Dear Community! Thank you to all who participated in the survey by sharing your opinions on the Next steps in Mina Protocol’s governance.
As of June 7th, we are no longer accepting responses, if anyone wants to share more feedback you can go to the governance discussion channel: Discord
Below please find the summarized and categorized feedback. This has been done by using OpenAI and under our Protocol Governance team supervision. However, AI is not programmed to categorize answers in any particular way, it simply collects and categorizes information for better understanding. Please note that the survey bot+gpt summariser is open for anyone in the community to read and provide feedback for improvements:
GitHub - MinaFoundation/gptSurveySummarizer: Discord bot to gather your thoughts
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Question 1: General feedback
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Do you agree, disagree, or are neutral with the proposals in the blogpost? And why?
11 responses
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
General Agreement [5 responses]
Expressions of agreement with the proposals, including general support and recognition of the proposal’s thoroughness or realism.
🇦 Support for Community Involvement [3 responses]
Acknowledgment of the inclusion of community involvement as a positive aspect of the proposals. The responses under the subtopic ‘Support for Community Involvement’ show strong support for the proposals regarding involving the community in the initiatives discussed in the blogpost. Users have expressed their agreement, highlighting the realistic approach and the importance of including community involvement as initial steps in solving the difficult problem presented. Both the strong and simple agreements indicate that the proposals are well-received among the respondents.
🇧 Appreciation of Effort [2 responses]
Praise for the effort and ambition behind the proposals, acknowledging their potential impact. Responses within the ‘Appreciation of Effort’ subtopic show a positive attitude towards the proposals, with one user expressing strong enthusiasm and looking forward to the experiment, and another user simply agreeing with the proposals.
Governance Structure [3 responses]
Discussions related to the structure and implementation of governance within the proposals.
🇦 Need for More Details [1 response]
Calls for more specific details on implementation plans and governance structure. Responses indicate a strong agreement on the need for more details regarding Mina’s governance plans. Though the overarching structure is appreciated, a call for specifics on implementation plans is highlighted, suggesting that while the foundation is set, further clarification on execution is desired.
🇧 Evolution of Governance [2 responses]
Suggestions on how governance should evolve, including the role of community and foundation members, and the implementation of an identity system for accountability. Participants express agreement with the evolution of governance within the Mina framework. They appreciate the new opportunities for Mina holders to participate in grant decision-making through the separation of MIP and MEF. Additionally, there’s a strong interest in a governance mix that includes community members, Mina Foundation members, and wider ecosystem participants. The introduction of an on-chain identity system is well-received for ensuring accountability and recognition within the community. Respondents underscore the importance of incentivizing governance participation and propose a gradual approach starting with less critical decisions. There’s a suggestion to document the governance process and outcomes for continuous learning, along with a gradual shift to increase community representation over time, reducing Mina Foundation members’ roles in governance.
Values and Decisions [1 response]
Insights into the values underlying the proposals and decision-making processes discussed within.
🇦 Values Discussion [1 response]
Concerns regarding the explicit mention of values and the need for a broader discussion on missing values. The respondent generally agrees with the proposal but has specific issues, notably disagreeing with the description of governance as a ‘wicked problem’. They strongly agree with the initiative, emphasizing the need for clear goal corrections to be efficient, aligned, and democratic. They advocate for a broader discussion on missing values, questioning the inclusivity of values like rapid wealth accumulation, human rights respect, and adherence to democratic decisions in organizational work. Additionally, they suggest that the categories of decisions could be expanded to consider the types of projects funded, particularly those that could harm people or society. The respondent calls for a wider exploration of historical and recent governance methods, pointing out the overlooked lessons from cooperative movements and participatory budget initiatives like Porto Alegre’s. They endorse direct deliberation and algorithmic coordination as governance tools but caution against limiting governance to these methods alone.
Language Inclusivity [1 response]
Concerns regarding the language barrier and suggestions for making the proposals more inclusive.
🇦 Multilingual Representation [1 response]
Proposal for incorporating multilingual representatives and translating documents to ensure no one is left behind due to language barriers. The response highlights strong support for the propositions aimed at establishing democratic governance in Mina. The respondent appreciates the ambitious nature of the proposals but expresses concern over potential exclusion due to language barriers. They suggest enhancing multilingual representation by translating important documents into the most commonly used languages, ensuring no one is left behind.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Unmatched Responses
Responses not matched with any topic: 1
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Question 2: Specific feedback
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Are there any specific proposals you strongly agree or strongly disagree with? Please provide each piece of feedback as a separate response when filling out the survey.
8 responses
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Historic and Cooperative Governance Models [3 responses]
Evaluates the survey responses focusing on historical and cooperative governance models not considered in the proposal.
🇦 Cooperative Movement Omission [1 response]
Critiques the lack of reference to the cooperative movement’s contributions to democratic and efficient governance. Feedback highlights a significant omission in addressing the cooperative movement, underscoring its over 200-year history of democratic and efficient governance. Additionally, it points out the lack of mention of other long-running political initiatives like Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting process, which exemplifies direct democratic involvement in municipal budget decisions.
🇧 Lack of Broad Investigation [2 responses]
Points out the proposal’s failure to investigate a wider range of democratic, social, and political movements. Respondents, express a concern regarding the ‘Lack of Broad Investigation’ subtopic within Historic and Cooperative Governance Models. They highlight the proposal’s significant shortfall in exploring historical and recent governance methods broadly. Furthermore, they emphasize an overall neglect in investigating various economic, social, and political movements that prioritize democratic and collective action, pointing out missed opportunities to learn from the successes and failures of community-centered governance experiments.
Identity Verification and Privacy [2 responses]
Covers responses related to the dilemmas of identity verification while prioritizing privacy.
🇦 Disagreement with KYC [1 response]
Highlights opposition to traditional Know Your Customer (KYC) approaches due to privacy concerns. Participants express strong disagreement with the implementation of traditional Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols for Sybil attack protection in the context of maintaining zk ID’s goal of user control over shared identity data. They find it ironic to the protocol’s aims.
🇧 On-Chain Identity System [1 response]
Suggests the importance of implementing an on-chain identity system for user empowerment. Participants strongly support the addition of an On-Chain Identity System, emphasizing its importance for empowering individuals and fostering a user-centric world.
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Integration [3 responses]
Gathers thoughts on including SMEs in decision-making processes.
🇦 Support for SMEs [3 responses]
Conveys strong agreement with the integration of SMEs to provide context-specific knowledge. There is a unanimous positive reception towards the integration of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) into decision-making processes. Respondents believe SMEs can provide insight into technical areas, enabling more informed voting and decision-making by non-experts. This move is seen as bringing context-specific knowledge essential for informed choices, with individuals expressing eagerness to contribute to Mina’s direction.
Voting Mechanics [1 response]
Discusses the complexities and suggestions regarding how voting power is calculated.
🇦 Voting Power Calculation [1 response]
Questions how voting power should be calculated, listing different methodologies. In the Voting Power Calculation section, there is concern regarding the method of calculation of voting power. The user mentions various options such as ‘one identity, one vote’ with delegation possibilities, points gained through participation, and using a staked Mina balance, each carrying its own advantages and disadvantages.
Interconnectivity and Implementation [2 responses]
Explores the perceived interconnectedness of proposed ideas and their implementation challenges.
🇦 Proposal Interconnection [1 response]
Notes the challenge of considering proposals in isolation due to their interconnected nature. The single response on the Proposal Interconnection subtopic suggests a neutral stance towards individual propositions, emphasizing the interconnection among all propositions, such as the dependency of on-chain voting on on-chain identity verification. The respondent acknowledges the complexity of implementing interconnected proposals but finds the process unclear or in its early stages.
🇧 Funding and On-Chain Implementation [1 response]
Addresses the need for on-chain funding mechanisms and the complexities of implementing protocol updates. The feedback on ‘Funding and On-Chain Implementation’ suggests enthusiasm for the idea of expanding the MEF and sourcing funds from the protocol, specifically through an on-chain treasury funded by fees and block rewards. However, concerns were raised about the practical implementation challenges such as the necessity for a MIP, on-chain voting, and core protocol updates. The respondent appreciates the ambition but emphasizes the interconnected challenges of implementation.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Question 3: Additional information
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Are there any additional areas you are curious about or would like more information?
3 responses
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Delegation Program [1 response]
Inquiries and concerns about the current or future status of the Delegation Program.
🇦 System Transparency [1 response]
Interest in a transparent and reliable system for selecting eligible participants. Participants express a desire for greater transparency in the Delegation Program, voicing concerns about the criteria for selecting individuals eligible for the program. There is confusion regarding the program’s future, including whether there are plans to replace it, demonstrating a need for clear, reliable systems and criteria.
Governance Communication [1 response]
Concerns and suggestions regarding internal and external communication within the governance framework.
🇦 Improvement Suggestions [1 response]
Ideas like recording online meetings to enhance transparency and accessibility. A suggestion for improvement in governance communication highlights the need for enhanced internal and external communication within the Mina community. The respondent notices grievances regarding communication and transparency among community members. A practical proposal for addressing this issue is the recording of online meetings, facilitating access for those unable to attend, an idea also discussed on Discord.
SDK Vulnerability Relief [1 response]
Exploration of governance roles in providing relief for victims affected by the SDK vulnerability.
🇦 Community Fund Possibility [1 response]
Interest in establishing a fund to aid victims. One user inquired if governance could establish a community fund to offer relief to victims affected by the SDK vulnerability, which resulted in the theft of hundreds of thousands of MINA from wallets in 2022/2023.
To have a high level feedback, here is and additional Summary of the above responses: (supported by Open AI, analysed and reorganized by the Protocol Governance Team)
Value Alignment and Ethical Considerations