# Founding Documents for the Centrifuge DAO? Part 3 & 4: Code of Conduct & Levels of Engagement

**URL:** <https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/founding-documents-for-the-centrifuge-dao-part-3-4-code-of-conduct-levels-of-engagement/4791>\
**Category:** Governance discussion\
**Tags:** 2022, nov, founding-docs\
**Created:** [November 22, 2022, 6:04pm UTC](https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/founding-documents-for-the-centrifuge-dao-part-3-4-code-of-conduct-levels-of-engagement/4791 "2022-11-22T18:04:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rhano](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/gov.centrifuge.io/rhano/32/1014_2.png) [@Rhano](https://gov.centrifuge.io/u/Rhano)\
**Post date:** [December 5, 2022, 1:10pm UTC](https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/founding-documents-for-the-centrifuge-dao-part-3-4-code-of-conduct-levels-of-engagement/4791/10 "2022-12-05T13:10:42Z")

</div>

I do have some thoughts about one of the important points @akhan is addressing.

> [@Kate\_Bee](#):
>
> > [@akhan](#):
> >
> > A large protocol partner, and potential CFG holder, could make proposals that are harmful or unfairly beneficial or outright bad for the protocol (and wouldn’t be considered a governance attack).
> 
> Yes, I’ve seen this happen often, and because of large token holdings or ‘brand influence’ there is a claim of legitimacy. Are you saying that we could try to uses the CoC to prevent bad proposals or bad actors or both?

I personally don’t think it makes sense for the CoC to address bad actors/proposals in relation to Governance proposals - or rather, I don’t think it will have any effect.

If our governance process works, and people follow it, we should be able to catch these type of harmful proposals in the discussion phase (off-chain), assuming DAO members with the relevant expertise points out the unfairly beneficial/harmful/bad part. But in order for this to work, we need (the right) people to actively participate in the discussions to provide input, i.e. we need more mandated groups with specific expertise.

We’ve had situations in the past where potential harmful (on-chain) proposals were made, and also without following our Governance process - I think this is a risk that comes with open governance.

To mitigate for those kind of spam/harmful proposals, I proposed to [increase the amount of self-bond for creating an on-chain proposal](https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/rfc-increase-the-amount-of-self-bond-to-1000-cfg-for-creating-an-on-chain-proposal/3589) back in March (which passed and got implemented). However, if we talk about a big token holder, then this self-bond (currently set to 1000 CFG) will most likely not be a barrier to carry on with the bad intentions.

There are many factors to consider in situations like this

- Is the governance process followed?
- Is it an off-/on-chain proposal?
- Is the proposal directly harmful to the protocol or is it “just” unfairly beneficial.

But I don’t think we will be able to properly enforce a CoC in this context. We will just have to remain vigilant and monitor all proposals (which is one of GCG’s tasks).

But maybe someone else has another view on this matter and I am curious to hear it.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/founding-documents-for-the-centrifuge-dao-part-3-4-code-of-conduct-levels-of-engagement/4791)._