GOVERNANCE THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED
DAO Vote API
Show how a DAO decision reaches its outcome.
A DAO result needs more explanation than a winning percentage. Participants need the proposal, voting rules, relevant voting power, and evidence of what happened after approval. This page develops the questions a proposed DAO vote API should answer. It does not host a DAO, connect a wallet, execute proposals, or claim any real governance outcome on behalf of VoteAPI.com.
Bind the description to the intended action
Identify the proposal, governing system, network where applicable, and the version of the rules used to evaluate it. Keep the readable description alongside the specific actions it would authorize. A friendly title does not explain a recipient, asset, permission change, or execution condition. Design a correction process that preserves earlier wording and makes consequential changes visible. A participant should be able to inspect the same proposition before voting and after the result, without discovering that the underlying action list has quietly changed.
Explain influence and participation separately
Distinguish current holdings, delegation, and voting power applicable to a particular proposal. Then show quorum and approval as separate conditions. The OpenZeppelin governance reference separates voting-power, counting, and execution modules, which is useful context for evaluating a specific deployment. Your proposed API should expose the chosen rules rather than assuming one default applies everywhere. Label the units behind each tally and explain the role of abstentions. A count of voting units should not be casually described as a count of people.
Keep approval distinct from execution
A proposal may be open, approved under its rules, awaiting a later action, or already executed. Define the evidence required for each label and retain references that allow investigation. If an interface relies on a processed view of underlying records, show its observation point and freshness. Do not use one success flag to cover both recording a choice and carrying out a proposal. Test an unmet quorum, a canceled proposal, and a delayed execution using fictional examples so the intended wording remains understandable under disagreement.
COMMON QUESTIONS
A clearer
starting point.
Does a token balance always equal usable voting power?
Do not assume that. The answer depends on the particular governance implementation, delegation rules, and reference point used by the proposal. A proposed integration should retrieve and label the appropriate value from the responsible system, rather than guessing from a current wallet balance or presenting an unsupported eligibility claim.
Can a passed proposal be shown as completed immediately?
Only if the governing process and available evidence support completion of the relevant action. Approval and execution can be different stages. Display each state with its own meaning and reference, and explain a pending or unavailable execution observation instead of converting a favorable tally into a claim that an action occurred.
CONTINUE EXPLORING
Connect the ideas.
All 18 topic guides12 / 18
Blockchain Vote API
A blockchain voting interface should explain which network and contract a record comes from, what the record demonstrates, and what remains outside.
EXPLORE THE GUIDE
10 / 18
Non-Profit Vote API
A nonprofit may seek volunteer preferences, member feedback, or input on a community activity. The useful starting point is the decision the.
EXPLORE THE GUIDE
01 / 18
Vote API
The phrase vote API can describe a public results feed, an informal poll, a forecasting interface, or a governance tool. Those systems.
EXPLORE THE GUIDE