Observe
Read proposal, ballot, voting-power and timing data supplied by the connected governance source.
Governance observability for DAOs
See how voting power
shaped the outcome.
FlexGov measures concentration and tests whether recorded ballots produce the same winner under alternative voting assumptions.
Governance integrity
Critical risk detected
97risk
Largest-wallet share99.878%
CriticalUnique-wallet turnout0.04%
High riskQuorum marginMinimal
High riskRecorded rule1T1V · Passed
→Outcome robustnessMechanism-sensitive
Policy responseReview triggered
Graph-backed reportCompound 393
Evidence, not verdicts.Community-defined safeguards.Transparent counterfactuals.
Live data / ENS governance
Explore the latest
ENS proposal.
Inspect its choices, participation, status, and voting window using current governance data.
ens.eth
Load the most recently published proposal from the ENS governance space.
01 / The problem
Governance can execute faster than communities can react.
A valid vote can still produce an untrustworthy outcome.
Low participation, concentrated voting power, purchasable quorum, delegated influence, and rapid execution can turn legitimate governance machinery into an attack surface.
Existing tools provide voting interfaces, identity credentials, timelocks, or isolated monitoring. FlexGov connects the evidence: who voted, how power moved, which assumptions determined the result, and what the community authorised the system to do next.
Case studyBonkDAO · July 2026
One wallet acquired enough voting power to satisfy a low quorum and controlled nearly all weight in a treasury-transfer vote.
99.878%voting weight controlled by one wallet
7wallets participated in the proposal
$20Mtreasury value transferred
FlexGov treats these as observable risk signals—not automatic proof of bribery, collusion, or intent.
02 / How it works
From raw votes to
governable evidence.
FlexGov separates measurement, interpretation, and enforcement so communities can understand every step.
Detect
Measure concentration, low turnout, quorum capture, late influence, temporal coordination, and anomalous behaviour.
Compare
Replay the same decision under explicit alternative assumptions—without pretending one mechanism is universally fair.
Respond
Produce advisory findings that a community can use in its own review and response process.
03 / Counterfactual analysis
Not “the fair answer.”
The answer under different assumptions.
FlexGov does not average unlike voting systems into a synthetic winner. It displays each result independently, then explains whether the outcome remains stable.
- Unanimous across mechanisms
- Directionally consistent
- Mechanism-sensitive
- Outcome reversal
- Indeterminate from available data
Proposal BIP #76Outcome comparison
Illustrative◇
Robustness classificationOutcome reversal
Review1W1V means one eligible address, not one verified person. Every comparison discloses its identity and eligibility assumptions.
04 / Adaptive by design
One framework.
Community-defined rules.
The prototype provides advisory analysis and threshold findings. Configurable escalation and binding rule responses remain planned and would require explicit community authorisation before voting.
01Implemented
Ensemble
Runs supported rules in parallel and reports whether the outcome is robust or mechanism-sensitive.
02Experimental
Flex
Evaluates deterministic thresholds and produces advisory findings; it does not enact governance changes.
03Planned
Modular
Would let each DAO configure detectors, thresholds, eligible mechanisms, and responses.
04Planned
ILS
Research direction for evidence of informed participation and deliberative contribution.
05 / Constitutional choice
“FlexGov does not decide what fairness means for every community.”
It lets communities encode their own safeguards, detects when those safeguards are threatened, and shows whether an outcome survives alternative governance assumptions.
01
Legible
Every conclusion decomposes into observable measurements.
02
Contestable
Risk signals can be inspected, challenged, and overridden.
03
Pre-authorised
Binding adaptations are defined before participants vote.
04
Modular
Communities select their own mechanisms and protection levels.
Built as composable governance infrastructure
The GraphVerifiable computeAgent-readable reportsCommunity policy
Governance should be observable before it is executable