We are conditioned by potential investor to resolve the governance of the project in order to receive funding. Specifically the management which is currently done by the Project Leader and the team. Potential investor wants us to design and implement a system which would allow for election of the leader and the team.
During conversation with the investor yesterday I’ve proposed the following:
- Define the roles: what does the project leader do, what does the team do, what do stakeholders (coin owners) do, …? Define how are roles elected and how are they removed from power if they stray from their goals.
- This would be like a constitution.
- Design the election process which would elect the leader and his team.
This is more of a managerial role, handling day to day activities of the project and organizing the development. Governance over the protocol and meritocratic process of deciding about protocol updates are not to be meddled with. We stay with the RFC process as it is, the primary role of the project leader and the team is always to find ways to implement proposed RFCs and deploy the
- A project leader is the central figure of the process.
- Project leader candidate nominates self to become the new official project leader.
- In his candidature he proposes the future team (unlimited number of persons) at arbitrary roles.
- In his candidature he proposes a strategy/plan for next time period (6M min, 3Y max) and goals which should be fulfilled during this time period.
- In his candidature he proposes the budget required for the proposed time period.
- It is the duty of the candidate to find at least 75% of funding for this plan before his term begins.
- The leader and the team can ask the community or the Foundation to come up with the remainder of the funding before his term begins.
- At any time during the term leader/team can ask for additional funding from 3rd party sources and/or the community and Foundation.
On-chain voting for the elections
Protocol is basically a poll. Stakeholders pick a candidate from a list of candidates. Majority wins. Simple as that.
1 coin should be equal to 1 vote. However, we can make it so that only active minters are eligible to vote as it can argue that they are the active stakeholders while others are inactive and maybe not interested in Peercoin but for speculative reasons.
There are just my thoughts. We’ll do as we all agree, down the road. Just trying to get discussion going here.
To summarize, these are the options:
- 1 coin = 1 vote
- 1 solved block (in some time period) = 1 vote
- Weighted votes, which takes in address balance and the number of solved blocks in some time period
- something else