11 · Governance
DAO scope, voting weight and the proposal lifecycle
Governance operates as a DAO. Holders of the platform's governance asset vote on platform upgrades, treasury deployment, partnerships and ecosystem development.
Scope
| Decision | Governed |
|---|---|
| Platform upgrades and new modules | Yes |
| Treasury deployment | Yes |
| Fee rates, staking yields, tier thresholds | Yes |
| Airdrop eligibility parameters | Yes |
| Partnerships and integrations | Yes |
| Published economic commitments | No: contractual |
| Legal and regulatory obligations | No |
| Custody model | No: non-custodial by design |
The second group is deliberately outside governance. A commitment a vote could revoke is not a commitment, and the credibility of the first group depends on the second being immovable.
Voting weight
Weight derives from holdings and staking duration, not balance alone.
Weighting purely by balance makes governance rentable: borrow tokens, vote, return them. Blending in duration raises the cost of a transient position and aligns voting power with exposure to the outcome.
Proposal lifecycle
- Temperature check: raised for discussion with no formal threshold, to establish whether support exists before effort is spent.
- Formal proposal: a holder meeting the threshold submits a specified change, naming the exact parameter or contract affected.
- Deliberation: a fixed review window during which the proposal cannot be amended, so voters decide on a stable object.
- Vote: token-weighted with quorum.
- Timelock: a passed proposal waits a defined period before execution, giving dissenters time to exit.
- Execution: applied on-chain and recorded.
Where a decision is delegated to a working group, both the delegation and its scope are recorded.
Progressive decentralisation
Scope widens as the system matures. Operational decisions requiring rapid response, incident handling, security patching, remain with the core team; economic parameters and treasury allocation are governed from the outset.
The intended end state is one in which economics, roadmap priority and treasury are determined entirely by holders. The schedule for that transfer is itself a governance matter, which is the only honest way to set it: a timetable the team could unilaterally extend would not be a commitment.
Last updated