Governance UX improvements

Hi There !

Problem: Due to the rapid increase of Governance proposals going on Mirror lately, the Governance section is becoming a bit crowded with lots of proposals randomly displayed by type, progression status etc…

Consequence : it’s now becoming difficult for users to navigate through proposals that are still in progress and need attention compared to closed ones, which one are awaiting parameters vote proposal etc…

Solution : Some UX improvements I’m recommanding below :

  1. Adding a Gov. proposal Tree structure breakdown filter by type and status on the left. + Adding count numbers of each categories “N / n_i / n_j / n_k”, and if dynamic texts are possible : YES% / NO% / Quorum% / Time left status of each one so that users can quickly browse and access to urgent proposals.

  1. Adding the possibility to toggle between square and line views of proposals. Line structure have the advantage to ease the scrolling of users to quickly see patterns of important variables (proposals ending soon, quorum% etc…)

For disclaimer, i’m not a UX developper at all, just a Terra OG and Mirror fan like you all ! So this draft can surely be improved ; but the point here is to smooth user experience, which I’m sure can greatly improve governance participation !

Best of luck, keep up the good work, and Congratulation on your recent VC funding !

PS : Maybe adding categories to Mirror forum could be investigated too if forum participation keeps on growing


I totally agree with your suggestion.
It is very similar to the improvement we will make.



One thing I noticed is that the Quorum on votes is too volatile as a metric

Some proposals that passed quorum yesterday are now back under that same quorum after a drastic increase of MIR in governance over the last 24hrs

Would you guys consider making the quorum requirement calculated based on a trailing average of MIR staked over the last x days ?

1 Like

We’ll discuss it.
What’s really important is to give incentives to vote for governance.


Agree with @sim
If we can incentivize voting to all stakers, the new stakers which may cause the number of votes to call below the quorum can also vote to bring the numbers back up again.

But this means new incentives are required, which is a pretty big change for the protocol. We may need more discussion to make this change.

1 Like