Governance oversight committee: a proposal


I propose the creation of a separate committee which would consist of 6 members with extended Veto rights to increase the overall effectiveness of the current voting process and to stop any possibility of potentially harmful proposals to pass. If certain conditions met (described in proposal) the Governance Committee will be able to stop any proposal from being accepted even if it passed public voting.


I strongly believe there should be some kind of centralisation even within decentralised community if we want to stop scam proposals / avoid manipulation and to give Devs and community the chance to concentrate on the ideas of adding value / stability to the Lunc instead of proposing and discussing ideas based on feelings / greed / lack of knowledge etc.


  1. Governance Committee to be created and would consist of 6 members: 2 representatives of Devs’ team, 2 representatives of Validators, 2 community members which are independent from Devs / Validators

  2. Ed and Zaradar to become Devs’ representatives unless they want to re-delegate their roles to the Devs of their choice.

  3. Two separate polls (not proposals) to be started by Devs’ representative to initiate the public voting for choosing 4 other members of the team. Devs can give their recommendations but anyone who applied within agreed timeframe can be considered. Based on the outcome of public voting 2 validators’ reps and 2 community’s reps gonna form the rest of the Governance Committee.

  4. Governance Committee to agree on delegating one of it’s members to be responsible for delivering written reports to the Community and to have a “final vote” in case of Committee not being united in justifying any of proposals which passed public voting at Terra Station

  5. Any further proposal which has passed public voting at Terra Station to be confirmed by the Governance Team’s delegated rep in a written statement to be finally accepted and implemented.

  6. Each member of the Governance Team has a right to put Veto on any of the proposals which have passed initial public voting. The breakdown of the votes and the explanation / comments on decision made by the Team to be provided to the community in written statement by the Governance Team’s delegate.

6.1. If four or more Veto were put on the proposal then public voting has to be ignored.

6.2. If two or less Veto were put on the proposal then results of the public voting have to be accepted and implemented

6.3. If three Veto were put on the proposal then the outcome has to be justified by the Governance Team’s member who has the “final vote”.

  1. If proposal was initiated by one of the Governance Committee’s members it’s suggested that all Team members have agreed on the conditions of the proposal made. If it’s not the case then the final report on Team’s votes breakdown has to be provided to the Community by the Team’s rep after the public voting. The vote of the member who initiated the proposal has to be ignored in this case. If three or more Veto were put on proposal it has to be ignored. Otherwise it has to be implemented.

  2. If proposal to replace one of the Governance Committee’s members was started and has passed public voting then it can be abandoned only in case when all 5 other members of the Governance Committee have put Veto on it. Otherwise Committee’s member has to be replaced following the results of a new public poll voting initiated.

No. What needs to be done is take the power away from the validators and give it to each individual in the community. A unitary voting system.


I suggested this idea as well but most probably it’s gonna lead to the serious and potentially endless conflict of interests. Also I believe that no stable / valuable system can be built within the market if it’s based on the principles of pure democracy.

So my proposal does come from the point of “how we get faster progress and add value to the Lunc while avoiding harmful chaos and still keeping the idea of community being involved in governance”.