Should access to this Forum be limited to Mina / Crypto Wallet Holders?

Do you think requiring members to hold MINA tokens or to at least hold a web wallet of some kind could be a way forward for access to this Forum?

1 Like

I would be against limiting to Mina holders - we should welcome outsiders for fresh perspectives if they want to say something. But decision making about the proposal etc should be exclusive to token holders.


Thanks for the comments… Should there should be a minimum amount on how many Mina tokens a holder has to be a ‘decision’ maker?

I don’t think it’s necessary - afaik the voting is weighted by the amount of tokens one holds, so if one holds very little, one’s opinion will proportionally mean less.

ah, initially I was more thinking about getting access to the forum, as opposed to voting on specific changes to the Protocol. :grinning:

You can verify your address with signing etc to log in but it’s bad practice from every single point. Bad user experience, will cut accessibility, significant dev resource need to be allocated to make it happen(assuming we have an offline sign function if we don’t have much more work)

1 Like

Thanks for the message Emre, great to get your perspective on this. I don’t know the specifics and work involved on making this happen practically, but there are plugins for other cryptowallet logins for EG, wordpress EthPress – Web3 Login – WordPress plugin |

If Web snapps are going to work in other places, should we be looking at ways to make Mina Snapps / web3 a good user experience? It could be a great access point to the MP for those large communities of Open Source web platforms. I wonder also… in my experience many forums suffer from being too easy to access and debate/ ideas are stifled by all the bots/spam/junk messages etc.

I can’t think of a better place to roadtest / showcase potential websnapps than platforms used by the Mina Community itself.

I do not think fencing knowledge is a good idea. This is a research forum and not a DAO.


Thanks for your feedback, great to get your thoughts. I totally agree, we definitely don’t want to fence knowledge in.

The idea was to use an open source platform (eg in this case Discourse) to test a potential Snapp use case that could be used as a demo to expand onto other membership / platforms. If we aren’t using the tech ourselves then what motivation is there for other people to adopt it?


Oh absolutely open to new ideas. We can fence off may be one section if the tooling allows us to do so on here , but i am not in favour of having a requirement of a token to read/contribute to research topics.



This could be a good initial Snapps idea! Access requires proof of a non-zero account balance without revealing the address/exact balance of each user on the forum.

1 Like

I agree, I think if you want to be part of developing a project you need some skin in the game. It would also be a great basic test use case to show off what is possible.

1 Like

Actually I remembered Discourse isn’t free or open source, but there is a OAuth 2.0 & OpenID Connect Support plugin that could be utilised OAuth 2.0 & OpenID Connect Support | Discourse - Civilized Discussion

More interesting resources around membership plugins and connecting Crypto wallets to open source projects. Would be great to see this functionality with Mina in the future