As Regen Network grows, so does the importance of steady, vibrant and agile governance. LOA Labs validator team started a community discussion about this topic here on Commonwealth. As promised, we have attempted to distill some of the community comments and added some of our own suggestions on how to better codify best governance processes. We want to draw special attention to the section dealing with community spends and the idea of using the Groups module to better calibrate evaluation and community fund delivery for approved community spends. All ideas and upgrades welcome. We will plan on hosting a Twitter space on this topic in July.
-Dave, LOA Labs
Regen Governance Guidelines Upgrades
Regen Community is reassessing its governance process, working to formalize and update guidelines, which will be brought to a community vote of approval.
To achieve a more effective governance process, the Regen community should formalize more structure and accountability within the proposal and funding process, thus supporting clarity, transparency, and an inclusive environment for participants.
Three key areas of focus and improvement have been identified in discussions:
Need for a Proposal Pathway to help guide the process a proposal takes before on-chain voting.
Need for a Proposal Pattern to help ensure necessary elements are included.
Need for a Circular Funding Process to improve accountability for proposals that spend community funds.
1. Proposal Pathway:
The goal is to establish a clear pathway for proposals, with distinct stages that ensure
I really like the proposal outline approach - the ability to clearly evaluate and compare information in a proposal formatting.
I like the circular funding process approach - it’s helpful to have timelines and deliverables, so that we can ensure that community projects are held responsible for completing the outcomes that they are committing to the community at the time of their proposal.
I also think that recipients should be required to bring a proposal back to a vote if they are proposing to make any significant change in the proposal timeline, concepts or budgets, to ensure that once a token grant is received, a recipient can’t just autonomously shift directions without a discussion with the community about the logic and value of that change.
I support the use of the Groups Module, and having a Circular Funding Group of 5 members.
I very much support the publication of regular progress reports so that the community has regular accountability with grant recipients. This also creates a great public record of how the funding has been utilized.
Thank you for this proposal David! I think the graphic is a brilliant illustration of the topic. I’m generally in support of moving in the direction of a Circular Funding Process, and see it addressing some of the issues in the space.
I would love to see and support full utilization of the group module and the latest version of the gov module, both of which are available on the live network. Groups can self-organize and receive funds via community spend proposals and then manage and distribute those funds among group members. Groups can be granted authorizations through network governance to perform specific action on behalf of the network (e.g. adding credit types, approving CosmWasm contracts, etc.). Groups can even be created and manged via governance where the group admin is the network itself (i.e. the gov module), which looks like what is being proposed with regards to the Circular Funding DAO (or Circular Funding Process Group).
Thank you for the thoughtful outline of guidelines. I have no objections and would love to see a more clear path and process, especially as network activity picks up with the further formation of groups and the distribution of responsibilities. I like the idea of a Regen Circular Funding DAO and would be curious to how the network would ensure accountability for this group given they will be managing community funds. The network (gov module) would be the admin of the group and the granter of authorizations and therefore could remove members and revoke authorizations, but what happens if funds are lost or mishandled by the group? Do group members have anything at stake other than their reputation? Might not be necessary but curious if there is any concern here.
