Repository navigation
Showcase orchestrator voting activity in the UI #310
Description
Problem
Governance participation by orchestrators is currently difficult for stakeholders to assess. Voting data exists on-chain, but it is not surfaced in a way that makes individual orchestrator engagement or proposal-level voting trends easy to understand.
Goal
Improve governance transparency by clearly exposing how orchestrators vote over time and how votes are distributed on each proposal.
Proposed Solution
1. Orchestrator History Page
Add governance vote events to the orchestrator history page.
Each vote should appear as a single history entry, consistent with existing activity items, and include:
- Action: “Voted on proposal”
- Proposal: Proposal ID (with link to proposal page)
- Vote: For / Against / Abstain (visually emphasized)
- Date: Timestamp
Behavior:
- Display governance votes as standard History items, consistent with existing style and ordering (most recent first).
- Keep entries compact and scannable, without introducing new layouts or long titles.
- Allow navigation to the associated proposal via link or click.
- Do not change existing History behavior beyond adding this event type.
2. Orchestrator Profile Page
Add a lightweight governance participation stat to the orchestrator overview.
Include:
- Governance Participation: Number of proposals voted on relative to the number of proposals the orchestrator was eligible for while active (e.g.
17 / 20 proposals voted) - (Optional) Last Vote: Most recent proposal voted on
This should be presented as a compact summary and link to the History tab for full voting details.
3. Governance Proposal (Treasury) Page
Add an “Orchestrator Votes” section to governance proposal pages to surface how orchestrators voted on each proposal.
Include:
- A list of orchestrators that have voted on the proposal
- For each orchestrator:
- Vote (For / Against / Abstain)
- Voting power used
- Link to orchestrator profile
Behavior:
- Displayed as a secondary section near the bottom of the proposal page, below the proposal details.
- Sorted and paginated as needed.
- Provide transparency without impacting the primary proposal or voting UI.
- Optionally include a lightweight call-to-action in the voting widget (e.g. “View orchestrator votes”) that scrolls to this section.
Design & Review Process
The UI patterns described in this proposal are intended as guidance to achieve the stated goals.
Implementers may propose alternative designs if they better meet usability, clarity, or maintainability requirements.
Any material design changes should be reviewed with UX/UI representatives from the Livepeer Foundation
and relevant advisory boards prior to final merge. @mehrdadmms can guide this process.
Dependency
This work depends on merging [subgraph#175](livepeer/subgraph#175), which exposes the required governance voting data.
Although a Graph Studio deployment is available for development, this PR must be merged before UI changes can be merged into main.
Activity
rickstaa commentedon Sep 11, 2025
#279
ECWireless commentedon Oct 31, 2025
Forwarding details from #345
Completes this PR: #300
5 remaining items
ECWireless commentedon Dec 17, 2025
Action Plan
Important Links
Tasks
For @Jipperism - Due December 24th
310-showcase-orchestrator-voting-activity-in-the-uiNote: do not worry about styling this beyond what the original authors of these features did. Better styling will be done later. Also, if you are blocked because of missing subgraph data, just note it and use an RPC for now.
For @thebeyondr - Due January 9th
Jipperism commentedon Dec 22, 2025
@ECWireless draft PR with cherry-picked functionality available here #457.
Jipperism commentedon Dec 23, 2025
@ECWireless seems like functionality for both PR's works in the merged version. I think @thebeyondr can start working on it, I'll do another pass to ensure code standards are up to the desired quality.
Jipperism commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@thebeyondr I updated the PR so voting on both treasury votes and polls are displayed on the account page in the history tab.
Jipperism commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@rickstaa @thebeyondr from what I remember from our discussions, we won't use this component in the end. It's a leftover from one of the PR's earlier created, that were combined in this PR.
EDIT: Asking as I'd like to get rid of the cube querying in totality to keep the codebase simple, but would like to know if I need to rewrite this component instead of just binning it.
Jipperism commentedon Jan 9, 2026
CC @ECWireless @rickstaa
Outcome of quick sync today to wrap this up. Remaining tasks:
@jip will
/orchestrators@the Beyondr will
rickstaa commentedon Jan 9, 2026
I wasn’t a fan of the formatting, as it didn’t fit our existing UI and felt unnecessarily complex and not at the right placement. As a result I removed it from the spec. I however do see a value in seeing this for all the orchestrators but maybe on the treasury page. That said, it’s best to rely on @adamsoffer’s and @hthillman’s judgment, given their greater stronger product experience.
@mehrdadmms can coordinate.
rickstaa commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@ECWireless not part of the RFP but as we also have several governance votes lined up (LIPs), in the next phase I would be nice to extend to the governance page https://explorer.livepeer.org/voting/0xf1b0d0fb7bf3cf0603a0ec66cb31fa004fd5f2de. I think the graph already supports this but might need some small changes. Could you create an issue to track this as a follow up item. 🙏
ECWireless commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@rickstaa Do we want to include Governance polls in the "Governance Participation" card that's being rendered to the account page (as in summing together the number of both Governance Polls and Treasury Proposals to say they participated in __ out of __ proposals)? Or should we only render Treasury Proposal participation there?
rickstaa commentedon Jan 9, 2026
If you decide to take this one I would: