A path forward for PoH

The recent events have been a stress test for the DAO as a whole. Is up to the community to come out stronger from this. I see a way forward and I would like to outline some ideas that can help us move on.

We need a set of principles

An underlying theme in the recent discussion was “What’s the purpose of PoH”. Parts of the community focusing on UBI, others on Dapp integrations, and others on the security of the registry. I believe that a statement of principles from the MB would set a precedent of reconciliation and direction for the future.

What do we stand for?
What do we want as a protocol?
What does success looks like?

We need a roadmap?

Understanding what’s our mission as a protocol and community is just the first step. I think we haven’t had much discussion about how we get there. Being open source means that everyone can build on top, however, direction and focus could help us move faster. We have amazing builders in the community that when they find a problem to solve, deliver great results that benefit the protocol as a whole (Nico and the new UX, PoH v2, UBI v2, etc.)

What do we think we’re missing as a community? What are some features that we could build? Can we make this public?

A public roadmap supported by the community can become a great tool for internal discussion, investors and other dapps that might want to integrate with the protocol. More important it’s a tool to keep on attracting builders to the areas that need technical expertise, advocates for the areas that require user support and promoters to community growth areas.

We need a way of working together?

We had discussions in the past about HIP design, HIP processes, etc. However, this discussion is not relevant if we don’t understand what we need the HIPs for. Aligning our governance mechanism to the goals and strategy of the protocol is critical for success and most important to avoid issues such as the one created by HIP 49.

Understanding the areas of the protocol’s roadmap can give us better ideas and more flexibility in how HIPs should be written and approved. Does a highly technical project requires the same analysis and discussion as a communications project?

With this post I would like to kickstart the conversation, I might be completely wrong but I do believe that PoH is up for big things.


AGree. This should have been HIP 1, just as EIP-1 and other Improvement proposals on multiple protocols.

I just re-activated this old thread where we asked and tried to answer these same questions. Looks like we had the :crystal_ball: crystal ball back then!

1 Like

I’m not sure it was a crystal ball. Just a deep knowing that a project like this cannot function without principles based governance.