The xGov ecosystem is evolving, and we need your help to build a strong foundation for its governance. We’re currently seeking community feedback on the proposed eligibility criteria and other essential aspects of the xGov Council. Your input is crucial in shaping the future of xGov. What are the …

This can still happen even if they vote for themselves

XGovs should be node runners so their addresses must be known no pools no delegate. Doxxed by social media handle. 20 xGovs max Anyone can select themselves to be xGovs and show proof of their portfolio eg: what they’ve worked on, proven credential i.e certifications, Degrees, research papers. Onc…

1 “Any community member, including xGovs, with Algorand technical expertise and a strong reputation can run for the council.” We should aim for a broad definition of ‘technical expertise’ beyond just engineering. We’ll need experienced business, product, and finance people. And given the emphasi…

I agree with council needs to be running their own node, node running is a very important part of being a member of the network.

[image] Adri: Candidates must be publicly doxxed, have an identified Algorand address, and undergo the KYC process with the Algorand Foundation. I am fine with KYC to Algo Foundation (as it’s clearly necessary in the event of any compensation). However, I do not think the “publicly doxxed” e…

I believe this needs to be structured into verticals of expertise like tools, wallets, defi, onboarding etc. This allows for better reviews of the proposal and help distribute the load better. Council members should be able to submit proposals. If you’re asking some of the best builders to spend ti…

I support the first point. We need experts from a diverse background including management so that a well rounded discussion can happen. I have a difference in the second point. Best builders (most of them) are part of a team. There are very less devs who are working independent. If they have a prop…

I strongly agree with GhostOfMcAfee’s opinion regarding the handling of personal information. If the purpose is to instill a sense of responsibility in council members, personal information should be submitted only to the foundation and should not be made public.

[image] LoafPickle: we shouldn’t require people be publicly doxxed Once again, all depends on the use case… If the use case is few anonymous people (with little verification) to reject grants for others then the anonymity is probably ok. If you want to do real expert algorand committee that…

The xGov Council: Shaping the future of xGov

Governance Discussions xGov Council

dolphinkitty February 6, 2025, 1:36am 23

Doxxing seems like a reasonable way to keep people accountable. Also helps everyone understand the reviewers experience, skills, biases, and conflicts of interest.

Topic		Replies	Views
[xGov][Community meeting][New Version][2024/04/04] Governance Discussions arc34	57	2409	May 30, 2024
xGov Council Election 2025 xGov Council xgov-council , gp15	56	1430	July 17, 2025
Thoughts after attending Decipher's Governance Roundtable on xGovs & ARC-33 Proposal Governance Discussions	12	1106	December 26, 2022
xGov Platform Evolution xGov community , feedback , xgov , xgov-dev	46	2795	February 29, 2024
An Alternate View on the Future of Algorand xGov Governance Discussions	10	618	July 11, 2024

The xGov Council: Shaping the future of xGov

Related topics