Deploy DAO DAO and Polytone on Osmosis

Original Thread: Commonwealth

DAO DAO is coming to the Interchain, starting with a deployment on Osmosis. We’ve outlined some of our thinking about this in our recent DAO DAO Interchain Strategy blog post.

Passing this proposal gives the address osmo1559zgk3mxm00qtr0zu2x5n4rh5vw704q4mp2tn the ability to upload CosmWasm contracts to Osmosis without seeking further governance approval for each upload. This address is administered by DAO DAO core contributors.


With DAO DAO, projects and communities have immediate access to best-in-class DAO tooling without creating their own governance modules, smart contracts, DAO management and more. Try it today:

Our mission is to build better governance systems. Getting governance right is crucial to the success of decentralized crypto projects. Both communities and protocols need tools to come together, self-organize, and govern themselves.

The biggest features we aim to bring to Osmosis:

  • Beautiful UI for making proposals, voting, and exploring DAOs
  • Interchain Accounts via Polytone
  • Sophisticated organizational structures using SubDAOs and Authz

And much more:

  • Treasury spends and swaps
  • Manage staking
  • NFT creation and management
  • On-chain, governance gated key / value store
  • Proposal inbox
  • Discord integration
  • Customizable DAO widgets
  • Single DAO page (unique web page for your DAO)
  • DAO Press: publishing tools for a DAO run blog and official communications
  • Creating and managing vesting payments
  • Bulk actions import
  • Manage smart contracts (instantiate, execute, migrate, manage admins)

OGP has been gracious enough to provide DAO DAO with a grant for a full deployment of DAO DAO on Osmosis.


DAO DAO will be deploying DAO tooling and related contracts on Osmosis. The initial deployment will focus on membership based DAOs (multisigs), and we plan to deploy Token Factory DAOs and newly improved NFT based DAOs as soon as they are ready and audited. Utility contracts such as cw-token-swap , cw-vesting , and more will also be deployed. All contracts we will deploy on Osmosis have completed an audit with Oak Security.

DAO DAO has already been deployed on Osmosis Testnet:

Polytone Interchain Accounts and Queries

In addition to DAO DAO contracts, we will be deploying Polytone to allow for accounts, smart contract, or DAOs on Osmosis to control accounts on other chains and vice versa.

We are excited for the new possibilities that will be unlocked for developers and the wider Osmosis community. For example, an account on another CosmWasm chain can control an account on Osmosis to trade, manage concentrated liquidity, or launch new pools. Osmosis teams can also use it to manage outposts across the Interchain. Moreover, Polytone includes an easy to use Interchain Queries implementation, allowing for smart contracts on other chains to reliably query pricing information from Osmosis.

Frontend Codebases

Some DAO DAO frontend related codebases are currently private. The plan is to open source them again once we have a sufficient number of deployments and funding to sustain development.

As an interim measure, to protect against a scenario where DAO DAO disapears, we’ve given the following Osmosis team members access to DAO DAO GitHub repositories:

In the event of DAO DAO shuts down, they will be able to host and maintain the infrastructure and have permission to do so. You can verify their membership on the DAO DAO GitHub Organization page.

Oak Security Audits:

Contracts Information:


  • Using the v2.1.0 release
  • Compiler Version - cosmwasm/workspace-optimizer:0.12.11


  • Using the v1.0.0 release
  • Compiler Version - cosmwasm/workspace-optimizer:0.12.13



This post contains a good deal of long-winded commentary to explain a set of stipulations that I would lake to see placed on DAO DAO on osmosis.

For a really really quick summary of those stipulations, please see this post, which I have separated from the detailed and long winded commentary.

Hi, I think that it is time we discussed the reality that code cannot be separated from its authors. I would like to make some very direct claims:

1) DAODAO was used to defraud Notional.

Did this proposal pass?

How about this one?

Obviously, it did not. Nonetheless, it was acted upon by Juno’s core one team, which has funded and incubated DAODAO, and includes a member of DAODAO, Jake Hartnell.

During the time that Notional was funded, we fulfilled all duties as described in a14. When a18 did not pass, but was regardless acted upon, I made the foolhardy decision to continue to contribute to Juno. We had to call Reece, who Notional had hired originally, and tell him that we were no longer able to pay him his agreed upon wage. Jake Hartnell then hired him, and later core-1 hired him.

It all felt, and still feels, extremely sketchy.

It seems that just now, core-1 is making moves to formally cancel the contracts that it agreed to in a14:

Please note that at no time did core-1 fully participate in anything that could be called a negotiation with Notional. We were simply told that no payment of any kind would be made. A18 did not pass.

Further, despite the commit history looking like this:

We’re forced to deal with claims like this:

So this proposal brings me serious concern about the health and vitality of the developer community on Osmosis.

2) DAODAO is funded in contravention of Juno’s Proposal 64.

Juno’s proposal 64 very clearly stipulates that core-1 is not to fund any closed source software. Unless things have suddenly changed (which would of course be a good thing) then this funding:

Now, it seems to me that maybe core-1 is trying to fix this:

But numerous core-1 members are voting to remain in flagrant violation of Juno proposal 64.

A second proposal was submitted to the core-1 dao with slightly different results, but let’s cut to the chase:

  • Jake Hartntell started DAODAO
  • Jake Hartnell wrote Juno Proposal 64
  • DAODAO is in flagrant violation of Juno Proposal 64

Juno’s core one team is the only team in Cosmos that I have ever seen flagrantly violate governance, repeatedly.

For more information on any of these topics, please see Core-1’s sif letter, and Notional’s resignation:

Sif Letter:



All DAODAO work should be strictly open source, including the front end. If DAODAO wants to BSLify, that’s their business, however, due to a lack of reliability surrounding DAODAO, I also request that DAODAO be non-exclusively licensed to Osmosis. That is to say, that if DAODAO up and disappears or makes a governance decision that doesn’t pass to stop supporting osmosis, the Osmosis community should have to full and total right to do whatever the heck it wishes to with its daodao deployment, including the front end of that deployment. I don’t have sufficient trust in DAODAO to allow for even a tiny bit of closed-source-anything.

I am willing to negotiate mildly here, but if these terms are not met, will likely veto this proposal, and will encourage others to do the same.

If terms are negotiated here, I would vote yes, because I cannot slight that there’s value in daodao – just at the same time it is in my opinion carrying a very high degree of moral risk, so it is absolutely essential that the Osmosis community have full rights to make any modification to any component of osmosis-daodao for any reason at any time without exception.

osmosis-daodao should be fully devoid of juno branding and value capture mechanisms that lead to juno.

Osmosis software should always put osmosis first.

Don’t really agree that core-1 Juno issues with Notional affect this DAODAO proposal. However, agree with the points regarding licensing to Osmosis, we did pay for deployment of it so Osmosis should remain in control if DAODAO founders suddenly decided to abandon the project.

Maybe OGP can comment on what was negotiated with their funding.

DAODAO is the code used for the fraud sir.

I believe Strangelove was similarly defrauded, but I won’t speak on their behalf here, other than to say I believe that is the case.

Please also note that I am not merely discussing issues that notional had, to my knowledge, there is no other core team in cosmos who has flagrantly violated governance decisions in the manner that core-1 has by funding daodao and wynd.

Additionally, I’m not entirely sure that you’re considering the impacts on the developer climate at osmosis.

Look I wish I could say everything was roses but everything is very much not roses.

I hope that it’s also notable that I outlined a strategy that protects osmosis.

Software is a tool, what matters I think is that Osmosis is protected of similar situation here considering who is behind it, agree with you on that.

1 Like

Well in that case, I think that we agree on everything.

Tools emanate from their makers.

These aren’t separable things, and the fact that these tools have been used by their makers for fraud demands the ability to separate those, and if everything is not fully open source, osmosis will never have the ability to reach that separation.

Oh, and @luisqa I do recommend that you look into DAODAO’s long term plan – which is to have lasting relevance to governance in ALL of cosmos.

I’m explicitly attempting to prevent that.

I want daodao without core 1 and I think that is best for osmosis.

Again, I am not aware of other software funded against the express wishes of governance that is embroiled in so many governance violations.

And it is governance software. :frowning:

Framing the questions surrounding DAODAO as being only about Notional doesn’t make sense.

Can the DaoDao team expand on the use of Polytone for funding? I am worried about potential moral hazard with the DaoDao team. Please correct any of this presented information if it is wrong but would like clarity as to what happened with Polytone. It is my understanding (again please correct me if wrong) that Zeke was contracted out to build Outposts for Stargaze and did a design session with member of the Stargaze team. Zeke then took this work and instead developed it for DaoDao and called it Polytone. The acknowledgements on Github seem to corroborate this. Is this accurate?

While perhaps it is acceptable to use ideas that have been developed and expand on them, it seems sus to take idea that is currently being worked on and contracted out and use it for own personal gain (front run).

I question whether we should be funding this type of endeavor. Why not fund the originators of the innovation in the first place? I have a feeling that this will be a very bad investment for Osmosis community and the team will lack having any meaningful innovation of their own. More concerning though is if what is presented above is correct and there are moral hazards involved as well. Could you please address these concerns and why Osmosis community should trust your deployment of this?

1 Like

Hey thank you for your feedback, I just want to say that I actually think that the pricing is fine and that my concern really only surrounds making sure that the community has durable access to the work.

I really do appreciate your expanding on the polytone concerns because I’ll be honest I always thought they sounded kind of ridiculous but if there was a payment then I guess it’s a lot more complicated than I thought and maybe I shouldn’t be too surprised by that.

Can we amend this sentence to state that a shut down is determined at the sole discretion of the three osmosis team members named here?

In the event of a shutdown, osmosis-daodao’s front end would be bsl’d to in a fashion that binds it to the osmosis community, or made MIT/Apache/GPL at the discretion of osmosis global governance.

If we do that then I’m satisfied and wholeheartedly support this proposal.



We have given core Osmosis team members access to all repos and updated the proposal to include a clause that in the event of DAO DAO disapears, they will be able to host and maintain the infrastructure.

Please see the new draft.

Additionally, it is possible to build alternative frontends on top of DAO DAO contracts and we welcome those who wish to do so.


As you can imagine, I’m a bit cautious about all of this.

As it stands, I support this. Is there to be a DAO token on Osmosis?

The linked blog post shows that somehow, this is to benefit “Juno and all daokind” – I’d like to try and track what benefits Juno would get from this.

Is there a need for a DAO token? Or would you rather see an additional “use-case” for OSMO?