using those contracts add to the sum of the developers’ vote weight.

I like the idea using gas voting as part of signalling. It really puts the word ‘stakeholder’ into perspective because the gas serves as evidence of network usage. The one thing that came to my mind though was: how can it be gamed? I think gas voting would need to be used as a signal among others.


I think gas voting would need to be used as a signal among others.

Definitely agree. Signaling should include various methods and therefore stakeholder groups.

The one thing that came to my mind though was: how can it be gamed?

It can be gamed by creating meaningless transactions that use gas, and therefore burning ETH. There is an incentive to not game this because you have to burn ETH, but this of course favors the wealthy. One could create methods of weighing older gas spent higher (before this method was introduced), but this favors early adopters.

I believe no signal is perfect, but continuously educating the readers of signals to account for the cons of every signal will help. For example, what inspired me to get into Signaling for Ethereum was the UASF movement in Bitcoin, where users ran full nodes to enforce the network rules as they see fit. However, the problem with full node signaling is that it’s not sybil-resistant (bear in mind that there is much more to UASF than full node signaling), and metrics on the number and percentage of full nodes were used to incorrectly gauge sentiment. If the bitcoin signaling site accounted for this trade-off, perhaps the “public” would not have been swayed the way it had.


I believe no signal is perfect, but continuously educating the readers of signals to account for the cons of every signal will help.

This is precisely it. Signals should be as diverse as the community using it and weighed appropriately based on these tradeoffs. A decentralized community like ETH will likely never be appropriately measured using just one metric. Spreading the signalling power across multiple signals also serves as a deterrent against capture.

It could be argued that UASF and the signalling site associated with it also might have inspired DDOS attacks on the opposing side.


Is it possible to find a consensus on what categories of community members can be characterised as Stakholders ?
I have proposed one
Builders: groups of peoples who directly or indirectly help building, developing the core infrastructure of Ethereum and everything on top of it (DAPPS, tools and services).
**Holders:**group of people who directly or indirectly have a stake in the ecosystem. (in the form of private equity or in a form of crypto-tocken).
Users: They are the individual or group of people who use the tools and services enable by the Ethereum platform.
It seems that every one has its own definition, how can we agree on one definitive definition?


I like the concept of semi-active signaling “ring” created by the Ethereum Magicians forum However I’m not a big fan of Coin voting or hashrate voting for 2 reason.

  1. It introduce automatically a plutocrat/aristocrat system of governance as the wealthier token holders (like exchanges, hedge funds for ex) or the one with the most resources in material and ingenieering skills (mining pools, validators pools) will have a tremendous power to influence signals and altere sentiments.
  2. In term of privacy, users who are going to vote with theirs accounts can potentially compromise their privacy as an attacker can just wait for each single voting event in order to map the whole network.

Yes I agree with you one that one, we must learn at what happen within the bitcoin community and the USAF event. I also think that the use of full node as signalling tools is a very good idea. Maybe we could invent a hybrid model: full node quadratic coin voting
In order to vote you must use a full node udapted with latest releases and then vote with a customise voting token where the more token you are willing to use to vote the more gas you need to spend (in a quadratic way)… what do you guys think about this idea?