The xGov Council: Shaping the future of xGov

In this day and age, considering the global nature of this ecosystem, it is increasingly less difficult to obtain a false identity to sneak into the council than to obtain and keep good reputation as a pseudo-anonymous community member.

Qualifications that look good on paper is worth nothing compared to a good reputation. And we have so many provably competent and valuable undoxxed members of community that enjoy trust and respect from said community. I don’t need to know Loafpickle’s real name to trust their judgement and honesty, no more than it helps me to know the real name of Bumgartner, who successfully scammed lots of people with seemingly impressive and trustworthy curriculum vitae.

We have been here, many for years, and have had sufficient time to get to know each other, even though hidden behind funny animal pictures.

5 Likes

Regarding the proposal to have 13 council members, the number 13 is not a very lucky number even for Japanese people, let alone overseas.

Therefore, I propose an initial number of council members of 17. 13 is a prime number, and prime numbers are numbers that cannot be divided by any other number except 1. Since Algorand is also designed not to fork, I feel that it is similar in that it cannot be divided, so I propose 17, the next prime number after 13.

As for the number of council members thereafter, I think it would be fine to always solicit candidates and decide by voting, regardless of the number. The only other thing to decide would be the voting method and the criteria for election.

Dissent is welcome.

3 Likes

Proposal regarding compensation.
Council members will not be compensated with ALGO payments, but rather will be given an official Foundation NFT each month, similar to Pera’s governance NFT.
Once received, individuals are free to sell it on the market or hold on to it.
If Algorand continues to expand, the value of the NFT will increase over time, making it similar to a stock option.

I think candidates should state their desired amount and form of compensation on their application forms, and leave the decision to the voters.

3 Likes

As I said it was arbitrary, the point was for an element of randomness and commitment. Latter.

2 Likes

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions. As discussed in the X space last week, GP14 measures are based on your comments above, so we can start defining some of the parameters for the new council.

There will be a more measures in the future as we continue to evolve the program. Buckle up! :))))

— GP14 Measures —

xGov Council Allowances

In Governance Period 13, governors voted to establish the xGov council to start decentralizing the tasks required to manage proposals when we launch the new phase of xGov in Q2.

Governors also voted on the council election eligibility where the options chosen were:

  • Any Algo holder with the required experience could apply as a candidate, and
  • Any Algo holder participating in general governance could vote in the council elections.

Any Algo holder could apply as a candidate. They may or may not be running a node and producing blocks, qualifying them to vote on the xGov proposals. That means that in the council, we will have councilors who will be eligible to vote on xGov proposals and councilors who will not.

We have requested feedback about the new council criteria on our forum. The community engagement has been fantastic, uncovering many themes requiring further clarification.

In this voting session, we begin addressing those issues.

Read and partake in the Forum discussion.

xGov Council Duties and Powers

The need to emphasize the xGov council’s duties and powers emerged from the community feedback, especially as we ask you to define these initial parameters.

Duties

  • Review and understand the terms and conditions of the program.
  • Evaluate proposals to check compliance with terms and conditions, provide general guidance, and outline benefits or issues to help kick off the proposal discussion.
  • Hold public discussions about the proposals review process above.

Powers

  • Once a proposal passes, the xGov council can block it ONLY if it doesn’t comply with the terms and conditions.
  • Expel fellow council members for misconduct by a supermajority vote of at least 85%.
  • Also, by a majority vote, block fellow council members’ remuneration (if Measure 4 is approved) if they are not performing their duties.

It’s important to stress that the final decision power is still in the hands of the xGovs, since proposals are approved only through an xGov vote.

The Algorand Foundation’s Role

The Foundation will not be a part of the council and will not partake in council decisions.

Our role will be to support the council and to record the terms and conditions review results in the xGov platform admin dashboard. We will also provide the Github repo to collect the council applications and host the governance voting session for the council election.

We will remain the xGov platform’s administrator (admin) for a period after launch. Once the first xGov council is established, we will jointly plan the platform’s administration and maintenance handover to the community.

During our tenure as the platform’s administrators, we will have veto power on passed proposals. This will be used only in an emergency, and the Foundation will be publicly disclosed in case it needs to use this power. For example, if the council colludes to approve a proposal that doesn’t meet the terms and conditions, we can also pause the platform’s operation if the xGov smart contract is found to have a critical vulnerability.

This quarter, we ask you to express your opinion on establishing the xGov council allowances for identity disclosure, proposal submission and voting, and council remuneration.

Please consider the options carefully and head to our Forum for discussion before voting, to understand the points of view behind the measures below or to address any other specific questions you may have.

What’s next

Many more decisions will be made about this topic this year, and we will return to the community as the work begins and new questions emerge.

We count on you to help us fulfill our mission of responsible decentralization.

Now, let’s vote!

—-

Measure 1 - Disclosure of council candidates’ names

To ensure the integrity of the xGov council, all applicants must complete a Know-Your-Customer (KYC) process with the Algorand Foundation before the council election begins. This verifies each candidate’s identity and confirms they meet eligibility requirements. The Algorand Foundation will have access to candidate identities. The community has debated whether to make their full names public.

Important: Applicants who do not complete the KYC process within the specified timeframe after submitting their application will be disqualified from the election ballot.

Should council applicants’ full names be known to the community?

Yes
No

Measure 2 - Allowing council members’ proposals

The Algorand community is actively debating whether xGov council members should be able to submit grant proposals during their tenure. The proposed framework prohibits councilors from submitting proposals to prevent conflicts of interest. However, some community members argue that allowing council members to propose projects could harness their expertise and dedication to the ecosystem. This discussion highlights the need to balance ethical governance with the potential benefits of leveraging council members’ insights for ecosystem growth.

Should council members be allowed to submit proposals?

Yes
No

Measure 3 - Voting on their proposals

You must vote on this measure regardless of your choice in Measure 2.

The discussion around xGov council members submitting proposals naturally leads to another critical question: should council members with xGov voting power abstain from voting on their own proposals? While some argue that their involvement in the proposal process brings valuable expertise to the ecosystem, concerns about conflicts of interest remain. Allowing councilors to vote on their own proposals could undermine the integrity of the governance process, while mandatory abstention may limit their influence on initiatives they believe in. Active participation is crucial for ensuring a fair and transparent decision-making process.

Should council members with xGov voting power abstain from voting on their own proposals?

Yes
No, provided they disclose their voting address

Measure 4 - Approving council remuneration

Another issue is whether xGov council members should receive remuneration for their contributions. Proponents argue that financial incentives are essential to attract and retain individuals with the necessary expertise and commitment to oversee the ecosystem’s development effectively. Conversely, some community members express concerns about potential conflicts of interest and emphasize the need for clear accountability measures to ensure that compensation aligns with performance and community goals.

Should council members receive remuneration for their work?

Yes
No

Measure 5 - Council compensation amount

You must vote on this measure regardless of your choice in Measure 4.

The proposed framework suggests compensating councilors with 10,000 ALGO annually, disbursed quarterly and funded by the xGov budget. This payment would be conditioned to a positive review of their performances, as evaluated by fellow council members.

If Measure 4 is approved, how much should the council member remuneration be?

10,000 Algo per year
5,000 Algo per year

4 Likes

Adri, thank you for providing the guidelines.
Would it be okay to continue the discussion?

Regarding the transparency of duties, there is a provision for holding public discussions.
Will these be conducted in real-time through online platforms such as X Spaces, or will they take place asynchronously on platforms like the Algorand Forum, where scheduling is not an issue?
The reason for this question is to understand how language barriers and time zone differences are being considered.
If it is the latter, there should be no issue, but if it is the former, it will inevitably exclude certain regions.

The xGov Council may not have expertise in every field.
If an xGov proposal is too specialized in a particular domain, to what extent is the council expected to review it?

4 Likes

Measure 3 is quite a dilemma.
In the first place, neither we nor the Foundation have investigative authority, and there is no way to prevent the creation of anonymized addresses or to investigate them.
Even if a voting list is published, those who want to vote will still be able to do so.
If “No” is approved for this proposal, only those who participate sincerely will bear the risks.
If Measure 1 is approved with “Yes,” sincere participants will end up publicly disclosing both their names and assets to the entire world.
For those who decide to follow the rules properly but wish to keep their assets private by using anonymized addresses, there would be no way to prove that they are actually complying with the rules.

3 Likes

Mistook this as replacement for xGovs entirely. The current plan for xGovs is promising

1 Like

is there a requirement that councilors should review a minimum number of proposals a quarter. How do we hold them accountable that they’re contributing meaningfully, no free loaders.

1 Like

Will applicants be required to discloses their affiliation with any Algorand projects. And if so, will this information be made available to the community?

2 Likes

During the public application process on GitHub.

1 Like