Decentralized Governance Structures

Token Governance is onerous. It often is subject to voter apathy as underinformed token holders are encouraged to participate in frequent, complex proposals.

Many DAOs have struggled to create a governance process that balances agility with security. Developers need to be able to build and iterate quickly without lengthy debates happening every time code is shipped while the community needs the power to stop bad actors. The following is a framework that employs multiple governance strategies to maximize... See more

An Optimistic Governance model allows a core group of elected actors to enact proposals on behalf of the community. This form of governance is considered “negative consent” because in the happy path, there is no intervention from token holders to enact a proposal. Enough stakeholders need to actively block a new proposal for it to not take effect. ... See more

In a perfect world, every proposal that makes it to Token Governance has high engagement because it is that important to stakeholders. In other words, low engagement is a sign of excessive use of Token Governance.

Token Governance means all holders need to vote in order to effect change. This is “positive consent” in the sense that enough stakeholders need to actively approve a new proposal. It functions as an Executive Branch, maintaining full authority over all other components of the system.