[RFC]: Should we give DeepDAO a grant to improve participation in Nexus Mutual DAO?


Dealing with voter fatigue and finding the right onboarding incentives are points of struggle for every DAO. The fact that DAOs do not have any information on their non-participating members makes the puzzle harder. DeepDAO believes that it is possible to understand $NXM token holders down to their interest categories and activity patterns to point toward measures to improve voter participation.

We propose conducting a data-based segmentation of $NXM token holders to find out the largest segments of non-voters, voters with decaying participation scores, etc. to point toward the right onboarding steps/incentives for them.


Governance activity in different DAOs provides valuable insights into the characteristics and preferences of wallet holders. It serves as a window into their interests, motivations, and potential contributions.

For example, taking a closer look at 0xjean.eth, we observe a strong inclination towards identity products(from participation in DAOs like Proof of Humanity, Sismo, etc.) and Public Goods (from participation in DAOs like UBI DAO, Gitcoin, etc). This presents an opportunity for any other DAO 0xjean.eth is a member of to leverage this interest by introducing DAO participation badges or an initiative focused on public goods.

Similarly, we can identify other categories of mass interest and introduce new initiatives to the DAO. For instance, let’s consider the scenario where out of the 4k+ $NXM holders, we identify 100s of individuals highly interested in public goods, education and research, identity solutions, media and communications. With this information, Nexus Mutual DAO can establish four sub-DAOs or guilds, each with a yearly budget, to advance the DAO’s mission in these specific areas.

Note that we aren’t directly incentivizing governance participation but trying to introduce genuine initiatives that make participation more attractive and more useful to a wider audience.



At a high level, this analysis consists of these main tasks:

(1) DeepDAO provides a DAO-profile for each $NXM holder. However, before proceeding with this analysis, we will perform extensive quality assurance to ensure that every $NXM holder is accurately represented, and their activities are aggregated as comprehensively as possible.

(2) The interest categories of participants differ greatly among DAOs. To factor this in, we’ll sort the set of token holders by their DAO participation scores and take the top n’k addresses to manually find out several interest categories that best segment them. These categories will be utilized to segment the top m’k addresses (m>n) in order to confirm that we have the most actionable and specific categories representing $NXM holders. We will repeat these steps until we discover satisfactory interest categories after which we’ll classify the 4k+ NXM holders into these buckets.

(3) We will employ a similar methodology as described above to determine the optimal activity categories that segment $NXM holders.

(4) Clean the lists above to label bots and potentially malicious actors: our research identified vote miners’ activity across the DAO ecosystem.

(5) Based on DeepDAO’s domain expertise in Web3 and governance, work with Nexus Mutual’s community and growth staff to define the right incentives / onboarding steps for each segmented group.

  • Some examples of interest labels are: NFTs, DeFi, Investments, Gaming, gig work, public goods, identity solutions, labels based on governance app etc. “Interest” is defined as membership or activity in a DAO category over a threshold.

** Some examples of activity labels are: persistent voter, long-term dormant address, non-voter, an address that used to participate, an address that is getting less interested in participating over time, etc.

Data & Metrics

The data we’ll be using for this analysis can include:

  1. Nexus Mutual governance data (Snapshot)

  2. DAO profiles of all $NXM holders which include:

  • A DAO score based on the volume and time-period of their DAO activity, along with a rank (among the other 6.8M+ profiles on DeepDAO)
  • Granular governance data, including their votes and proposal history, across the DAO ecosystem, spanning multiple governance frameworks and blockchains.
  • Their delegation data (as a delegator & delegate, on multiple DAOs across Snapshot and Governor.)
  • Their participation data across multiple DAO categories (DeepDAO categorizes over 1000 DAOs into 13 categories, more than any other DAO data aggregator)
  • Their participation in airdrop mining and other unorthodox activities.
  1. Other data from DeepDAO API to check for effect of voting coalitions, predicted governance activity, trends (for eg, how treasury trends correlated with the community’s engagement in the DAO), etc.


  1. A report with analysis of all governance participants of Nexus Mutual, and non-active $NXM holders. This will answer questions like who are the primary participants, which are the largest segments of active, and inactive participants, which segments have the highest attrition / retention, etc.

  2. A CSV file with all $NXM token holders and their category interests, as reflected by the DAOs they vote in.

  3. An action plan report, to understand the best strategies for optimizing DAO participation, based on our findings and incorporating suggestions from Nexus Mutual DAO through brainstorming sessions.


Milestone 1:

DeepDAO dives deeper into $NXM holders and finalizes the optimal labels & interest categories.
Time required: 4 weeks from the start of the project

Milestone 2:

DeepDAO hands over deliverables (1), (2) & (3)
Time required: 4 weeks from Milestone 1 completion


We request a total grant funding of $15,000 with the following breakdown: 33% ($5,000) after Milestone 1 and the remaining 67% ($10,000) after Milestone 2.

The payments can be made in fiat currency or any liquid tokens like ETH, USDC, DAI, etc.

About DeepDAO

DeepDAO is the #1 discovery and analytics engine for the DAO ecosystem. We aggregate, list, and analyze financial and governance data for over 12.5k DAOs and millions of governance token holders, and voters, across different chains and governance platforms. DeepDAO is widely recognized in the ecosystem, and media as the go-to source for data about DAOs.

:wave: Hey @amanwithwings,

Thank you for the detailed proposal!

I’m not sure now is the right time to pursue a report on governance participation among tokenholders, given we’re in a bear market and participation is down across the board for a variety of reasons. The main priorities for the Foundation and DAO teams are outlined in the Nexus Mutual Roadmap. While growth is the number one priority, it’s unclear how the analytics you’re proposing would contribute to increased engagement.

On voter fatigue

While we have various governance discussions happening now, new on-chain votes for all members or DAO Snapshot votes usually occur on a quarterly cadence. For example:

  • There have been two (2) on-chain votes in 2023 so far.
  • There have been three (3) Snapshot votes in 2023 so far, with 2 of the 3 votes being signalling votes.

I don’t think voter fatigue is a contributing factor to lower engagement rates on governance votes. The Community team is working with Marketing to better understand where our members are viewing governance updates. I’ve been working to rearrange the forum to make it easier to contribute, engagement, and navigate governance discussions within the mutual. Through this and other work, we’re looking to make it easier to stay up-to-date and engaged.

On NXM token holder profiles

Here, I think, the information could be valuable, but I can view some existing data on Deep DAO about the mutual here. This only captures Snapshot votes, which only applies to the DAO treasury and not on-chain governance, which is where any vote regarding (1) Upgrades, Technical Changes, Use of Funds or (2) Critical Decisions happen. I don’t see this information included on DeepDAO currently and it’s not included in the stated methodology.

On a whole, I do think it’s important that anyone who takes on this work understands the different ways that members engage with the mutual (i.e., NXM stakers, staking pool managers, claims assessors, governance participants, etc.). I’m not sure the proposed analysis would capture the data the Community team would need to drive further engagement.

On timing

On the whole, we’re in a bear market during the summer months and participation has been trending downward across many protocols over the last few months. In the future, this kind of in-depth research could be valuable, but I’d prefer to revisit such a proposal once the new tokenomics project has been completed and the various teams contributing to the protocol have progressed on our current 6-month roadmap and high-level objectives.

I’d be in favour of picking this discussion up in 6 months and talking about changes to the methodology.

I am confused about what voting power I still have? I have delegated my NXM to various pools, and now hold NFTs in my wallet. If I try to vote, only NXM dust registers. Does this mean I should just ignore governance from here on out because I have delegated all my NXM? How do we know how the syndicate managers are voting on snapshots? Will the governance system ever recognise NFT holders?

Hey @GordonGekko. When you delegate your NXM to a staking pool manager, you delegate both the capital–which a manager can allocate to various risks–and your NXM voting power. This is outlined in the docs and there is a notice on the deposit page when you stake and delegate NXM to a pool.

If you have NXM that isn’t staked in risk assessment and delegated, that will still show up as voting power for you. If you want to track a pool manager’s voting activity, you can look up their manager address and search for it on Snapshot to see their voting history. To locate a staking pool manager’s address, you can go to their pool and find the Manager Address or ENS field.

If you want more information about staking pool manager’s voting activity, I’d recommend reaching out to those managers on the forum in the Staking Pools category.

On this point: as I shared above, staking and delegating gives a pool manager the ability to manage capital and NXM voting power. Staking NFT holders wouldn’t be able to vote directly, given that would allow 1 NXM to vote twice: once by managers, once by staking NFT holders.

In the future, staking pool managers could establish a metagovernance system, where they allow their Staking NFT holders to signal their support for a given issue in a Snapshot space before a vote takes place on chain or in the DAO’s Snapshot space.

This seems more a product of wallet limitations than anything else. Just because I delegate risk assessment to a staking pool manager, because I think they are better at risk assessment, does not mean I should be delegating voting power over investment decisions or other governance matters. This is a bug, not a feature. Pointing out that I was made aware of this does not make it the right policy for the DAO going forward.