[Phase-1] HIP-16: Make admin roles of communication platforms eligible

HIP: 16
title: Make admin of comms/social media eligible
author: @Ludovico
status: Draft Phase 1
created: 2020-06-03
requires (*optional): HIP-5
languages: EN, ES

English version

Simple Summary

This HIP institutes mechanism to determine the position of admin in the social communication tools that are recognized as oficial by the DAO, either social media (twitter, reddit) or communication channels (telegram groups).


In order to further decentralize positions of enforcement within the DAO, there is the need to create mechanisms in which the role for administrator of the communication channels generally regarded as official (GRAO, from now on)


Currently, the admin positions in communication channels GRAO, were subject to the initiative of the person that first created the channel, (telegram, reddit). These roles right now are virtually permanent, without rules that govern the time they remain in that position or how or why their roles were assigned. This creates space for centralization and the possibility of indefinite perpetuation in the position, among other issues that arise from this permanence in their role (silencing opposition, pushing a specific agenda, creating a hostile environment, etc.).
Following the spirit of HIP-5, which creates a framework for management of the DAO without altering the smart contract, I propose a better mechanism for establishing enforcing roles within the all recognized channels of communication.


  • For this document, the role of admin is regarded as the position that a person has over a channel of communication, it being social media accounts, forums, instant messaging groups. In this position, the person has privileges to enforce policies or the convened rules of these channels and include muting, removal or admitting the participation of the members of the group, along with other administrative tasks.
  • Roles for admin positions for each of the GRAO channels of communication would be temporary roles and elected from the community. The list that I currently think of is:
    • This forum
    • Twitter
    • Facebook groups
    • Reddit
    • Discord
    • WhatsApp
    • Instagram
    • Telegram groups, users and channels
  • Elections could be done in the same platform whenever possible (most of them have polling methods) and a list of candidates could be posted in a thread here in the forum. Alternatively, elections could Elections should be done in the Snapshot platform to prevent potential rigging.
  • To prevent ties in conflicting decisions within the role, ideally an uneven number of admins could be appointed, ideally 3 (or 5, depending of size and complexity of the platform):
    • 2 (or 3) belonging to the elected majority
    • 1 (or 2) belonging to the elected minority
  • Period of time could be discussed, but I believe 3 to 6 months is enough.
  • For the time being, re-election for the role could be allowed.
  • Roles are irrevocable unless there is a proposal to remove them for security reasons or serious offenses to the community. A mechanism could be put in place for that, maybe the requirement of a minimum % of votes in favor for removal.
  • Within this HIP, or in a different one a simple and minimal code of conduct of this role could be drafted, until better regulations arise. This would cover freedom or not to have his own opinions manifested in the channel, etc.

Versión en español

Resumen simple

Este HIP instituye un mecanismo para determinar la posición del administrador en las herramientas de comunicación social que son reconocidas como oficiales por el DAO, ya sean medios sociales (twitter, reddit) o canales de comunicación (grupos de telegram).


Con el fin de descentralizar aún más las posiciones de aplicación dentro de la DAO, existe la necesidad de crear mecanismos en los que el papel de administrador de los canales de comunicación generalmente considerados como oficiales (GRCO, a partir de ahora)


Actualmente, los puestos de administrador en los canales de comunicación GRCO, estaban sujetos a la iniciativa de la persona que creó el canal por primera vez, (telegram, reddit). Estos roles ahora mismo son prácticamente permanentes, sin reglas que regulen el tiempo que permanecen en esa posición o cómo o por qué fueron asignados sus roles. Esto crea un espacio para la centralización y la posibilidad de perpetuación indefinida en el cargo, entre otras cuestiones que surgen de esta permanencia en su rol (silenciar a la oposición, impulsar una agenda específica, crear un ambiente hostil, etc.).
Siguiendo el espíritu de HIP-5, que crea un marco para la gestión de la DAO sin alterar el contrato inteligente, propongo un mecanismo mejor para establecer los roles de ejecución dentro de todos los canales de comunicación reconocidos.


  • Para este documento, el rol de administrador se considera como la posición que una persona tiene sobre un canal GRCO, siendo cuentas de medios sociales, foros, grupos de mensajería instantánea. En esta posición, la persona tiene privilegios para hacer cumplir las políticas o las reglas convocadas de estos canales e incluyen silenciar, eliminar o admitir la participación de los miembros del grupo, junto con otras tareas administrativas.
  • Los roles de los puestos de administrador para cada uno de los canales de comunicación de GRAO serían roles temporales y elegidos entre la comunidad. La lista que se me ocurre actualmente es
    • Este foro
    • Twitter
    • Grupos de Facebook
    • Reddit
    • Discord
    • WhatsApp
    • Instagram
    • Grupos, usuarios y canales de Telegram
  • Las elecciones podrían hacerse en la misma plataforma siempre que sea posible (la mayoría de ellas tienen métodos de votación) y se podría publicar una lista de candidatos en un hilo aquí en el foro. Alternativamente, las elecciones podrían Las elecciones deberían hacerse en la plataforma Snapshot para evitar posibles fraudes.
  • Para evitar empates en las decisiones conflictivas dentro del rol, lo ideal sería nombrar un número impar de admins, idealmente 3 (o 5, dependiendo del tamaño y complejidad de la plataforma):
    • 2 (o 3) pertenecientes a la mayoría elegida
    • 1 (o 2) perteneciente a la minoría elegida
  • Se podría discutir el periodo de tiempo, pero creo que de 3 a 6 meses es suficiente.
  • Por el momento, se podría permitir la reelección para el rol.
  • Los roles son irrevocables a no ser que haya una propuesta para eliminarlos por razones de seguridad o por ofensas graves a la comunidad. Se podría establecer un mecanismo para ello, tal vez el requisito de un % mínimo de votos a favor para su eliminación.
  • Dentro de este HIP, o en otro diferente se podría redactar un simple y mínimo código de conducta de este rol, hasta que surja una mejor normativa. Esto abarcaría la libertad o no de manifestar sus propias opiniones en el canal, etc

Estoy de acuerdo. Se necesitan roles y códigos de conducta tanto para la comunidad como para los responsables de su manejo. El elegir democráticamente me parece la mejor opción.


I aplaud this initiative.


Great proposal @ludovico!! And congrats on the great job you’ve been doing!!! :raised_hands: :smiley:


+1 to this proposal! It will maintain the spirit of the project to have the admins selected by the community and a methodology to rotate them


+1 Buena iniciativa.


Apoyo esta propuesta


Thank you all for your feedback. Any modifications or details that you think should be added?


Another thing that I’d like to clarify is that this hip does not refer to the role of content creator in the comm channels cited, that would be responsability of the corresponding managers of that channel.


The main idea looks good but to make it practical it’d be good to allow elected people to nominate delegates (as otherwise only famous people can get elected and they are probably not the ones with that much time to manage and the DAO would deprive itself of some communication workforce).

1 Like
  1. Why would anyone “without much time to manage and the DAO” would postulate themselves to be an admin?
  2. Why wouldn’t the delegates candidate themselves?
  3. Why couldn’t the “famous people” vouch for them in a candidacy?

It would be like electing for President and then the President elects someone else to run a country, not very democratic IMHO.

Admins and communication roles are not places of high power. For example at Kleros there are a bunch of people working for the cooperative having access. It would mean that every-time someone new comes or someone leaves, there would need to be a new vote.

As an example today we got some moderator coming at Kleros who is doing its trial period, she works on moderating Kleros and Kleros-linked channels including Proof Of Humanity. If the proposal was passed, she would not be able to moderate.

Decentralization is great, but asking people to vote on everything (even trivial stuff like adding a moderator) every time is gonna lead to voter fatigue and cluttering of the snapshot interface (there would be ways to avoid that with more complex liquid voting interfaces allowing to delegate on specific topics but snapshot is not at that point yet).

Also note that people who are admin could anyways give access to other people.

1 Like

There seems to be a term confusion between what a moderator does and what an admin does. The HIP does not cover the role of moderator, it covers the role for admin, and it is precisely defined in the HIP itself:

Granting access, banning or muting users is a place of high power because of exactly this.
Kleyr could then offer herself to be elected for the role at PoH, or continue her role as a moderator. There is a non-issue, then. The same goes for content creation, as mentioned before.

If voting fatigue is an issue, we could change the role duration enough so it does not fatigue voters.

99% of the banning is about spam and I don’t believe it to be a place of high power. If you want to avoid censorship, you could simply clarify that any ban dispute is to be handled by the elected individuals and not their delegates.

Well it would first take 2 weeks to do so which would by itself eat half of the trial period. Really we shouldn’t put ourselves some difficulties like that preventing the DAO to function in a lean manner.

The DAO should be practical and be able to run as fast as centralized projects can. Asking simple positions like moderator to be elected while prevented elected people to delegate their moderation power goes against that.

Well the first election on the platform itself would be very vulnerable to Sybil attacks which for an anti-Sybil project would look quite bad. So I believe this should be removed too.

1 Like

That’s also an issue. I believe the DAO should be able to terminate elected positions at any time and without any reason. Here some people may not be suited to being moderators as a general unfitness for the task even if they haven’t done any “serious offense”.

Overall the proposal looks made with good attentions but to be “Governance over-engineering”.

1 Like

Granted, I’ve updated the text so it is through snapshot poll only.

By whose authority?

Por mi experiencia laboral puedo decir que la parte más esencial de un producto , es el primer contacto con el adquirente (nuevo usuario) ,parece correcto que sea ordenado por su gov ,
cuales son :
agravios graves .
agravios leves.
y ante alguna falta , sería necesario una interconsulta entre los administradores , crear un grupo de administradores por ej .
Creo que es una necesidad, lo que parece burocracia, quizá solo sea responsabilidad democrática en el contacto con los nuevos miembros .
Daria mucha seriedad a la comunidad , ya que los grupos , se convirtieron en oficiales con todo lo que eso implica .
forma de elección de los administradores y claro su forma de remoción . parece una pavada pero ninguna multinacional elige a sus vendedores/representantes a dedo ,todos pasan por una entrevista .
También entiendo que hoy todo esto se realiza por el solo hecho de ayudar y los administradores de los grupos que he visitado son excelentes y democráticos pese a eso no seria mala idea quede esto regulado para un futuro

From my work experience I can say that the most essential part of a product is the first contact with the acquirer (new user), it seems correct that it is ordered by your gov,
which are:
serious grievances.
minor torts.
and in the event of any fault, it would be necessary to consult the administrators, create a group of administrators for example.
I think it is a necessity, what seems like bureaucracy, perhaps it is only a democratic responsibility in contacting the new members.
It would give the community a lot of seriousness, since the groups became officers with all that that implies.
form of election of the administrators and clear their form of removal. It seems silly but no multinational company selects its salespeople / representatives by hand, they all go through an interview.
I also understand that today all this is done for the sole fact of helping and the administrators of the groups that I have visited are excellent and democratic, despite that it would not be a bad idea to be regulated for the future

1 Like

Hi all! Here’s a related proposal to create a minimal Code of Conduct for our Telegram channels! Looking forward to your input over there.