Argumentree brings structured argumentation to Polkadot and Kusama OpenGov. It fetches referenda from Polkassembly and Subsquare, aggregates their comments, and lets you build hierarchical pro/con argument trees for any referendum. Authenticate with Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova across both Polkadot and Kusama, and score wallets on Substrate-native signals (on-chain identity, staking, wallet age) to keep sockpuppets out. Argumentree is a companion to Polkassembly — it adds the structured argument the flat comment section lacks.
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 pulls those referenda in and gives them what Polkassembly 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 Polkassembly and Subsquare.
Proposers and the community debate an idea on Polkassembly or Subsquare 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 Polkassembly 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 Polkassembly's flat comments 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 Polkassembly 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 Polkassembly or the Polkadot wiki.
Polkassembly and Subsquare 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 Polkassembly comments, Subsquare, 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.
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.
Argument-level evaluations feed 15+ industry-standard frameworks — Post-Mortem, Post-Implementation Review, Variance Report, Earned Value Management and more — each deepened by community insight.
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.
On Polkadot and Kusama, Argumentree can score connected wallets to keep sockpuppets out of the debate — using Substrate-native signals, not just a wallet address.
Explore a real blockchain governance tenant — connect a wallet and see structured discussion in action.
Yes. Argumentree fetches referenda from Polkassembly and Subsquare and lets you build a structured argument tree for any of them. Authenticate with Polkadot.js, Talisman, SubWallet or Nova across both Polkadot and Kusama.
Polkassembly is the go-to OpenGov interface, but its discussion is a flat comment section under each referendum. Argumentree adds a hierarchical pro/con argument tree with ratings and AI checks — you can see the strongest arguments for and against at a glance, and pull in the existing Polkassembly and Subsquare comments.
Argumentree reads referenda and aggregates their discussion today; the structured deliberation and wallet verification run live. On-chain conviction-vote submission from within Argumentree is on the roadmap — for now, cast the vote in your wallet and deliberate in Argumentree.
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 Catalyst.
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.