Governance analytics should make authority and outcomes easier to inspect. Proposal counts and turnout are useful, but they do not reveal whether a single delegate supplies quorum, whether approved actions execute, or whether holders actively review their representatives.
A balanced metric set
Participation
Eligible power, active power, unique voting addresses, represented delegators, and turnout by decision type.
Concentration
Top-delegate shares, coalition size for quorum, and changes in delegated power over time.
Process
Proposal development time, revision history, rationale coverage, and distribution of proposers.
Execution
Queue latency, execution success, verified state changes, milestones, and unresolved approved actions.
Keep denominators visible
Turnout should identify whether the denominator is total supply, delegated supply, eligible snapshot power, or active power. Unique voters are addresses, not verified people. Delegate participation can represent many holders. Presenting these measures together prevents a dashboard from selecting the most flattering interpretation.
Separate proposal failure modes
A proposal may lose the vote, miss quorum, be canceled, expire after queuing, or revert during execution. Each outcome points to a different problem. Analytics should preserve native state transitions and explain any normalized labels.
Link summaries to evidence
Every chart should link to proposals, ballots, transactions, or forum records. Publish calculation definitions and version changes. Derived metrics are most useful when participants can reproduce them and challenge the assumptions.
Use metrics to improve, not merely rank
Scoring systems change behavior. Rewarding comment count creates short comments; rewarding vote attendance encourages automatic ballots. Combine quantitative and qualitative review, show component data, and avoid claiming that one number measures delegate quality.
Explore the full guide to governance analytics metrics or the developer-focused article on building a governance API.