Argumentree is an argument-native deliberation platform for DAO governance. It supports Ethereum and EVM Layer-2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon) via MetaMask, Cardano via Eternl/Lace/SecondFi, and Polkadot & Kusama via Polkadot.js/Talisman/SubWallet/Nova. There are two ways in: the discussion flow — live today — lets any logged-in member open a DAO-related topic by hand or paste a text for extraction; the proposal flow — roadmap — imports a DAO's real proposals automatically and turns each into an argument tree, wired up individually per DAO and blockchain on request. Both entry points get the same discussion features — hierarchical pro/con argument tree, ratings, AI argument-checks, Q&A, Compromise, Review, analytics timeline and auto-translation. Voting from inside the discussion is likewise on the roadmap, wired per DAO and blockchain on request. Argumentree is a companion to your voting tools, not a replacement.
DAOs vote on-chain, but they decide in Discord, Telegram and forum threads — fast, flat and forgotten. Argumentree turns that scattered debate into a structured argument tree, so the reasoning behind every proposal is visible, rated and permanent.
Ethereum • Arbitrum • Cardano • Polkadot
Watch how a proposal becomes a structured pro/con argument tree — with Q&A, compromise and a permanent record of the reasoning.
Any member can open a discussion by hand today; on request, your DAO's proposals can be imported automatically from the platform where you publish them. The entry points differ; everything after them is the same.
On request, Argumentree connects to the platform where your DAO or chain publishes its proposals, pulls new ones in automatically and runs each through the extraction pipeline — the proposal text becomes a hierarchical pro/con argument tree, ready for the community to deliberate.
Roadmap — needs a per-DAO integration; wired up individually per DAO and blockchain, on request.
Any logged-in member opens a discussion on any DAO-related topic — a draft idea, a treasury question, a delegate's decision. Author the main pro and con arguments per category yourself, or paste the related text (a forum thread, a proposal draft, a research note) and let the extraction produce the pros and cons. Then invite the community in.
Live on every DAO governance tenant today — no integration needed, independent of the proposal flow.
Whatever the entry point, the community gets the same discussion features: the argument tree, the AI argument check, ratings, Q&A, Compromise, Review, the analytics timeline and auto-translation.
This is the proposal flow end to end — tree, ratings, Q&A, Compromise, vote, Review. A plain discussion, live today, runs the same steps without a vote: its outcome is the root node's colour, computed from every rating in the tree.
Sign in to your DAO governance tenant with your chain's wallet — MetaMask, Eternl/Lace/SecondFi, or Polkadot.js/Talisman/SubWallet/Nova.
The created topic — or, once your DAO's integration is wired up, the imported proposal — is the root node of the tree. Categories — financial, technical, legal, community and more — group the arguments beneath it, each with its own main pro and con position.
Build the argument tree by adding pro and con arguments — per category, and beneath any existing argument, so the tree recurses into sub-arguments; attach evidence and sources to each. Every submission passes the AI argument check: duplicates (over 90% similarity), toxicity, logical relation to its parent and correct pro/con placement. Every argument can be shared on social media. Arguments can also be submitted anonymously — no user data is stored — which also means no Q&A, Compromise or Review interactions are possible on an anonymous argument.
Every argument is rated on a five-level scale from strong rejection to strong agreement, weighing its validity and its impact on the parent. Scores propagate up the tree — the strongest points rise in each pro/con list and the root node turns green or red: the community's verdict, visible at a glance.
Voters question the proposal's author and the argument authors directly; the community up-rates the questions that matter most, and the answers become part of the record.
When a proposal meets strong opposition, Compromise collects every counter-argument so the author can adjust and resubmit — a 12-month, 1M ask becomes a phased 6-month, 500k plan. Guided Compromise walks both sides through Harvard Negotiation, Walton & McKersie and Thomas-Kilmann methods.
With the arguments weighed, the questions answered and the compromises made, members cast the vote on the proposal — stake-weighted, with the chain's own delegation and ratification rules. Coming soon: like the proposal import, voting is wired up individually per DAO and blockchain, on request. Until then, deliberate here and cast the vote in your wallet.
After the decision, Review lets the community evaluate specific discussion or proposal arguments against the goals and targets that were promised — reviewed and commented by users: have the goals been achieved, why, why not — so the DAO learns from the outcome, not just the tally.
RoadmapPlanned: the review comments per argument feed automatically into popular evaluation frameworks — 15+ of them, such as Post-Mortem, Post-Implementation Review, Variance Report and Earned Value Management.
The analytics dashboard ranks arguments; the timeline slider replays how consensus moved; the tree is auto-translated into 10+ languages and stays as the permanent, searchable record — your compliance record, too.
The vote is the one step that depends on the chain: stake weighting, conviction or delegation rules, ratification by the chain's governance bodies, execution. That is why it is wired up individually — when a DAO requests it, its vote is integrated against its own chain and governance platform, on top of the proposal flow. A plain discussion has no vote: its result is the root node's colour, computed from all the ratings in the tree.
An argument tree is only as good as the moves members make in it. Argumentree structures every discussion in three tiers — a main position per category, supporting arguments beneath it, attacking arguments against it — and the classic moves of argumentation theory map straight onto them.
Argue that the claim itself is false — add a con argument with its own evidence.
Show that a reason the argument rests on is untrue or unsupported — attack the supporting argument, never the person.
Accept the premises but show the conclusion does not follow from them — the step in between is the weak point.
Strengthen a premise with facts, data or a source — evidence attached to the argument.
Justify why the premises lead to the conclusion — the reasoning itself, made explicit.
Ratings weigh an argument's validity and its impact on the parent; scores propagate up to the root node, whose green or red colour is the discussion's verdict.
Each ecosystem governs differently. Pick yours for the mechanics, the DAOs, and exactly what Argumentree does there.
The largest DAO ecosystem — Uniswap, Aave, ENS, Optimism, Arbitrum and more, across mainnet and L2s.
One of the most active L2 DAOs — a multi-billion-ARB treasury, AIPs and a paid delegate class.
Conway-era on-chain governance — DReps, the Constitutional Committee and live on-chain voting.
OpenGov referenda on Polkadot — conviction voting and per-track delegation.
MetaMask across Ethereum + L2s, Eternl/Lace/SecondFi on Cardano, and Polkadot.js/Talisman/SubWallet/Nova on Polkadot — one wallet sign-in on every DAO governance tenant.
Whether a member opened the topic by hand or a proposal was imported for your DAO, the tree, ratings, AI checks, Q&A, Compromise and Review work identically on every chain — the product is chain-agnostic. 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).
Question authors directly, turn rejected proposals into workable compromises, and review arguments against the goals that were promised — on every chain. Planned: review comments feed 15+ evaluation frameworks automatically.
Across every chain the pattern is the same: the vote is on-chain, but the debate that decides it is scattered across chat and forums with no structure, no ratings and no memory.
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.
Compliance isn't only about the vote — it's about being able to show how and why a decision was made. That 'how and why' is the discussion. An ephemeral Discord or Telegram thread can't be produced for an auditor or a court; a timestamped, permanent argument tree can. Argumentree turns a DAO's deliberation into a durable, defensible governance record — which is exactly where blockchain governance and regulation now meet.
MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) Article 68 sets governance and record-keeping obligations for crypto-asset service providers, and its delegated rules specify the records of activities and decisions that must be kept. ESMA has signalled it will look through DAO structures to economic reality — so many DAOs face CASP-style obligations. Structured, timestamped argument trees plus on-chain vote records form the durable decision record those obligations expect.
European DAO members are data subjects, but on-chain data is immutable — in tension with the GDPR right to erasure (Article 17). Argumentree keeps personal and discussion data off-chain in EU-hosted storage where it can be deleted, treating on-chain data as read-only reference. Your deliberation layer is compliant where the chain itself cannot be.
Wyoming DAO LLCs, Marshall Islands foundations and similar legal wrappers need evidence of genuine deliberation for legal standing and member liability protection. A hierarchical, searchable record of the arguments behind each decision is exactly that evidence — impossible to reconstruct from a scrolled-away chat.
Sources: MiCA practical guide — Norton Rose Fulbright · MiCA CASP compliance 2026
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.
Argumentree is an argument-native deliberation layer for DAOs. Instead of a flat Discord or forum thread, every proposal becomes a hierarchical tree of pro and con arguments — rated, AI-checked and permanent — so token holders can see the reasoning behind a decision, not just the vote. It complements the voting tools your DAO already uses; it doesn't replace them.
Two ways. The discussion flow is live today and needs no integration: any logged-in member opens a DAO-related topic, authors the main pro and con arguments per category or pastes a related text for extraction, and invites the community. The proposal flow is on the roadmap: it connects to the platform where your DAO publishes its proposals, imports them automatically and extracts an argument tree from each — wired up individually per DAO and blockchain, on request. Both entry points get exactly the same discussion features.
Ethereum and EVM Layer-2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon) via MetaMask; Cardano via Eternl, Lace and SecondFi; and Polkadot via Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet and Nova. Each chain has its own dedicated page with what is live there and what is wired up on request.
Not yet — voting is on the roadmap. It sits on top of the proposal flow (arguments → ratings → Q&A → Compromise → vote → Review) and depends on each chain's stake, delegation and ratification rules, so — like the proposal import — it is wired up individually per DAO and blockchain, on request. A plain discussion has no vote: its outcome is the root node's colour, green or red, computed from all the ratings in the tree.
No — it's a companion. Those tools handle the mechanics of the vote (off-chain signaling, on-chain execution, referendum listing). Argumentree structures the argument that decides how people vote: hierarchical pro/con trees with ratings, source-backed claims and a permanent, searchable record.
Q&A lets voters question proposal authors directly; Compromise (with Guided Compromise built on Harvard Negotiation, Walton & McKersie and Thomas-Kilmann methods) helps rejected proposals collect every counter-argument and be re-submitted; Review lets users evaluate and comment on specific arguments against the goals that were promised — achieved or not, and why (planned: those review comments feed 15+ evaluation frameworks automatically); and an analytics timeline shows how consensus evolved. Every argument can be shared on social media, and arguments can be submitted anonymously — no user data is stored, which also means no Q&A, Compromise or Review interactions on an anonymous argument.
Related: DAO governance use case · what is DAO governance · governance & compliance · DAO governance best practices
Open a discussion on any supported chain today — and have your DAO's proposal flow and vote wired up on request.