I’m Joaquín López, Governance Analyst at the Mina Foundation, and I’m excited to introduce a new MIP called the “MIP Upgrade”! 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.
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.
What’s Changing in the MIP Upgrade?
We propose the following initial changes to the MIP process:
New MIP categories: Engineering, Economics, and Governance.
New roles and responsibilities: To assist MIP authors and review proposals.
Mass deliberation tools and public debates: More transparency and engagement for everyone.
Clear guidelines for implementation: Making the process smoother for future MIPs.
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.
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.
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.
We are especially interested in your thoughts on the following questions:
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?
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?
What do you think should be the key common principles for the MIP Facilitator and MIP Reviewer frameworks?
Given the limited current capacity, do you agree with these proposals to initially bootstrap the process?
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?
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.
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.
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!
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!
We just wrapped up a great Community Call discussing the key aspects of the MIP Upgrade! 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!
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.
Check out the early draft of the proposal
Give us feedback!
What’s Changing in the MIP Upgrade?
New MIP categories: Engineering, Economics, and Governance.
New roles and responsibilities: To assist MIP authors and review proposals.
Mass deliberation tools and public debates: More transparency and engagement for everyone.
Clear guidelines for implementation: Making the process smoother for future MIPs.
Why Does This Matter?
How YOU Can Get Involved:
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! 
Watch the full recording here: