Argumentree brings structured argumentation to Polkadot and Kusama OpenGov. Any member can open a discussion on any Polkadot or Kusama topic — a referendum, a treasury proposal, a track parameter — author the pro/con arguments or paste the referendum text for extraction, and build a hierarchical argument tree with the community. Authenticate with Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova across both networks. Automatic referendum import and conviction voting from inside the discussion are on the roadmap, wired up individually per DAO and chain on request. Argumentree is a companion to the OpenGov interfaces — it adds the structured argument their flat comment sections lack.
OpenGov lets any DOT holder put a referendum on-chain — a radically open system that generates a firehose of proposals and flat forum comments. Argumentree gives each referendum what a comment thread can't: a hierarchical argument tree.
Connect with Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova. Covers both Polkadot and its Kusama canary network.
Watch how a proposal becomes a structured pro/con argument tree — with Q&A, compromise and a permanent record of the reasoning.
OpenGov (Gov2) replaced Polkadot's council-led model with fully token-driven referenda across multiple Origins and Tracks, using conviction voting and per-track delegation. Discussion lives on the ecosystem's governance forums and explorers.
Proposers and the community debate an idea on the ecosystem's governance forums before or during the referendum — flat comment threads under each proposal.
Any DOT (or KSM) holder can submit a referendum on the appropriate Track/Origin — from small tips to Root-level protocol changes.
Holders vote Aye/Nay, locking tokens longer (higher conviction) for more weight, or delegate their vote per track to a trusted voter.
Each track has its own approval and support curves; passing referenda are enacted, often drawing from the on-chain Treasury.
OpenGov's openness is its strength and its weakness: anyone can propose, but the reasoning is buried in comment sections with no structure. Argumentree adds the structure.
OpenGov lets anyone put a referendum on-chain, with rules that scale to the stakes. Radical openness generates radical volume — and flat comment threads can't keep up.
The Origin sets a referendum's authority level (from a small tip to Root-level protocol change); it determines the Track, which defines the procedural flow — voting duration, approval and support thresholds, and enactment delay. Low-risk tracks decide fast; high-risk ones demand far more support.
Voters can delegate their vote per track — a different trusted delegate for treasury spending than for root upgrades, or none at all. As of September 2025 the ecosystem's governance dashboards showed roughly 439M DOT delegated across ~154 delegates and 565 delegators.
Voters voluntarily lock tokens to multiply their voting power — from 0.1x with no lock up to 6x when locked for 32 enactment periods. Conviction rewards long-term alignment, but it also raises the stakes of every vote: locking tokens behind a decision you didn't fully understand is expensive.
Polkadot and Kusama Treasury governance plus the parachains running their own OpenGov-style systems — connect a wallet and structure the argument behind any referendum.
Polkadot OpenGov tracks, origins and thresholds are set on-chain and evolve through referenda — confirm current parameters on the Polkadot wiki.
The governance forums and explorers surface the referendum; the debate under it is a linear comment thread.
Native referendum support — but forum-style flat comments, not structured argumentation.
Solid on-chain data; discussion is still a linear comment thread.
Handles the mechanics of conviction voting; nothing for the debate.
OpenGov's openness means anyone can propose — so the reasoning for and against a referendum is scattered across forum comments, Element and X, with no structure to weigh it.
Telegram, Discord and forum threads have no tools to organize arguments logically. Complex proposals become convoluted threads no one can follow.
There is no way to see the arguments for and against a proposal at a glance — the reasoning is buried across hundreds of messages.
Multiple groups debate the same topic in parallel, scattering the discussion into siloed, inefficient and untransparent conversations.
The fast pace of chat deters thoughtful responses. High message volume with no structure overwhelms newcomers and veterans alike — a real barrier to participation.
Groups attract like-minded members, limiting diversity of thought, while conversations wander off-topic and rarely resolve.
Without structured argument and source verification, false claims spread and go unchallenged in the noise.
Finding an old decision or the reasoning behind a past vote is cumbersome to impossible. The 'why' is lost the moment the thread scrolls away.
The lack of transparency in voters' opinions and reasoning drives disengagement — and the cost of bad decisions to a DAO treasury is high.
Argumentree replaces the flat thread with a structured argument tree — the reasoning behind every proposal, visible, rated and permanent. Not another voting tool: the layer that makes voting informed.
Every proposal is the root node; pro and con arguments branch beneath it and recurse into sub-arguments. The full logical structure of a debate is visible at a glance — not a flat thread. Every argument can be shared on social media, and arguments can be submitted anonymously — no user data stored, so no Q&A, Compromise or Review on that argument.
Arguments are rated by validity and impact on their parent, so the strongest points rise to the top of each pro/con list. The community weighs reasoning, not just volume.
On submission each argument is checked for duplication (over 90% similarity), toxicity, logical relation to its parent, and correct pro/con placement — keeping the tree clean and on-topic.
Voters ask proposal and argument authors direct questions; the most important questions get up-rated. Deliberation becomes a cooperative learning environment, not a shouting match.
Rejected proposals collect every argument against them so authors can adjust and resubmit (for example a 12-month, 1M ask becomes a phased 6-month, 500k plan). Guided Compromise digitally integrates Harvard Negotiation Project, Walton & McKersie, and Thomas-Kilmann methods.
Once a proposal has run, users evaluate and comment on its specific arguments against the goals and targets that were promised — achieved or not, why, why not. Planned: the review comments per argument feed 15+ industry-standard frameworks automatically — Post-Mortem, Post-Implementation Review, Variance Report, Earned Value Management and more.
An argument-ranking dashboard and a timeline slider of the tree show how consensus evolved — where a debate shifted from pro to con, which arguments surged, how opinion moved after key events.
The UI follows each member's language and new arguments are auto-translated into 10+ languages, so a global DAO deliberates together instead of splitting into language silos.
Our public blockchain governance demo tenants — open one, connect a wallet and see structured discussion in action on real chain topics.
Your community gets its own DAO governance tenant: sign up, choose the DAO governance use case, and your members sign in with your chain’s wallets. Proposal import and voting are wired up individually, on request.
Yes. Open any referendum or OpenGov topic as a structured discussion today — author the pro/con arguments or paste the referendum text and let the extraction produce them — and authenticate with Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova across both networks. Automatic referendum import is on the roadmap, wired up per DAO and chain on request.
The OpenGov interfaces list the referendum and collect a flat comment section under it. Argumentree adds a hierarchical pro/con argument tree with ratings, AI checks, Q&A, Compromise and Review — you can see the strongest arguments for and against at a glance, and the root node's green or red colour shows where the community stands.
Not yet from inside Argumentree — the vote is on the roadmap and, like the referendum import, is wired up individually per DAO and chain on request; for now, deliberate in Argumentree and cast the conviction vote in your wallet. The discussion features run live today.
Yes. Kusama uses the same OpenGov model and the same Polkadot-ecosystem wallets, so Kusama referenda are supported alongside Polkadot's.
Sources: Polkadot OpenGov — Polkadot wiki · DAO proposal tools 2025 — DAO Times
Connect Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova, and structure the argument behind every referendum.
The multi-chain overview and chain chooser for DAO governance discussion.
Structured pro/con arguments for Uniswap, Aave, ENS, Optimism and Arbitrum proposals.
Structured pro/con arguments for AIPs, grants and delegate decisions.
Structured pro/con arguments for Conway governance, DReps and funding proposals.
How Argumentree structures DAO decision-making end to end.
The concepts behind on-chain and off-chain DAO governance.
Auditable governance records for DAOs and regulated organizations.