RFC: Proposal for mandate for Governance & Coordination Group

Hi Rhano!

Thanks for the proposal for the mandate of the Governance & Coordination Group. I fully agree on this point. The governance process has to be as clear as possible for everyone to follow and to be able to increase active participation in voting and commenting. Therefor intensive exchange and communication is needed, a task the GCG could do very well.

If I understand your proposal correctly, the main intention is to form the GCG formally where both Governance facilitators work together and it is no vote on the Governance facilitators themselves?

If the vote to enhance the GCG (after the succesful creation) will be done internally, I suggest to add this to the “Accountabilities and deliverables” of the group. Because this is an important task for the members

:point_up_2:Following my comment from above, maybe this should be changed to “the group has the right to nominate and onboard new members”.

Otherwise I don’t see any objections :clap:


One more question: I assume, the GCG covers the Altair governance process as well?

Thank you for the support @Tjure07. Below you will find the answers to your questions.

This is correct, if this proposal passes it means that the GCG will be formed with Ivan and myself as the “founding members”. So I guess you could say, that the Community will be voting on us indirectly, if they vote in favor of this proposal.

This is a good point, and depending on the interest in joining the group, this could be a task that require a lot of our attention in periods. However, I don’t think this is considered a core task of the group when you look at the other things we are going to address. Nevertheless, I have added it now to “Accountabilities and deliverables”.
Also note, that different groups in the DAO can have different procedures for onboarding new members - it doesn’t have to be done the exactly same way.

I follow your point, but this power doesn’t extend to the broader ecosystem and our Governance - it stays within the group. And everyone in the group (regardless of the amount of members) has the same (voting) power.

Thanks for your input :+1:


Yes, that is correct; our tasks extend to both Centrifuge and Altair, given our Governance processes are/will be the same in both projects.


Thanks for detailed explanation of Governance & Coordination group. I think it will be helpful and valuable to have a clear documentation on the governance process and support for proposers of RFC & CPs.

  • How many members are planned to be part of the GCG group in the Centrifuge DAO (short-term and long-term) and how are they compensated? I understood that for now it’s @Rhano and @ImdioR.
  • How and when can memberships in GCG be changed or renewed?

I found a good example on transparent communication on the formation of the group by the Credit Group proposal. It outlined the membership structure, compensation and how membership positions can be renewed. Maybe you can add this part to your proposal as well?


Thank you for your questions @annamehr - I will answer them as clearly as I can below.

Amount of members: You are right, to begin with, the group will consist of @ImdioR and myself - but anyone is welcome to apply to join the group. We anticipate that our tasks will require a significant amount of time and dedication so any potential candidate should be prepared and willing to invest a good amount of time to fulfill the tasks. The right candidate should have a good understanding of how our Governance process works (and to some extent also possess technical understanding of the on-chain processes), stay updated with all our Governance activities, and have eyes for details.

Ideally, we would like to increase the amount of members to three in the short term (within the next couple of months), if the right candidate presents themselves.

We don’t have any particular amount of members in mind for the long term.

Compensation: We haven’t thought about the compensation yet, but our goal is to apply for funds from the Treasury and there will be a separate proposal for the funding, once we have discussed this. Assuming there is enough support for this proposal, and we get the mandate to facilitate, our main focus will be to start creating the documents mentioned in this proposal (new Governance process, Proposal Framework, Code of Conduct etc.) and propose them to the Community.

There is no “expiry date” on the members of the group. In addition, to how new members are onboarded, there are three different ways a member can leave the group (voluntarily or involuntarily):

  1. A person leaves voluntarily
  2. The community makes a proposal to dismiss a member of a group (e.g. for not fulfilling their tasks or other legit reasons)
  3. The members in the group vote on dismissing a current member (e.g. for not fulfilling their tasks or other legit reasons)

This information will also be included in the Code of Conduct which is on our list on documents to create.

I hope that answers your questions.

1 Like

Here is another question: why is the process of “dismissing” members different than the nomination of new ones? I recommend to adapt the process: if the GCG is in charge of nominations, it should be repsonsible for dismissals as well

As far as I understand the mere purpose of the group is to work as independent as possible given through the mandate of the upcoming poll. This should include both the selection and dismissal of members

Or BOTH the nomination and voting out should be done via community votes (which is not necessary imo)


Good point, and I agree with you. However, the community should still be able to make a proposal to dismiss of a member, if they find that a member doesn’t fulfill their duties (or other relevant reason).

But in the end, the decision should be up to the other members of the group.

This is all very valuable input, and we will clarify all of this before putting it up for a Snapshot vote.

1 Like

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe there is some coordination with @thespaceacatjr from the Credit Group necessary. I would recommend to use the same process for both groups as the set up and purpose is similar :raised_hands:

1 Like

This is great!

I’d like to add a #5 to “Description of Activity”: Forum Organization

I find that most Forums around crypto projects are hard to navigate. Given Centrifuge’s mission to bridge tradfi into defi, I think the world of traditional finance, coming to a Forum for the first time and looking to observe, learn, and engage – this can be quite daunting.

Could we come up with a simple organized “how-to” navigate the Centrifuge Forum?

This would make our Forum feel warm and inviting to folks that are navigating it for the first time and looking to engage.


Thank you for your input @ctcunning.

I am personally a big advocate for making information accessible to everyone in a simple, structured and organised way. One of our tasks is actually to make sure that documentation is updated and uploaded the relevant places - this could be extended to the documentation on the Forum.

However, this would have to be done in collaboration with @Tjure07 who is our Forum Facilitator.

We both (Ivan and I) believe that the current structure and presentation of the documentation can and should be improved. Our focus, to begin with, will be to propose a clearer Governance process and a Proposal Framework, as we mention in this proposal. I believe a re-structuring of the Forum will be looked into as the next step, assuming the Community approves of the proposal.

I fully support the existence of this group, and would like to become a member. I haven’t been as fully engaged these past couple months, as I’ve been looking for work in other areas. But I believe my background as previous Governance Facilitator could still be a positive contribution within the group.

Here we go and we have the first applicant to the group. :v:

But I suggest to tread this indepentendly from the creation of the group. As mentioned in the thread above, the group has to decide how and whom to nominate as a member. This can be done only after the group exists


Thanks for the remark, Colin.

I agree, forum users need some navigation and a guideline “how to use it”. Especially when it comes to the governance process. Now we have Opensquare/Subsquare as an additional User Interface for voting and we need to make sure everyone who participates in the process understands the navigation and the standard (e.g. I’d like to see some naming convention for proposals and referendums to make voting as clear as possible).

As @Rhano said, this has to be done in accordance with the members of ghe GCG

Right, definitely getting a little ahead of myself ;).

But yeah, this is a fantastic step forward by @Rhano and @ImdioR towards the formalization of the stewardship of the DAO, and I think the current list of directives really accurately reflects what needs to be addressed within the current state of Governance.


Good day Tjure07
Yes, of course. GCG will cover all Governance processes in Centrifuge and Altair.

GCG should and will interact, in case of need, with DAO, individual community members, or other projects as well in order to guarantee the correct work, integration, or improvements of the protocol.

First of all. Thank you, it is great to see this group being formed.

On the above: I personally think it is really important that compensation is already part of this proposal as it is essential for the formation of the GCP.

Another thing I wanted to ask is: This proposal is implicitly also a proposal for the formation of a DAO istelf, right?

Hi @Rhano,

As I mentioned above I think it would benefit the proposal to be more precise on the compensation and have it in the proposal. I’m sure you will do a great job and create good docs for the community.

The planned amount of members is now clear to me as well as the process to add or remove members in the group.

I hope this helps.

Hi @mustermeiszer, appreciate your input and support.

For now we are funded by an existing community grant agreement with the Centrifuge Network Foundation in return for our community building work. For the time being, this can cover our remuneration and we will work out a more detailed funding proposal for the GCG and any additional members as it becomes needed. Cc @annamehr.

No, this proposal is not for the formation of the Centrifuge DAO - this proposal is to legitimise our existence as a group within the Centrifuge DAO.