# Feature Request - The Content Layer is a Core Feature.

### Central Statement:

DAO storage and display of content is a core infra for a communinty focused DAO platform.

Separating the conversation from the proposals alienates the community from the DAO

If we're going to make V3 more community and human focused, higher-resolution governance is essential. Binding content (hopefully decentralized) with on-chain data needs to be a core focus.

### Problem:
- The community's discussion around why they're voting on a proposal is what gives it meaning.
- Meaning should be front and center for 'purpose driven DAOs'
- The community's content is what gives the DAO its identity--especially to those outside of the DAO.
- Currently, we're outsourcing this meaning to other apps.
- Adds friction to debate/decision making
- Most get distracted on their way to the discussion
- Some get distracted after the discussion
-
- Discord chat is good for rapid-fire simple conversations. Reasoning is navigating the complex. Governance needs reasoning.
- Discord voice calls are amazing for surface discussions around complex topics, but are brutal for any situation where someone needs time to think and react based on anything besides impulse.
- Many aren't even listening
- Calls are very poor consensus indicators
- Discourse handles depth and discussion, but our implementation of it has some key problems
- everything is mashed together in one forum
- hard to navigate
- distracting
- centralized in one of our servers.
- Low visibility/low engagement
- Does not play well with our app
- Is not primed for Web3
- We force users to store their debate inside a centralized entity

- If having to leave the app to perform core functions is poor UX, then not allowing user to discuss *why* they're voting for something is a step in the wrong direction.

- The DAO does not own their IP. We do. Not only is this out of step with our ideals, it's a liability.

### Solution:
- Design proposal details to be similar to other governance forums (Signal, Discourse)
- Mix debate into activity feeds to add meaning
- Expand the proposal creation process beyond the condensed modal form. Allow a user to 'compose' a proposal using many optional tools (all driven by content), anticipating debate from others.
- Use content to allow users to send other signals than 'Yes' or 'No'. Perhaps they don't care, or they would like a new proposal with a comprimise. Maybe they want a different option.
- Build a Markdown editor for the proposer to initiate the discussion.
- Allow DAOmembers to discuss with markdown replies.
- DAOs own markdown that is stored on the permaweb
- Proposals index content on-chain with hashes for posterity and organization.
- Ownership:
- Is DAO ownership of content a boost or an essential feature.
- Do we choose which service they store they data on, or do boost devs?
- What of these options have the best cost/benefit?

### Opportunities:
- Brings layer 0 closer to the app
- DAOs can store and own content that is unrelated to voting.
- Would allow us to have better ranking/participation metrics.
- Brings governance from flattened 2d choices, to 3d governance where people can express a wider array of responses.
- Creates many boost opportunites. By having the basic infra built, Boost devs can create a wide array of boosts to enchance the experience.
- Caching for faster loading
- Community curation
- NFT, sale of content on our marketplace
- DAO to DAO content
- Attestation layer
- Allows DAOs to create records and effectively store goverance on-chain.
- I'd argue that content, even if it's just a discussion, does more for DAOs identity than config.
- This brings the 'spectator' to the app to watch political theatre
- By bringing human governance to the app, we can increase meaningful engagement.

### Summary:

I wrote this doc on a centralized notepad. HackMD owns it. Because this will get lost in the mix on Discord and Discourse is pretty inactive, very few people will see it. Unless we make a signal proposal on DAOhaus, we'll never be able to quantify who actually supports this and who is against it.

We don't have a window into who engages in decision-making or creative solutions (greater resolution governance) vs. who just presses the vote button. Without this, we'll be unable to accurately curate DAOs based on participation or engagement with any meaningful results.

Rival off-chain platforms are taking on users right now because they tie the meaning in to the vote, regardless of that vote's credible neutrality. It isn't because users in web3 have an inherent bias against on-chain data or that signing removes *that* much more friction than making a TX (if we're on sidechains or L2).

I'd argue the opposite. The Web3 community would be thrilled to put a little bit more work in to tie their meaningful discussion with a vote that is also meaningful.

By combining real content with real governance, we gain a human-focused edge other platforms would have trouble replicating. This is an opportunity we should not pass up.