Upgrading the MIP process

MIPs (Mina Improvement Proposals)
1

I’m Joaquín López, Governance Analyst at the Mina Foundation, and I’m excited to introduce a new MIP called the “MIP Upgrade”! :rocket: This proposal is the result of extensive feedback from the community and introduces some major improvements to the MIP process, ensuring that the governance of Mina Protocol becomes more transparent, effective, and aligned with the wishes of the community.

:point_right: Check out the early draft of the proposal
:mega: Give us feedback!

The core goal of the MIP Upgrade is to increase community participation and make the decision-making process more structured and accessible for everyone involved.

:star2: What’s Changing in the MIP Upgrade?

We propose the following initial changes to the MIP process:

  • :open_file_folder: New MIP categories: Engineering, Economics, and Governance.
  • :hammer_and_wrench: New roles and responsibilities: To assist MIP authors and review proposals.
  • :speech_balloon: Mass deliberation tools and public debates: More transparency and engagement for everyone.
  • :scroll: Clear guidelines for implementation: Making the process smoother for future MIPs.

:thinking: Why Does This Matter?

Over the last few years, Mina’s ecosystem has grown substantially and an increasing number of companies and individuals are joining and contributing to the ecosystem. :seedling:

Consequently, there is also a rising need to develop Mina’s governance to support this growth and help to realize Mina’s vision of a future powered by participants so that its decision making processes remain effective and aligned with the wishes of the community.

This proposal is part of a broader plan outlined in the previous blog post, ‘Next Steps for Mina Protocol’s Governance’, which was discussed with the community in several town halls, fireside chats, and surveys.

:bulb: How YOU Can Get Involved:

I’m eager to hear your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions on the MIP Upgrade. Let’s work together to refine this proposal and make it something that truly reflects the values of the Mina community.

:point_right: Check out the early draft of the proposal
:mega: Give us feedback!

Feel free to comment below or reach out directly if you have any questions or ideas!

Best,
Joaquín López

7 Likes
2

We are especially interested in your thoughts on the following questions:

  1. Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout? And if so, what should be these decision-making thresholds and parameters for low risk and high risk MIPs?
  2. Would you consider becoming a MIP Facilitator or MIP Reviewer? And if so, what suitable expertise do you have to fulfill either of these roles?
  3. What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?
  4. Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?
  5. Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?
4 Likes
3

Great job pulling this together team. We at o1Labs think that the new MIP categories, roles, and responsibilities are a step forward in making contributing clearer and more effective. o1 is committed to improving Mina and recognizes the critical importance of improving governance.

o1’s values dictate that we will bias to transparency, and are actively inclusive. There are clear value alignments in the proposal, specifically, we’re happy to see this request for public comment on the open questions. Here’s our opinion on a few of the open questions, curious to see how the rest of the community feels:

Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout
We believe that evaluating risk is an important part of the MIP process. Concretely, reviewers should complete risk assessments while evaluating MIPs. We do not, however, believe that the risk assessment from a small group should lead to a change in voting thresholds at this stage of the Mina ecosystem maturity. There is a risk in consolidating power to a specific group when that group is still on a path to being more representative of the community. The voting community should be responsible for reviewing the risks that reviewers outline and choosing to participate and advocate accordingly.

Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?
We believe the process should be initially bootstrapped with the continuous goal of removing directly assigned control in favor of more democratic representation. This as a necessary step given the current consolidation of expertise, and we welcome future improvements that bring better community representation.

Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?
There is currently a limited group of experts in most specific domains across the Mina ecosystem. Assigning randomly from a pool of experts may exclude someone who understands the subject deeply, and give another member responsibility they shouldn’t have formally. This may lead to a misinformed opinion. At the point where the pool of reviewers is large, with many members having deep subject matter expertise, we see value in random selection to remove the potential for individual bias.

Thanks again Joaquin and team for putting this together. Looking forward to the discussion we’ll have with the community.

4 Likes
4

Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout?

In this structure, the size of the risk plays an important role. The more important the task, the higher the risk of making the right decision. However, as the importance of the task decreases, the risk should not approach a minimum.

What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?

First of all, these are the principles of this community.

Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?

At this stage, it may be appropriate to create a two-stage model: a pool of experts with deep knowledge of the subject deeply + assigning randomly from a pool.

3 Likes
5

Thank you, Austin, for the thoughtful feedback and alignment with our shared values! We’re glad the new MIP categories, roles, and responsibilities resonate with your approach to transparency and inclusivity.

IMO starting simple allows us to build towards more democratic representation as the ecosystem grows. I also agree random selection makes sense once we have a larger pool of reviewers.

Thanks again for your support—we look forward to discussing these ideas at the community calls!

Best,
Joaquín

4 Likes
6

Thank you Kiarra for your thoughtful insights!

Regarding Risk Assessment and decision-making thresholds, we agree that risk should play a key role in determining participation requirements. Balancing risk with participation thresholds can ensure that high-risk MIPs receive the necessary scrutiny, while lower-risk ones aren’t burdened by excessive turnout requirements. It’s important to refine this balance as the ecosystem evolves.

For the MIP Facilitator and Reviewer frameworks, we fully agree that the principles of the community should guide these roles. Transparency, inclusivity, and accountability are central values that will help ensure these frameworks are representative and effective.

On randomly assigning Reviewers, a two-stage model seems like a practical approach. Combining subject matter expertise with random selection would help ensure that reviews are both informed and free from bias, especially as the reviewer pool grows.

We appreciate your valuable input and look forward to more discussions on how we can continue to improve!

Best,
Joaquín

4 Likes
7

No time for reading? No problem! Here is a short video explainer:

1 Like
8

There’s a community call where Joaquin, together with Evan and Ben, share more context about the proposal: https://www.youtube.com/live/k2c935E3erk

1 Like
9

Hey everyone! :wave:

We just wrapped up a great Community Call discussing the key aspects of the MIP Upgrade! :studio_microphone: We explored different options, weighing their pros and cons, and now we’d love to hear from you. What’s your take on the MIP Upgrade? Share your thoughts in the comments! :point_down:

:tv: Watch the full recording here:

3 Likes
10

Summary of the feedback :writing_hand:

Since publishing the draft of this MIP Upgrade on September 25, we’ve spent the last month gathering community feedback from across the Mina Research Forum, governance channels in Discord, community calls, and various social media platforms. Thanks to this input, we’re now prepared to advance the proposal with confidence, moving it toward formal submission.

1. Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout? And if so, what should be these decision-making thresholds and parameters for low risk and high risk MIPs?
Some participants supported adjusting decision-making thresholds based on a MIP’s risk level while others suggested that the risk assessment should be only informative at this stage of the Mina ecosystem maturity. Many suggested higher-risk MIPs should require 50-66% voter turnout to mitigate risks, while low-risk MIPs might need only 0-30%. Concerns were raised about centralization, emphasizing the need for community-led decision-making via On-Chain Voting. Additional discussion may be needed to define precise thresholds, potentially in a future MIP.

2. Would you consider becoming a MIP Facilitator or MIP Reviewer? And if so, what suitable expertise do you have to fulfill either of these roles?
While some responses indicate readiness to participate, one participant expressed lack of interest.

3. What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?
Respondents emphasize the importance of monitoring user behavior, suggesting that individuals should have the ability to be proposed for removal or inclusion based on their actions to mitigate the presence of bad actors.

4. Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?
There is general agreement with the proposed bootstrapping plan, and it seems like the best option to the respondents.

5. Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?
Some respondents suggested that a random assignment of reviewers should only occur when there are more than five relevant reviewers for a MIP. They recommend maintaining a fixed count of five assigned reviewers when fewer than five are available, as randomization would not be applicable in such cases.

Thank you to everyone who contributed invaluable feedback and insights to the MIP Upgrade, shared in the Mina Research Forum, Governance Discord channels, community calls, and on social media. Your engagement has been essential in shaping this proposal, and your input has led to a community poll showing strong support to formalize the MIP Upgrade. This collective effort has strengthened the proposal, and we’re excited to take the next steps forward, guided by our community’s insights and shared vision for Mina.

1 Like
12

Thanks for sharing the overview of the feedback, can you share the raw responses so we can get a better idea of quantity and sentiment?

13

Hello,

Apologies for the delay—I was on holiday last week. Here are the raw responses (usernames have been removed to maintain confidentiality):

1a. Should the Risk Assessment affect decision-making thresholds, such as requiring higher participation for high-risk MIPs while allowing low-risk MIPs to pass with lower turnout?

  • User3: “Yes it should; this will reduce risk and make the participation nicer for community, since we know things will get talked about more if are higher risk.”.
  • User1: “Risk assessment always affects the thresholds for decision-making. The reviewers conduct the MIP review and complete the risk assessment. And the voting community is responsible for risk analysis and decision-making.”
  • User5: “Yes, I think there should be different voting thresholds depending on the complexity or risk of a proposed improvement. We shouldn’t require many people to make minor adjustments; however, securing more significant changes against malicious behaviors is crucial.”.
  • User4: “In my opinion, the Risk Assessment should indeed affect decision-making thresholds to prevent low turnout from allowing potentially dangerous proposals to pass. To avoid centralization, reviewers must be held accountable and they should not have veto power or the ability to block proposals, so that ultimate decision-making power remains with the community via on-chain voting.”.

1b. And if so, what should be these decision-making thresholds and parameters for low risk and high risk MIPs?

  • User2: “For Low risk 50+1, for High risk should be at least 2/3 majority.”.
  • User2: “IMO all MIPs should have a high participation, but depending on the risk assessment have higher vote %.”
  • User4: “The specific thresholds and parameters should be discussed and adjusted by the community. However, I would propose:
    High-Risk MIPs: A minimum voter turnout of 50% with a simple majority (50%) approval rate would be a good starting point. This ensures that a significant portion of the community is engaged and approves of such crucial decisions.
    Low-Risk: A 30% turnout with a simple majority (50%) approval rate should be sufficient, as these proposals carry less risk but still benefit from community oversight.”
  • User3: “I think 0% participation for low-risk; And 10% participation for each reviewer that says its high risk (10% for 1 saying high risk, 20% for 2, 30% for 3, 40% for 4, 50% if all 5)”.
  • User5: “From my personal view, for low-risk proposals, I’d suggest maybe 30% participation (based on the total active stake). For high-risk proposals, I think at least 50% of the total active stake should participate and vote to pass a proposal.”
  • User6: “Risk assessment should influence decision thresholds. I propose 60% participation for high-risk MIPs and 25% for low-risk MIPs. Hopefully, this will ensure that voting is decisive on the chain.”

2. Would you consider becoming a MIP Facilitator or MIP Reviewer? and if so, what suitable expertise do you have to fulfill either of these roles?

  • User1: "For governance and economics, I will put myself forward to be a reviewer. Also, I would like to follow what the facilitator role evolves into, assuming it becomes a more formal incentivized position. "
  • User5: “I’m happy to be an MIP Facilitator. I’m good at organizing and executing initiatives, ensuring transparent communication, and reviewing whether everyone is on the same page.”
  • User4: “Yes, I would like to become a MIP Facilitator because that way I can assist MIP Authors in following the upgraded MIP process and I believe it should be someone who knows the process well.”
  • User3: “Yep! Happy to for engineering, product, governance, economics”
  • User2: “No :)”

3. What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?

  • User3: "
  1. Facilitators just run the process and make sure it is inclusive, transparent, and run well.
  2. Reviewers apply their expertise in a data-driven way. They collect feedback from others and are open to input and asking questions. They embody the 4 CORE values (curiosity, openness, respect, excellence)".
  • User5: “I think the key common principles should be around Mina’s CORE values.”
  • User6: “The main common principles for them are the Mina community principles.”
  • User1: “These are the Mina community guidelines.”
  • User4: “There could be more, I am happy to hear any other proposals, but at least they should include the ones already listed in the draft”
  • User2: “The ability to be proposed or removed depending on the user behavior, to avoid bad actors.”

4. Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?

  • User1: “Agree. I think it is right to implement these tools for mass discussion and public debate.”
  • User6: “Agree. I think the proposals for bootstrapping the process are correct.”
  • User2: “Yes :)”
  • User3: “Yes, if we include processes around onboarding / offboarding reviewers, reviewing reviewers, and who the initial reviewers will be”
  • User4: “Yes, I think the current plan for the bootstrapping process is the best option I have been able to come up with given the situation, it allows the community to evolve and grow their expertise at their own pace while key ecosystem players collaborate to test and refine these roles.”
  • User5: “Yes, I think it’s a great starting point for future improvements”.

5. Rather than reaching out to the pool of experts and asking all of them to review the MIP, should a subgroup of Reviewers be randomly assigned instead?

  • User1: “If the pool of highly qualified reviewers is large, then random selection makes sense.”
  • User5: “I think there should be a random assignment to ensure at least some people are responsible for providing expert perspectives for a proposal. However, I think people not selected to review a proposal should still be able to do that if they want, but maybe in a community member role.”
  • User2: “Yes, as long as a proper rotation exist.”
  • User4: “I think randomly assigning a subgroup of reviewers for MIPs could diversify the perspectives brought into the evaluation process, minimizing biases that may arise from relying on the same experts repeatedly. However, it’s crucial that they possess the necessary expertise relevant to the specific MIP. In the short term, assigning at least five reviewers ensures that proposals receive adequate attention. In the longer term, allowing reviewers to consult with additional experts can enhance the depth of the assessment without over centralized decision-making.”
  • User6: “MIP is serious work. Reviewers should be experts with good knowledge of the subject.”
  • User3: “Only when there are more than 5 reviewers relevant to an MIP (until then there should be 5 assigned per MIP, so random isn’t relevant)”
1 Like
14

Community Poll Results from Discord and Twitter

Discord link: Discord

Captura de pantalla 2024-11-04 a las 10.36.36
Captura de pantalla 2024-11-04 a las 10.36.36622×266 25.8 KB

Twitter link: x.com

Captura de pantalla 2024-11-04 a las 10.38.30
Captura de pantalla 2024-11-04 a las 10.38.30600×404 38.2 KB

1 Like
15

The MIP Upgrade proposal has officially been submitted, and we’re hosting an AMA session tomorrow to discuss it! This is your chance to ask any questions directly.

Join us to dive deeper into how this proposal aims to improve transparency, efficiency, and community alignment in Mina Protocol’s governance.

Event link: Discord

See you there! :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
16

Hi everyone,

We’re excited to share that we are transitioning the discussion about the MIP Upgrade from the Mina Research Forum to GitHub!

This change is intended to streamline collaboration and centralize all feedback and updates in one place. We value your insights and encourage all community members to join the conversation on GitHub. Your feedback is crucial to shaping the future of Mina, and we want to ensure your voice is heard.

Visit the GitHub repository here: MIP-Upgrade by criptowaco · Pull Request #23 · MinaProtocol/MIPs · GitHub

Let us know if you have any questions or need help navigating this new setup. We look forward to your continued participation!

Best regards,
Joaquín

1 Like
17

1 - Risk assesment is generally good idea but will create additional questions for us like who is gonna make criterias for the risks/what is the risk, what is the impact etc. I think we should not have so much complex process.
I believe Team guidance is enough from the risk perspective. We may have 4 main risks severity (Low, Medium, High, Critical) and just advised by the team and voters can vote based on that.
Also i dont think we should have multi stage participation requirement. Lets keep it simple. 66% Low and Med %95 High and Critical.
2 - I can be volunteer for Reviewer.
4 - Agreed.
5 - Randomly selected Reviewers + we should ask all pool experts but expect returns in certain time period. If they can add their comments that would be good. And maybe we can add delegation program condition like active participations to 2 or 3 MIP in a year.

2 Likes
18

Hi @EmreNOP ,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback on the MIP Upgrade! Your thoughtful insights are very valuable as we refine these proposals.

  • Risk Assessment: I appreciate your point about keeping the process manageable and avoiding unnecessary complexity. You’re right that defining criteria for risks and impacts will require careful thought, and we need to balance thoroughness with simplicity. I’ll take this into account as we work on finalizing the framework.
  • Reviewer Role: Thank you for volunteering to be a Reviewer! It’s great to see community members stepping forward to contribute their expertise. I’ll keep you updated as we establish the next steps for onboarding and assigning roles.
  • Bootstrap Proposals: Glad to hear you’re in agreement. Having community support for these initial measures is crucial as we build capacity together.
  • Randomized Reviewers + Delegation Program: I really like the idea of random assignments combined with setting expectations for timely feedback from the full pool of experts. The delegation program condition is a particularly interesting suggestion—it could encourage consistent engagement while maintaining fairness. I’ll explore how this might be incorporated.

Thanks again for your contributions! Please don’t hesitate to share additional thoughts as we continue to develop the process.

1 Like
19

Hi everyone! :wave:

Last week, we had an interesting conversation with one of the MIP Editors during the community call. We reviewed how the current MIP process works and explored how the MIP Upgrade proposal aims to empower participants. The upgrade introduces new MIP categories, tools and roles designed to be more accessible to community members while keeping the process effective and aligned with community priorities.

What are your thoughts on the MIP Upgrade? We’d love to hear your perspective—share your ideas in the comments below! :point_down:

2 Likes
20

Hi everyone,

I hope you’re doing well! I wanted to provide a quick update on the status of the MIP Upgrade proposal, a pivotal step forward for Mina Protocol’s governance framework.

Here’s a recap of our journey so far:

Next Steps:

  • January: I’ll be incorporating all feedback gathered thus far and conducting a final review of the proposal to ensure it’s as robust and inclusive as possible.
  • February: The proposal will move to a community on-chain vote, where your voices will ultimately decide its future.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed feedback, joined calls, and participated in discussions so far. Your involvement is what makes Mina’s governance truly decentralized and community-driven.

If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to drop them here or in our next community call. Let’s keep building a better governance system together!

1 Like