Federated Governance

Good Afternoon Team,

Implementing federated governance with a primary mechanism based on a governance token on multiple blockchains offers several compelling advantages that could significantly enhance the overall efficiency, transparency, and resilience of a governance system. Here’s a strong argument for such implementation:

Decentralization with Central Coordination: Federated governance combines the benefits of decentralization with the necessity of central coordination. Allowing each chain to have its governance structure and voting mechanisms ensures that stakeholders make decisions with a vested interest in each specific chain’s operations. However, a central governance system linked to this federation provides coordination, standardization, and alignment across the entire network.

Incentivized Participation: The use of governance tokens incentivizes active participation from stakeholders across all chains. Token holders are motivated to engage in the governance process as their holdings directly influence decision-making. This incentivization can lead to more informed and committed decision-makers who act in the best interest of the network as a whole.

Ownership-Based Federation: Structuring federated units/chains around ownership promotes a sense of responsibility and accountability among participants. Those who hold significant ownership stakes in a particular chain have a vested interest in its success and are more likely to participate constructively in governance processes to safeguard their investments.

Canonical Library of Definitions: Establishing a unified library of governance definitions ensures clarity and consistency in communication across all chains. This prevents misunderstandings, reduces ambiguity, and fosters a common understanding of governance-related concepts and processes. This standardization is essential for effective decision-making and collaboration within a federated governance framework.

Resilience and Adaptability: Federated governance enhances the resilience and adaptability of the overall system. By allowing each chain to govern itself independently within a standardized framework, the network can evolve and respond to changes in a more agile manner. Additionally, central coordination ensures that overarching decisions can be made swiftly to address systemic issues or emerging challenges.

Transparency and Trust: The use of blockchain technology ensures transparency and immutability of governance processes. All decisions and actions taken within the federated governance framework are recorded on the blockchain, providing stakeholders with visibility into the decision-making process and fostering trust in the system.

Scalability and Interoperability: Federated governance can scale more effectively as the network grows by allowing new chains to join the federation seamlessly. Additionally, interoperability between chains enables efficient communication and collaboration, facilitating the exchange of ideas, resources, and governance best practices across the entire network. (This is the most important consideration, scale).

In conclusion, implementing federated governance with a primary mechanism based on a governance token on a blockchain, along with central coordination and standardized definitions, offers a robust framework for decentralized decision-making that combines the benefits of decentralization with the efficiency of central coordination.

I am open to having a call with anyone willing to deep dive how the TRADFI industry does this.
Of course, TRADFI does not have tokens, it has strategic and tactical managers who distribute goodwill as a token in a sense.

I like the federated governance with a central coordination, but it sound like your proposal needs new tokens for each chain and I am totally against multiple tokens. That makes this matter so complex I think - we have one governance token but multiple chains to govern with just one central entity (EC) holding funds for development. I can see one project cannibalising the others and have opposing views (how EC funds are spend f.e.). Especially if we are now fragmenting the community with multiple meme coins I can see that there will be hard debates between communities trying to get funds for further development on “their” chain to drive more traffic and have more revenue.
I can not see how to avoid these “wars” with a federated system other then to evenly distribute the combined revenues on a ll chains. That way every chain will act in the interest of the whole, and still can govern their own chain. We are far not at any point currently to risk being at war with each other.

1 Like

Could we do a call on this please guys?

I can take some minutes of the call and post them here in an attempt to keep communication transparent. (Given my previous post about comms)

Multiple token governance is doomed to fail, I wholeheartedly agree. But canonical token (preferably $SOV) governance is not.

A very important (most importantly) factor is a canonical reference of definitions plus a federal voting framework.

While I’m opposed to multiple DAO’s and governance structures… i somehow see the issue of “chains not communicating” with each other.

A solution imo could be to use what we have in battle tested fashion… but just move it further.
Means, a staker could be issued or hold a representation of VP. This VP is then “usable” to all Sovryn governance instances.

This way a rsk staker has the same “rights” than a BOB staker.
A Sovryn staker on BOB can vote on rsk proposals.
A Sovryn staker on rsk can vote on BOB (or other chains) proposals.
It should not boil down to individual chains and DAOs, but to the core essence of our quadratic stake weighting function (based on amount and duration of SOV staked)

I believe that community and leaders first should agree to
“this is how we want it”
…to then make it happen technically
“how and by which tools we code this”


We are on the same page you and I… I believe a call is necessary to flesh out nuances that can not be communicated via a chat medium.

I am more than willing to make a structured call and mediate if necessary.

1 Like