RFC: Proposal for new Governance Process and Framework

Authors: Governance & Coordination Group (@ImdioR and @Rhano)
Contributors: Governance & Coordination Group (@ImdioR and @Rhano)
Date created: 2022/10/18

Short Summary

Proposal for a new Governance process and defining proposal types and their templates.

High-level objective

This proposal aims to bring more clarity and transparency to our Governance process. The Governance & Coordination Group (GCG) want to provide a clear framework and process for proposers, by defining different proposal types and their Governance processes.

The different proposal types are called CPs (Centrifuge Proposals) and they are each followed by a number, indicating their type.


In our proposal to become a core group in the Centrifuge DAO, and get a mandate to formalise, coordinate and facilitate Governance processes, we promised that one of our first tasks would be to propose a clearer Governance process. Our proposal passed last week and now we are ready to propose the first iteration of our new Governance process.

The proposal is subject to change, based on the feedback and input from the Community.

Description of Activity

We have defined the following proposal types (CPs) and assigned them each with a number.

CP # Proposal type Short description
CP-1 Request for Mandate with Funding Seeking mandate as a group/individual within the Centrifuge DAO to enact a project/work stream
CP-1.1 Request for Mandate without Funding Same as CP-1, just without initial funding
CP-1.2 Removal of Mandate Removal of a group’s mandate to enact a project/work stream (CP-1)
CP-2 Request for Funding Asking for funding from the Treasury
CP-3 Runtime Upgrades Proposals for Runtime Upgrades
CP-3.1 Emergency Proposals Emergency proposals in case of hacks, exploits, attacks, or network halt
CP-4 General Improvements Any proposal type, that does not fit under any of the other CPs
CP-5 Centrifuge Pool Onboarding Proposal (POP) Onboarding new pools on Centrifuge Chain

In general, the Governance process can be divided into two parts; off-chain and on-chain Governance.

Off-chain Governance:
This refers to the part of the process that takes place on our Forum (Request For Comments) and OpenSquare (snapshot voting). The purpose of this is generally to get input from the Community on a proposal and gather support, before moving the proposal on-chain (if necessary - not all proposals need to be submitted on-chain in order to pass).

On-chain Governance:
This refers to the part of the process that takes places on the blockchain. First a proposal is created on-chain (can be done by either the public or the Council) and this is generally followed by an on-chain referendum where all token holders can vote Aye or Nay.

Please find the whole proposal with all CPs, their governance processes and templates in the Google Doc below, where everything is explained in more details.

:scroll: :point_right: Full proposal

Change or improvement

We believe that this proposal will contribute to a more robust and decentralised Governance, where anyone is able to create a CP, by following the guidelines and processes.

Recently, we integrated Subsquare/OpenSquare Voting in our Governance process and one the biggest changes was the introduction of snapshot voting which has replaced our Forum polls.

Another change that this proposal will bring is the introduction of the Centrifuge Proposal Repository (on Github), which will act as register where all CPs must be submitted to.

We are not expecting this to be the final version of our Governance process - this is an on-going process where we might see a few iterations over time. Therefore, it would be greatly appreciated to get input from the Community on this proposal so we collectively find a model that suits the need of our protocol and ecosystem.


Great work @Rhano !

To All:
Feel free to comment on the proposal and leave your feedback. The proposal could be modified and changed before will pass it to the next step - Snapshot vote.

1 Like

Hi @Rhano and @ImdioR,

This proposal to put the governance process into a more standardized framework makes absolutely sense. How will the numbering of the different proposals look like, because the current naming convention and numeration leaves much to be desired.

Is there a similar system (e.g) to the SIPs by Synthetix planned?

Thank you @Tjure07. To answer your questions.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here, could you clarify your question please?

Did you take a look at the full proposal where things are clarified in more details?

I am personally not familiar with Synthetix and how their Governance model works.
There is nothing specifically planned - but we do expect the process to evolve over time. For example, once we decide to adapt Gov2, we would need to make some changes to our own process. But also based on the feedback from the Community.

Each SIP (Synthetix Improvement Proposal) has a number to clearly identify it. For example SIP-1 was created for the governance guideline with the detailed description of the purpose.

Given the different proposal types have different meanings, I would recommend to use the numbering to make it clear at first sight which type it is, especially once the governance grows further, a clear identification is needed

1 Like

How does CP-5 fit into the existing POP-process? I assume it is meant to be for the future POP-process v2 because currently the submission through the forum doesn’t require a standardized template

The different proposal types are already numbered after category (e.g. CP-1, CP-2 etc.) so I am still not sure what you mean.

Let’s assume there will be more Runtime upgrades, which is 100% the case. How will the title each Runtime upgrade look like?

CP-301 (?) Runtime upgrade XY
CP-302 (?) Runtime upgrade XYZ

If I understand the templates correctly they are TEMPLATES and everyone who creates a RU needs to use them but how will the numbering look like?

Each proposal will get a new number. Similar to how Maker MIPs are increased in numbers and EIPs are too.

That’s how I understood it.

1 Like

Yes, we are still waiting for the V2 POP process (CP-5) to be announced. There is a workshop planned for the 27th October, where everyone interested can participate and contribute.

That is why it is described as “To be announced” in the full proposal.


Yes, and similar to Synthetix. That’s what I wanted to say with my examples. But how? :wink:

@lucasvo and @Tjure07
They way we have suggested it for Runtime Upgrades is that they will all be CP-3 (CP-3.1 are emergency proposals). Each Runtime Upgrade is not intended to get a new number - we can distinguish between them by their version, e.g:

CP-3: Runtime upgrade 1014
CP-3: Runtime upgrade 1015
CP-3: Runtime upgrade 1016

This was to keep it simple. But again, nothing is written in stones and this is subject to change based on the feedback. An alternative could be what you are suggesting:

CP-3.01: Runtime upgrade 1014
CP-3.02: Runtime upgrade 1015
CP-3.03: Runtime upgrade 1016

Thanks for the clarification. In my humble opinion it makes more sense to use a running order instead of the examples given at the beginning.

If every RU has the number CP-3 without anything else it gets very confusing

Does it make sense to use “CIP” for Centrifuge Improvement Proposal instead of “CP”?

Not all proposals are related to improvement, so I think that CP - Centrifuge Proposal describes better and shorter the meaning of CP.

Thanks for the feedback. I don’t have any strong opinion about numbering the proposal, and we are open for suggestions, but I am curious to know why you think it will be confusing with only CP-3 if it is followed by a Runtime Version?

To me personally, it makes sense to able to distinguish between them, based on their Runtime Version.

Great job @ImdioR and @Rhano! Maybe you should also mention this in the coming governance call!


Thank you @DrCAO - it is already on the agenda :grinning:

I think it makes a lot of sense to use the 1-5 numbering system. It helps keep the different types of proposals better organized. And if in the title of the post or proposal it clearly lays out the meaning anyway i.e. “CP-2 Request for Funding 1104”, then it will be clear as it is. And also by seeing the numbers and types repeatedly spelled out together, people will start to learn the association between them, at which point they could be used with just the number as shorthand where appropriate.

I think the one question I have @Rhano @ImdioR is how that “1104” running order number at the end is determined. I think that’s what @Tjure07 might have been aiming at as well.

Starting from the very beginning, do we just start with 1001, 1002, 1003, etc for each respective type of proposal? I guess it’s sorta arbitrary whether it goes from 1, 001, 1001, 1101 etc. But I’m curious how you see that working.

Thank you for your input Robert! I/we agree with you, the distinction between the different proposal types (and their Governance process) is something that is missing in our current Governance process.

As I replied to @Tjure07 as well, we weren’t imagining numbering the proposals, other than with the proposal type followed by the title, e.g. “CP-2 Request for funding of X group”.

If the general sentiment is to start numbering them, they way I imagine it happening, is that they just start in chronological order. E.g. the first funding proposal will be called “CP-2.01: Funding of X group”, and the next one will be called “CP-2.02: Funding for creation of video content” etc.

It sounds like we have something to discuss in the Governance call later :+1:

Hi @Rhano,

what proposal type would be a product idea/request e.g. build Connectors or enabling a functionality in the Centrifuge app?