RFC: Roadmap Process & Protocol Engineering Group Mandate

RFC: Roadmap Process & Protocol Engineering Group Mandate

Proposal type: CP-1.1 (Mandate Request without Funding)
Author: @jeroen
Member(s): To be confirmed
Date proposed: 2023-02-07

Short Summary

Proposal for the creation of a new Protocol Engineering Group, composed of core development team members working on the Centrifuge Protocol, and mandated to provide technical assessments and propose a roadmap to the community.

High level objective

Mandate a group in the DAO with two key objectives:

  • Provide feedback on technical feasibility of improvement proposals in the community and propose technical implementations;
  • Collect all improvement proposals that were discussed, voted on and approved by CFG token holders and propose a roadmap for CFG token holders to vote on and create a new proposal type (CP-6 Roadmap Proposals) to be added to the Governance Process.


As the Centrifuge DAO furthers its journey to decentralization, key new features being voted in to be implemented to the protocol are being discussed in the community, and are being proposed by an increasing number of parties.

Significant protocol changes such as the proposed Protocol Fees are heavily dependent on what is technically possible and feasible based on the underlying technology stack (e.g. Substrate) and existing implementation of other features in the protocol. Therefore, it is important that technical experts provide feedback on the feasibility and are involved early on in the process.

Moreover, it is important that the order of technical implementation is prioritized well. This needs to take into account the desires of the token holders, the strategic direction of the DAO by aligning to the proposed Founding Documents and the protocol, as well as technical limitations (e.g. feature A has a dependency on feature B), and technical estimates that will impact other timelines.

Description of Activity

Technical feasibility comment process

PE Group members will engage with proposers of new improvement proposals and publish feasibility comments in the RFC phase of these proposals by responding on the RFC thread in the Centrifuge governance forum. These comments serve as advice to the proposers but are not mandatory to be incorporated into the proposals by the proposer.

A feasibility comment should not be mandatory for an improvement proposal to pass. This also does not exclude any other community members from providing their own comments related to technical feasibility of the improvement proposal.

Technical Feasibility Template

Technical Feasibility Comment
Author: Forum handle

Short Summary

Detailed Comments

Roadmap process

On a regular basis, the group will review the proposals in the community that have been approved in accordance with the governance process. They will seek input from contributors, investors, issuers, and other key ecosystem members in the DAO. This input will be used to prioritize proposals and develop a roadmap for the DAO.

The group will publicly share the roadmap as an RFC with a comment period of at least 21 days and proceed to a snapshot vote for approval by token holders. If approved, the roadmap will then be deemed ratified and will replace any previous roadmap approved by the DAO.

The PE Group is responsible for updating and proposing a roadmap following this process every 6 months.

Governance Process

1 Create an RFC on the Forum Minimum 21 days
2 Submit proposal to the Centrifuge Proposals Repository (on Github) to get a pull request # -
3 Create a Proposal post on the Forum -
4 Create a snapshot vote on OpenSquare Exactly 14 days

Roadmap Proposal Template

Proposal type: CP-XXX
Author(s): Forum handle(s) of author(s)
Contributor(s): Forum handle(s) of contributor(s)
Date proposed: yyyy-mm-dd
Replaces Previous Roadmap: CP-XXX

Short Summary
- One sentence summary of proposal

Roadmap Proposal
- Proposed roadmap with links to CPs to be implemented.

Change or improvement

The Protocol Engineering Group will lead to more public discussions of the technical feasibility of improvement proposals in the community, as well as proposals for a roadmap that the DAO can decide to adopt.

Alignment to the mission of Centrifuge DAO

The Protocol Engineering Group will attempt to bring more transparency to the technical development of the protocol and the protocol roadmap for community members.

Description of Group

This proposal mandates @jeroen to be a facilitator of the Protocol Engineering Group. The facilitator will be responsible for onboarding and offboarding of new Protocol Engineering Group members.

If this proposal is accepted by token holders, the intention is that the first members will include members from k/factory, SR Labs and other contributing organizations to the DAO. Some examples of potential members who have shown interest are:

  • @annamehr, Product Manager at k/factory
  • @mustermeiszer, Technical PM at k/factory
  • Regina, Security Researcher at SR Labs
  • @will, Master of Validators at Parity

The initial list of members will be published on the Centrifuge governance forum within 2 weeks after the proposal is accepted. Any time a new member is added or a member is removed from the Protocol Engineering Group, this will be posted on the Centrifuge governance forum.

The Protocol Engineering Group will seek advice from other technical experts as much as possible, from members of k/factory engineering circle as well as EMBRIO.tech, and other future development teams in the DAO.


No budget is requested.

Delivery and Reporting

The Protocol Engineering Group aims to start its work immediately if the CP is accepted by token holders. It will aim to propose the first roadmap in the 2 months following acceptance.


I like what’ I’m reading. Setting a great foundation for the DAO and proposal process moving forward. Wouldn’t be surprised to see other DAOs follow suit if this experiment is a success.


Hoi Jeroen!

This group is highly needed, especially for the reason quoted above and I fully second this RFC.

One question: how will this on- and offboarding take place and who else (besides the existing crew) can join the PEG in the future? In my opinion it would make sense to publish a profile of needed requirements for future recruitment (e.g which technical skills etc.)

1 Like

I’d like to emphasize the Credit Group here.

If you look at the LinkedIn’s and backgrounds of these individuals, I think you’ll find that these folks have deep expertise in underwriting and risk assessment, and thus can be helpful in our understanding of these key functions within asset management and issuance that could be compelling for ongoing and future product development specific to the future roadmap of the protocol.

1 Like

makes sense to have this group of tech experts

1 Like

I had assumed that qualified techs had already worked on proposals before any proposal came to a vote, so nonsensical proposals were not up for a vote. I for one may not know what is sensible since I am not a Protocol Engineer. This Protocol Engineering Group is then urgently needed. Why are you submitting a budget for this? It is necessary if the Group is to do serious Protocol Engineering. It takes time and effort and who will continue in such a long-term endeavor if rewarded with kudos only? It is a great idea which I also second, Jeroen. Please make sure that people like me are not invited to vote on something that makes no sense.

1 Like

Hi finagain. There is no additional budget needed, the mandate of the group - as described by Jeroen - is to provide technical consultancy in the whole phase of governance process and especially in the RFC. The next task is the creation of a road map for the Centrifuge protocol.
The RFC phase is critical because the proposal is not final yet and everyone in the community can add comments and remarks. If this is done by technical experts, it has even more value

1 Like

I support this idea and would like to contribute to this group.


I’ve just clarified this in the proposal. The goal is that this includes experts on the Centrifuge Protocol as well as experts on related topics (e.g. security, ecosystem, …).