Voting Service Provider RFP Final Review

Proposals
1

This RFP summary will go into an RFC and edit phase for this week, giving delegates a final period to review the submitted vendor proposals. Vendors are also able to submit final edits to their initial submissions in this time. Vendors should submit any alterations summaries as a response to this forum post. We will then update all edits into a Snapshot vote that will run throughout the week of July 7th, 2025.

Below, we have outlined all of the voting options for delegates to consider based on each vendor’s submission.

Snapshot Ballot

Title: Compound DAO Voting Service Provider (VSP) Selection

Vote Type: “Weighted Voting” will be utilized, where each delegate has the ability to spread their voting power across any number of choices. This voting system allows delegates to select between multiple options—or simply allocate their entire voting power to a single option.

Voting Options:

  • Aragon Enterprise
  • Tally Enterprise
  • Tally Self-serve (No Cost, Status Quo)
  • Lighthouse Labs
  • Snapshot Labs

Timeline

June 30th - July 4th 11:59pm UTC: RFC period for feedback from delegates and vendors. In these couple of days, vendors will be able to submit any new adjustments to their initial proposal. Proposals will be locked in by the end of day July 4th. The stated alterations will be reflected in this present forum post—and subsequently be included in the Snapshot vote.

July 5th - July 11th 11:59pm UTC: Snapshot vote.

Details on the Snapshot Options

Aragon (read full proposal here)

Aragon Enterprise

In order for Compound to effectively transition from its current governance voting interface, and attain a branded UI, the most seamless manner to conduct this shift would be to subscribe to Aragon’s Enterprise tier, even though some of Aragon’s stack can be adopted in a self-serve manner.

This tier costs $5,000/month for 12 months, totaling $60,000, streamed over the duration of the year-long contract.

The Enterprise tier allows Compound to deploy a fully customized, branded governance frontend integrated with Aragon OSx, their modular DAO operating system. This includes plugin support for advanced governance mechanics such as optimistic governance, permissioned parameter adjustments, and diverse decision-making flows. The Compound-specific frontend would offer a tailored user experience, mirroring the DAO’s current structure, enabling proposal creation, voting, and tracking.

In addition to the UI layer, Aragon commits to maintaining 99.9% frontend uptime and guarantees a 24-hour response time for critical issues that affect the DAO’s governance operations. The team also offers a detailed offboarding pathway to ensure any future transition to an alternative provider is frictionless—or if the DAO decides to opt into the Self-serve tier later, the infrastructure built during the Enterprise phase will sustain.

While Aragon’s Self-serve tier is cost-free, it would place the burden of development and maintenance on the DAO during year-one of Aragon adoption. The Enterprise tier, by contrast, provides white-glove service and technical support for at least a year. Afterwards, the DAO may reevaluate its tier selection.

Note that Aragon will take one month to complete the initial Enterprise integration.

Tally (read full proposal here)

Tally Self-serve (This is effectively the “abstain”/status quo option)

While Tally’s interface is publicly accessible and already supports Compound governance, further feature development, dedicated support, and UI improvements require an enterprise engagement. As such, relying on Tally without an active relationship would limit Compound’s ability to evolve or customize its interface and tools over time. However, the basic functionality that Tally provides today would remain intact based on this fee tier.

Going forward, Tally’s self-serve default option would introduce a 0.25% fee on every transaction send proposed using their platform. This will be automatically deducted and routed to Tally’s multisig wallet. This would mean that every proposal that is directly proposed on the Tally UI and uses the transfer() function would be subject to the stated fee, given the funds being transferred are OUT of the Treasury Address (0x6d903f6003cca6255D85CcA4D3B5E5146dC33925).

Compound governance’s native contracts (Comptroller, Timelock, Governor) don’t include Tally’s fee logic since fees are applied at the application layer. The 0.25% protocol fee is applicable only if a proposal is proposed on Tally and ends up being executed.

Screenshot 2025-06-30 at 2.11.25 PM
Screenshot 2025-06-30 at 2.11.25 PM2212×820 87 KB

Note that the DAO has also contracted Tally in the past via the Compound Grant Program. Last year, they received $32k to make enhancements for Compounds UI. Enhancements completed from this program will NOT be backtracked or removed in the event the Self-serve option is voted in.

Tally Enterprise

Tally proposes a full-service engagement priced at $12,500/month for one year, totalling $150,000, streamed evenly over the course of the contract.

This service includes continued support for Compound’s existing on-chain governance interface, along with additional features outlined in the linked post. The proposed deliverables span four main workstreams.

  • Proposal UX: Tally will deliver Compound-specific simulations, support for scripted proposals and custom calldata, automatic decoding of externally submitted proposals, and automated execution of passed proposals.
  • Voting UX: Features include gasless voting, a custom-branded domain, Karma delegate score integration, a forum bot, enhanced notifications, MarketAdmin proposal display, and support for the Emergency Upgrade Rollback UI.
  • Governance Resilience: Tally will deploy “Tally Zero,” a decentralized, IPFS-hosted frontend that ensures governance continuity without relying on Tally’s servers.
  • Transparency & Reporting: Tally will provide Safe multisig dashboards, DAO analytics, success metrics on the homepage, and real-time treasury reporting with balance and runway insights.

To strengthen governance resilience, Tally will launch “Tally Zero,” a decentralized, IPFS-hosted frontend for on-chain voting without reliance on Tally’s servers. For transparency, it will provide Safe dashboards, real-time analytics, homepage success metrics, and detailed treasury reporting. The engagement includes clear service-level guarantees: 99% monthly uptime, a 4-hour response time for critical issues, resolution of critical bugs within one business day, and regular monthly maintenance. Tally will also hold monthly office hours for community feedback and report on both platform usage and adoption of new features over the course of the contract.

Lighthouse Labs (read full proposal here)

Lighthouse Labs’ proposed budget is $9,500/month, totaling $114,000 over 12 months. They note that this pricing reflects their current offering, with a capped renewal increase of no more than 30% in future terms.

Lighthouse proposes a mobile-native governance interface. Their offering includes a fully functional iOS and Android app that enables users to receive push notifications, track proposals, and vote on both Snapshot and on-chain Governor proposals. A core feature of their platform is the “Dispatch” messaging system, which allows DAO contributors to send secure, targeted announcements directly to tokenholders, without needing access to their email addresses. This aims to improve engagement while maintaining privacy and decentralization.

Lighthouse also introduces a governance R&D initiative called “Signals,” a still-developing coordination tool meant to help communities surface preferences and resolve ambiguity around proposals. They also commit to 99%+ uptime and offer service-level support for any platform or governance issues that arise.

Note that the Lighthouse proposal reads more as a supplementary interface for Compound users as opposed to a full-stack governance platform for proposing and executing votes. Therefore, if this option was voted in, an alternative free service model would likely end up being used as well.

Snapshot Labs (read full proposal here)

Snapshot Labs’ proposal includes a 12-month engagement priced at $80,000, with a milestone-based payment structure: $40,000 upfront and $40,000 upon successful delivery. Snapshot also outlines an optional annual subscription fee of $6,000 beginning in year two, which would cover ongoing support and maintenance for the integration. In the event of opting out of the subscription, all integrations conducted during the first year will remain intact, so individuals will be able to continue voting, delegating, and proposing—but the enterprise SLA component would be removed.

Their proposal focuses on integrating Snapshot with Compound’s governance architecture to support both informal signaling (e.g. temperature checks) and formal on-chain proposal workflows, providing an end-to-end governance experience in a single user interface where proposals can be submitted, executed, and voted on. Note that this would in effect allow Compound to conduct off-chain and on-chain votes in the same venue, even though at the present time Snapshot is solely run for off-chain votes.

The core feature set includes a branded Compound voting space with a custom URL, full Governor integration, syncing on-chain proposals to Snapshot automatically, and developing frontend modules that make it easier for users to view, evaluate, and participate in governance. Snapshot also commits to supporting cross-platform notification systems (e.g. email, Discord), wallet/treasury tracking, and a delegation interface. Voters would be able to see clear breakdowns of proposals, quorum thresholds, and real-time vote counts.

Snapshot includes operational commitments, offering 99.99% monthly uptime for both frontend and API services, 3-hour response times for technical support, and a 7-day advance notice policy for any updates that could affect Compound governance. In the event that the DAO discontinues the partnership or chooses not to renew the annual support fee, Snapshot commits to a 2-month offboarding grace period, during which they will assist any successor team and provide full data portability.

Note that Snapshot Labs would take 3 months to complete the integration. Not selecting Snapshot at the dedicated VSP does NOT mean Compound will lose access to its current off-chain voting setup on Snapshot.

7 Likes
2

This upcoming Snapshot vote feels like a defining moment for Compound’s governance UX.

It’s great to see multiple strong contenders, each bringing something unique to the table:

Tally is doubling down on decentralization and analytics with Tally Zero.
Lighthouse is targeting mobile-native governance and comms.
Aragon is offering deep customization with a clean exit path.
Snapshot is bridging off-chain signal with on-chain execution.

Really glad this RFP phase allows vendors to refine their bids before the vote. Looking forward to seeing how final tweaks shape up—and kudos to the team for maintaining transparency and a clean timeline.

Let’s pick a partner that doesn’t just meet our current needs but scales with us into the next era of onchain governance.

4 Likes
3

Hey folks,

Quick heads-up that we’ve edited Snapshot’s reply to the original thread, switching “Use and support” → “Maintenance, upgrades and support.”

This makes it clear the $6k/year fee (from Year 2) covers those services, but basic access stays free.

4

Vendor Edit

Aragon has opted to not include their self-serve option in the coming Snapshot vote—the Aragon Enterprise tier remains intact. We have therefore made the respective alteration to the initial forum post.

2 Likes
5

Snapshot Voting Phase

The RFP vote for selecting a VSP is now live on Snapshot, concluding at 11:59pm UTC on July 11, 2025.

2 Likes
6

I’m casting support for Tally Enterprise.

Tally is not only the incumbent governance interface—it’s deeply embedded in the DAO’s infrastructure and governance workflows. It has supported Compound since 2020 and was purpose-built on top of the Governor framework that Compound itself pioneered. Tally’s involvement in past CGP-funded initiatives, like customized Compound-specific proposal flows and UI integrations, has already delivered tangible improvements to the DAO’s governance UX.

While I’m open to innovation, switching to alternative providers at this stage—most of whom rely on new, untested interfaces or require integration with incompatible or parallel governance stacks—introduces unnecessary complexity. Compound has already made significant investments in its Governor-based stack. Now is not the time to introduce fragmentation or transition risk, especially when the DAO is prioritizing cost discipline and reestablishing competitiveness in the lending sector.

Tally’s Enterprise plan builds on existing integrations and offers important features not present in other proposals:

  • Seatbelt integration for security assurance, integrating with existing Compound-specific alerts already live in Discord
  • MarketAdmin support for risk parameter proposals that increase time to make risk parameter adjustments
  • Tally Zero, a decentralized IPFS-hosted frontend for increased redundancy
  • Real-time analytics and delegate dashboards tailored to Compound governance, including the ability to track treasury Safes

Choosing the self-serve (status quo) option may seem cheaper, but comes with hidden costs. Tally would begin charging a 0.25% fee on every treasury transaction proposed through their UI—fees that could quickly approach or exceed the $150K Enterprise budget if Compound continues its current treasury activity levels. Paying for the full Enterprise plan avoids these fees while securing guaranteed support, resilience features, and future-proof tooling.

For these reasons, Tally Enterprise is the most practical option that keeps Compound’s governance stable and focused.

2 Likes
7

We’re voting FOR Aragon despite the switching costs and the DAO’s current lock-in with Tally. While Tally offers incremental UX improvements, Aragon is offering completely new functionality that can improve the ways the DAO can operate.

Instead of forcing everyday decisions through slow, universal referendums, Aragon enables targeted voting. Multi-body/committee decision flows can speed up proposal execution among expert delegates, Gauntlet can get narrow on-chain authority for tweaking risk parameters, and routine decisions like Woof’s collateral decisions can go through an optimistic approval process to minimize voter fatigue. These have the potential to make a significant difference in the DAO’s decision-making efficiency.

Meanwhile, Tally’s enterprise solution doesn’t solve any of Compound’s core governance issues. It’s more of the same. Improving proposal UX, showing easily accessible treasury stats, or hosting on non-Tally servers doesn’t move the needle for delegates like FranklinDAO and doesn’t justify top of range service-provider costs. Furthermore, slapping a 0.25% fee on their ‘free’ tier to encourage the DAO to switch to their higher-priced enterprise solution is unsavory, in our opinion. This makes the ‘Status Quo’ option a non-starter for us.

We understand the reality that switching providers introduces additional uncertainty and risk. However, Aragon’s one-month migration timeline is relatively fast, and their track record with major protocols such as Lido, Polygon, and Curve demonstrates that they are capable of servicing a protocol of Compound’s scale and complexity.

We also understand that Tally as the incumbent has been Compound’s voting interface since 2020, and many are familiar with Tally’s interface; consolidating voting into a single place is convenient for professional delegates. Tally was willing to service Compound for free or at cost when they were still gaining market share and building their reputation in the market. It was a reciprocal relationship, not charity. Now that Tally has gained more market power they are able to leverage that to charge higher fees while offering less. This is precisely the reason why it’s prudent to switch providers while there are still limited switching costs.

Meanwhile, compared to the alternatives, Lighthouse and Snapshot do not seem to offer the same level of functionality that Aragon can provide while charging fees comparable to Tally. For these reasons, we are throwing our full support behind Aragon.

8

While I appreciate @pennblockchain’s engagement and motivation to look out for DAO interests, I think their stated reasons to support Aragon underestimates several key risks and costs.

First, the claim that Aragon can deliver a full migration in a month is either dangerously optimistic or overlooks necessary quality assurance and audit timelines. Any change to Compound’s core governance contracts will require formal review—just 2-3 weeks of auditing (even at a discounted rate) would wipe out much of the perceived cost advantage. This is not captured in their $60K price tag.

Second, I strongly disagree with the framing that a vendor RFP should be used to overhaul the DAO’s entire governance framework. That’s a major protocol decision that should go through its own dedicated governance process—not be bundled into a vendor selection disguised as a UI upgrade. The scope here should be selecting a service provider that can support Compound’s existing system while being adaptable to improvements we explicitly adopt—like optimistic governance. For what it’s worth, Tally already supports optimistic flows in production: Optimistic Governance | Tally docs

Lastly, the suggestion that Tally is charging more for less is simply false. The Enterprise proposal includes new features like Tally Zero (a decentralized fallback UI), MarketAdmin support, and governance analytics—all tailored specifically to Compound’s current stack. In contrast, Aragon’s approach requires full-scale contract migration and breaks interoperability for many onchain and offchain systems that will carry additional costs and friction.

In conclusion, while exploring new governance tools is valuable, we need to approach these decisions with a clear-eyed view of the tradeoffs. Migrating to an entirely new contract system like Aragon’s is not a lightweight UI change—it’s a fundamental shift that carries real security, operational, and governance risks and costs that far exceed the initial price tag. The right path forward is selecting a provider that strengthens and supports the system we have today, while remaining flexible enough to evolve with future improvements the DAO deliberately chooses to adopt. Tally’s proposal aligns with that approach; Aragon’s does not.

4 Likes
9

We have voted for the Tally Self-serve option in this VSP selection process. Our decision is primarily driven by compatibility with Compound’s current governance system and the consideration of existing challenges.

However, we are concerned about the high frequency of votes within Compound, leading to significant voter fatigue. To mitigate this issue, we strongly believe there is a need to explore and eventually implement mechanisms such as Optimistic Voting.

Regardless of the selected vendor, we suggest addressing the topic of Optimistic Voting independently and thoroughly in future governance improvement discussions. We propose that this matter be considered and examined as part of ongoing efforts to enhance governance practices.

1 Like
10

A few necessary clarifications:

  • The proposed change to Aragon uses only tools that are currently available out of the box and audited. The only thing that will require extra verification and cooperation from the Compound side is the migration of permissions linking Compound’s core contracts to the Aragon permission manager. There is no new code necessary.
  • Optimistic governance is already live and battle-tested for Aragon, and OSx is built to support this system natively, without the addition of extra Governor with specific roles. More information available here, and I’m happy to communicate more on the difference between both systems.
  • Our UI is decentralized and open-source, and we support privileged roles out of the box.

“Migrating to an entirely new contract system” is not a fair characterization of the proposal we’ve put forward. However, you’re correct that some offchain systems might not work immediately. If you can help provide a list of these, I can look at compatibility and we’ll assist in making sure they’re ready if the DAO chooses to go with Aragon.

11

Appreciate the thoughtful reply @cylon! On migration timeline and costs, you raise fair points about audit requirements, but let’s be precise about what’s actually changing. Aragon’s migration keeps COMP tokens, delegations and infrastructure intact. It’s shifting permissions to their DAO contract. It’s not rebuilding core governance from scratch. The “full-scale contract migration” framing overstates that scope. That said, you’re right that any governance change needs proper review, and those costs should be factored in when delegates cast their votes. We can’t speak to that but maybe the Aragon team can provide more insight there @nathanvdh.

On the governance framework overhaul, this is where we fundamentally disagree. Compound’s current referendum-based system is the problem we’re trying to solve. Forcing every risk parameter tweak through universal votes creates bottlenecks that slow down critical decisions. The vendor selection is inherently about governance architecture because different providers enable different operational models. Tally’s optimistic governance support is nice, but it’s still bolted onto a system designed for universal voting. That’s not solving the underlying issue.

Regarding Tally’s feature set, Tally Zero, MarketAdmin support, and analytics are useful incremental improvements, but they don’t address the core efficiency issues. A decentralized fallback UI and better dashboards are nice-to-haves. Is this really worth $150K annually when the basic functionality we’ve been using works fine? We were satisfied with the status quo (or at least until more clarity is available with direction from the Compound Foundation) but since this decision is being forced now, we’re picking the option that gives the DAO the most risk-adjusted upside. We wouldn’t be having this vote if Tally didn’t force the issue to become the sole service provider as of late.

On switching costs and risks, you’re absolutely right that migration carries risk. Any infrastructure change does. But the status quo also carries risks. Tally’s pricing strategy (slapping a 0.25% fee on transfers) shows they’re willing to leverage their entrenched position rather than compete on value. The question isn’t whether switching has costs, but whether those costs are justified by the long-term benefits of more efficient governance. We think they are.