An API standard for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), focused on relating on-chain and off-chain representations of membership and proposals.
DAOs, since being invoked in the Ethereum whitepaper, have been vaguely defined. This has led to a wide range of patterns but little standardization or interoperability between the frameworks and tools that have emerged. Standardization and interoperability are necessary to support a variety of use-cases. In particular, a standard daoURI, similar to tokenURI in ERC-721, will enhance DAO discoverability, legibility, proposal simulation, and interoperability between tools. More consistent data across the ecosystem is also a prerequisite for future DAO standards.
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Every contract implementing this EIP MUST implement the IERC4824 interface below:
The DAO JSON-LD Schema mentioned above:
A DAO MAY inherit the IERC4824 interface above or it MAY create an external registration contract that is compliant with this EIP. Whether the DAO inherits the above interface or it uses an external registration contract, the DAO SHOULD define a method for and implement some access control logic to enable efficient updating for daoURI. If a DAO creates an external registration contract, the registration contract MUST store the DAO’s primary address, typically the address of the primary governance contract. See the reference implementation of external registration contract in the attached assets folder to this EIP.
When reporting information in the DAO JSON-LD Schema, if a given field has no value (for example, description), it SHOULD be removed rather than left with an empty or null value.
If a DAO inherits the IERC4824 interface from a 4824-compliant DAO factory, then the DAO factory SHOULD incorporate a call to an indexer contract as part of the DAO's initialization to enable efficient network indexing. If the DAO is ERC-165-compliant, the factory can do this without additional permissions. If the DAO is not compliant with ERC-165, the factory SHOULD first obtain access control rights to the indexer contract and then call logRegistration directly with the address of the new DAO and the daoURI of the new DAO. Note that any user, including the DAO itself, MAY call logRegistration and submit a registration for a DAO which inherits the IERC4824 interface and which is also ERC-165-compliant.
If a DAO uses an external registration contract, the DAO SHOULD use a common registration factory contract linked to a common indexer to enable efficient network indexing. See the reference implementation of the factory contract in the attached assets folder to this EIP.
daoURIs may be published directly in the DAO's contract or through a call to a common registration factory contract. In cases where both occur, the daoURI (and all sub-URIs) published through a call to a registration factory contract SHOULD take precedence. If there are multiple registrations, the most recent registration SHOULD take precedence.
Members JSON-LD Schema. Every contract implementing this EIP SHOULD implement a membersURI pointing to a JSON object satisfying this schema. Below, DID refers to Decentralized Identifiers.
For example, for an address on Ethereum Mainnet, the CAIP-10 address would be of the form eip155:1:0x1234abcd, while the DID address would be of the form did:ethr:0x1234abcd.
Proposals JSON-LD Schema. Every contract implementing this EIP SHOULD implement a proposalsURI pointing to a JSON object satisfying this schema.
In particular, any on-chain proposal MUST be associated to an id of the form CAIP10_ADDRESS + “?proposalId=” + PROPOSAL_COUNTER, where CAIP10_ADDRESS is an address following the CAIP-10 standard and PROPOSAL_COUNTER is an arbitrary identifier such as a uint256 counter or a hash that is locally unique per CAIP-10 address. Off-chain proposals MAY use a similar id format where CAIP10_ADDRESS is replaced with an appropriate URI or URL.
When deferenced, contentURI should return the content (i.e. the text) of the proposal. Similarly, discussionURI should return a discussion link, whether a forum post, Discord channel, or Twitter thread.
Activity Log JSON-LD Schema. Every contract implementing this EIP SHOULD implement a activityLogURI pointing to a JSON object satisfying this schema.
Contracts JSON-LD Schema. Every contract implementing this EIP SHOULD implement a contractsURI pointing to a JSON object satisfying this schema.
contractsURI is especially important for DAOs with distinct or decentralized governance occurring across multiple different contracts, possibly across several chains. Multiple addresses may report the same daoURI.
To prevent spam or spoofing, all DAOs adopting this specification SHOULD publish through contractsURI the address of every contract associated to the DAO, including but not limited to those that inherit the IERC4824 interface or those that interact with a registration factory contract. Note that this includes the contract address(es) of any actual registration contracts deployed through a registration factory.
The content of subsidiary JSON files MAY be directly embedded as a JSON object directly within the top-level DAO JSON, in which case the relevant field MUST be renamed to remove the "URI" suffix. For example, membersURI would be renamed to members, proposalsURI would be renamed to proposals, and so on. In all cases, the embedded JSON object MUST conform to the relevant schema. A given field and a URI-suffixed field (e.g. membersURI and members) SHOULD NOT appear in the same JSON-LD; if they do, the field without the URI suffix MUST take precedence.
Fields which are not appended with URI MAY be appended with a URI, for example name and description may be renamed to nameURI and descriptionURI, in which case the dereferenced URI MUST return a JSON-LD object containing the "@context": "https://www.daostar.org/schemas" field and the original key-value pair.
For example, descriptionURI should return:
Entities which are not DAOs or which do not wish to identify as DAOs MAY still publish daoURIs. If so, they SHOULD use a different value for the type field than "DAO", for example "Organization", "Foundation", "Person", or, most broadly, "Entity".
Entities which are not DAOs or which do not wish to identify as DAOs MAY also publish metadata information through an off-chain orgURI or entityURI, which are aliases of daoURI. If these entities are reporting their URI through an on-chain smart contract or registration, however, they MUST retain IERC4824's daoURI in order to enable network indexing.
The Entity JSON-LD Schema:
In this standard, we assume that all DAOs possess at least two primitives: membership and behavior. Membership is defined by a set of addresses. Behavior is defined by a set of possible contract actions, including calls to external contracts and calls to internal functions. Proposals relate membership and behavior; they are objects that members can interact with and which, if and when executed, become behaviors of the DAO.
DAOs themselves have a number of existing and emerging use-cases. But almost all DAOs need to publish data off-chain for a number of reasons: communicating to and recruiting members, coordinating activities, powering user interfaces and governance applications such as Snapshot or Tally, or enabling search and discovery via platforms like DeepDAO, Messari, and Etherscan. Having a standardized schema for this data organized across multiple URIs, i.e. an API specification, would strengthen existing use-cases for DAOs, help scale tooling and frameworks across the ecosystem, and build support for additional forms of interoperability.
While we considered standardizing on-chain aspects of DAOs in this standard, particularly on-chain proposal objects and proposal IDs, we felt that this level of standardization was premature given (1) the relative immaturity of use-cases, such as multi-DAO proposals or master-minion contracts, that would benefit from such standardization, (2) the close linkage between proposal systems and governance, which we did not want to standardize (see “governanceURI”, below), and (3) the prevalence of off-chain and L2 voting and proposal systems in DAOs (see “proposalsURI”, below). Further, a standard URI interface is relatively easy to adopt and has been actively demanded by frameworks (see “Community Consensus”, below).
We added the ability to append or remove the URI suffix to make dereferenced daoURIs easier to parse, especially in certain applications that did not want to maintain several services or flatfiles. Where there is a conflict, we decided that fields without the URI suffix should take precedence since they are more directly connected to the initial publication of daoURI.
In terms of indexing: we believe that the most trustworthy way of publishing a daoURI is through an on-chain registration contract, as it is the clearest reflection of the active will of a DAO. It is also the primary way a DAO may “overwrite” any other daoURI that has previously been published, through any means. If a DAO inherits daoURI directly through its contract, then this information is also trustworthy, though slightly less so as it often reflects the decisions of a DAO framework rather than the DAO directly.
Approaches to membership vary widely in DAOs. Some DAOs and DAO frameworks (e.g. Gnosis Safe, Tribute), maintain an explicit, on-chain set of members, sometimes called owners or stewards. But many DAOs are structured so that membership status is based on the ownership of a token or tokens (e.g. Moloch, Compound, DAOstack, 1Hive Gardens). In these DAOs, computing the list of current members typically requires some form of off-chain indexing of events.
In choosing to ask only for an (off-chain) JSON schema of members, we are trading off some on-chain functionality for more flexibility and efficiency. We expect different DAOs to use membersURI in different ways: to serve a static copy of on-chain membership data, to contextualize the on-chain data (e.g. many Gnosis Safe stewards would not say that they are the only members of the DAO), to serve consistent membership for a DAO composed of multiple contracts, or to point at an external service that computes the list, among many other possibilities. We also expect many DAO frameworks to offer a standard endpoint that computes this JSON file, and we provide a few examples of such endpoints in the implementation section.
We encourage extensions of the Membership JSON-LD Schema, e.g. for DAOs that wish to create a state variable that captures active/inactive status or different membership levels.
Proposals have become a standard way for the members of a DAO to trigger on-chain actions, e.g. sending out tokens as part of a grant or executing arbitrary code in an external contract. In practice, however, many DAOs are governed by off-chain decision-making systems on platforms such as Discourse, Discord, or Snapshot, where off-chain proposals may function as signaling mechanisms for an administrator or as a prerequisite for a later on-chain vote. (To be clear, on-chain votes may also serve as non-binding signaling mechanisms or as “binding” signals leading to some sort of off-chain execution.) The schema we propose is intended to support both on-chain and off-chain proposals, though DAOs themselves may choose to report only on-chain, only off-chain, or some custom mix of proposal types.
Proposal ID. In the specification, we state that every unique on-chain proposal must be associated to a proposal ID of the form CAIP10_ADDRESS + “?proposalId=” + PROPOSAL_COUNTER, where PROPOSAL_COUNTER is an arbitrary string which is unique per CAIP10_ADDRESS. Note that PROPOSAL_COUNTER may not be the same as the on-chain representation of the proposal; however, each PROPOSAL_COUNTER should be unique per CAIP10_ADDRESS, such that the proposal ID is a globally unique identifier. We endorse the CAIP-10 standard to support multi-chain / layer 2 proposals and the “?proposalId=” query syntax to suggest off-chain usage.
ContentURI. In many cases, a proposal will have some (off-chain) content such as a forum post or a description on a voting platform which predates or accompanies the actual proposal.
Status. Almost all proposals have a status or state, but the actual status is tied to the governance system, and there is no clear consensus between existing DAOs about what those statuses should be (see table below). Therefore, we have defined a “status” property with a generic, free text description field.
| Project | Proposal Statuses |
|---|---|
| Aragon | Not specified |
| Colony | [‘Null’, ‘Staking’, ‘Submit’, ‘Reveal’, ‘Closed’, ‘Finalizable’, ‘Finalized’, ‘Failed’] |
| Compound | [‘Pending’, ‘Active’, ‘Canceled’, ‘Defeated’, ‘Succeeded’, ‘Queued’, ‘Expired’, ‘Executed’] |
| DAOstack/ Alchemy | [‘None’, ‘ExpiredInQueue’, ‘Executed’, ‘Queued’, ‘PreBoosted’, ‘Boosted’, ‘QuietEndingPeriod’] |
| Moloch v2 | [sponsored, processed, didPass, cancelled, whitelist, guildkick] |
| Tribute | [‘EXISTS’, ‘SPONSORED’, ‘PROCESSED’] |
ExecutionData. For on-chain proposals with non-empty execution, we include an array field to expose the call data. The main use-case for this data is execution simulation of proposals.
The activity log JSON is intended to capture the interplay between a member of a DAO and a given proposal. Examples of activities include the creation/submission of a proposal, voting on a proposal, disputing a proposal, and so on.
Alternatives we considered: history, interactions
Membership, to be meaningful, usually implies rights and affordances of some sort, e.g. the right to vote on proposals, the right to ragequit, the right to veto proposals, and so on. But many rights and affordances of membership are realized off-chain (e.g. right to vote on a Snapshot, gated access to a Discord). Instead of trying to standardize these wide-ranging practices or forcing DAOs to locate descriptions of those rights on-chain, we believe that a flatfile represents the easiest and most widely-acceptable mechanism for communicating what membership means and how proposals work. These flatfiles can then be consumed by services such as Etherscan, supporting DAO discoverability and legibility.
We chose the word “governance” as an appropriate word that reflects (1) the widespread use of the word in the DAO ecosystem and (2) the common practice of emitting a governance.md file in open-source software projects.
Alternative names considered: description, readme, constitution
Over the course of community conversations, multiple parties raised the need to report on, audit, and index the different contracts belonging to a given DAO. Some of these contracts are deployed as part of the modular design of a single DAO framework, e.g. the core, voting, and timelock contracts within Open Zeppelin / Compound Governor. In other cases, a DAO might deploy multiple multsigs as treasuries and/or multiple subDAOs that are effectively controlled by the DAO. contractsURI offers a generic way of declaring these many instruments so that they can be efficiently aggregated by an indexer.
contractsURI is also important for spam prevention or spoofing. Some DAOs may spread governance power and control across multiple different governance contracts, possibly across several chains. To capture this reality, multiple addresses may wish to report the same daoURI, or different daoURIs with the same name. However, unauthorized addresses may try to report the same daoURI or name. Additional contract information can prevent attacks of this sort by allowing indexers to weed out spam information.
Alternative names considered: contractsRegistry, contractsList
We chose to use JSON-LD rather than the more widespread and simpler JSON standard because (1) we want to support use-cases where a DAO wants to include members using some other form of identification than their Ethereum address and (2) we want this standard to be compatible with future multi-chain standards. Either use-case would require us to implement a context and type for addresses, which is already implemented in JSON-LD.
Further, given the emergence of patterns such as subDAOs and DAOs of DAOs in large organizations such as Synthetix, as well as L2 and multi-chain use-cases, we expect some organizations will point multiple DAOs to the same URI, which would then serve as a gateway to data from multiple contracts and services. The choice of JSON-LD allows for easier extension and management of that data.
The initial draft standard was developed as part of the DAOstar roundtable series, which included representatives from all major EVM-based DAO frameworks (Aragon, Compound, DAOstack, Gnosis, Moloch, OpenZeppelin, and Tribute), a wide selection of DAO tooling developers, as well as several major DAOs. Thank you to all the participants of the roundtable. We would especially like to thank Fabien of Snapshot, Jake Hartnell, Auryn Macmillan, Selim Imoberdorf, Lucia Korpas, and Mehdi Salehi for their contributions.
In-person events for community comment were held at Schelling Point 2022, ETHDenver 2022, ETHDenver 2023, DAO Harvard 2023, DAO Stanford 2023 (also known as the Science of Blockchains Conference DAO Workshop). The team also hosted over 50 biweekly community calls as part of the DAOstar project.
Existing contracts that do not wish to use this specification are unaffected. DAOs that wish to adopt the standard without updating or migrating contracts can do so via an external registration contract.
This standard defines the interfaces for the DAO URIs but does not specify the rules under which the URIs are set, or how the data is prepared. Developers implementing this standard should consider how to update this data in a way aligned with the DAO’s governance model, and keep the data fresh in a way that minimizes reliance on centralized service providers.
Indexers that rely on the data returned by the URI should take caution if DAOs return executable code from the URIs. This executable code might be intended to get the freshest information on membership, proposals, and activity log, but it could also be used to run unrelated tasks.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.