[Phase-3] HIP-7: Institute a "Mission Board"

The main difference is that the board can now point to a decision giving them the authority they wield.
And the positions will be up for election in a year.
Perhaps if it is possible we could mark their status in Discourse in some way.

Improving communications is definitely key, but to add a bit more nuance to this conversation it is important to remember that another crucial element to increasing participation is to enable anonymous voting and an anonymous forum. Right now the state of affairs at PoH is one of an open panopticon, and the possibility that people feel intimidated to voice their preferences and opinions should not be ignored. It is unfortunate that the proposal for zk membership proofs did not take off, this should be high on the priority list if we want to make this DAO a healthy democracy.

While these solutions are not in place, extremely low participation could totally mean that a decision has no legitimacy and in such cases I think its reasonable for the person who created the proposal (looking at you @Mads) to take some steps to ensure that this is not the case, such as re-doing the vote and trying to engage the community more actively.

Another important reminder is that given we have a sybil resistant registry, an anonymous forum would not lead to a 4channelization process because it is possible to impose sanctions on those who break a certain Code of Conduct.

@santisiri and @paulaberman: I do not agree with your characterization that this proposal flew under the radar. There were two signaling polls with overwhelming support for the proposal (51 votes 50 pro, 13 votes - all pro) before the final vote that had minimal changes. Vote links were posted on both Discord and Slack. (The signaling poll was repeated due to bring it in line with HIP-5). What other proposal has had this level of engagement and support? (Speculating on the lack of engagement for phase-3, I think it is a “Will you please stop asking about the mission board when we have already said YES?”)

But anyway, the proposal has passed according to the rules we have set up - which means it has passed. You cannot change the outcome except with a new proposal. Sure, maybe our process needs to be changed, but this will apply to subsequent decisions, not this one. If this is not so then this is not a rules-based organization and I don’t know what we are doing here.

HIP 8 Had 474 votes total in signalling, and 113 in binding.

What discord and slack are you referring to? How many registered persons are there in comparison with the PoH telegram groups that have more than 5 thousand users in them (adding spanish and english groups)?

Board members were not specified on the signaling polls you are mentioning, so it might be that there is an issue. So if I were you I would do my very best to ensure that there isn’t (with informal mechanisms, since there aren’t formal ways to deal with proposals with extremely low turnout) and then take appropriate measures.

I agree with Paula, during that same process with my HIP-8. I suspended my own binding polls by request of the minority, just as a courtesy, and to signal that nothing irregular was going on (even disagreeing with the reasons why they were attempting to stall the voting).

How can I get to be a member of the board mission?

1 Like

The proposal specifies that elections will be held in one year after passing. This time will pass relatively quickly. In the meantime, the people already fulfilling this task will be asked to continue doing so. I wouldn’t trust running an election for this untill we have defined some more voting rules/systems and more time has passed to evaluate who are trusted members of the community.

As a courtesy to the concerns voiced I will set up a confirmation vote with a long running time on Monday and engage on Telegram (on vacation atm). If this passes, we should still consider the closing of the original vote as the passing date. A rejection, would off course bring down the proposal.

I’m concerned about the abuse of power of one of the members of the mission board, that could be slowing down and leading to a mistrust and failure of the project. That is clement.

Hi Nachobr,
I think it’s unfortunate that you have a bad opinion about me, if you have any concern about my action over proof of humanity feel free to contact me to discuss about it.
However, I think considering that I’m the initial inventor of Proof Of Humanity (wrote the whitepaper based on an idea by Vitalik and with the help of a few anonymous contributors), the history has shown that I was able (along with an amazing team) to make the project come to fruition so I believe those fears are unfounded.


I’m an ordinary crypto enthusiast, no affiliation with Kleros nor Democracy.Earth team, but I think your characterization of Clément is unfair. I first discovered such a concept as POH from Clément’s talk at ethCC3 last year. I am always learning when I read Clément’s comments in the forum, on telegram, and in talks. Clément’s contributions are invaluable. I have never seen Clément make a personal attack, only good spirited debates on substance and issues. Clément doesn’t spend his time tweeting all day as a social media influencer might and doesn’t curate a cult of personality or appeal to populist diatribes. Clément’s ideas are always well founded and thoughtfully analyzed, even if they conflict with some satus quo or predominant opinion. I think you do POH a disservice to discount Clément as a valuable contributor to the future of POH.


Hi @shotaro, I’d like to point out that even though you might think some people are simply charismatic on Twitter, at least myself when this whole crisis began spent as much time as possible building the vaults you can see on https://democracy.earth that are probably the single most relevant contribution to date aiming to sustain UBIs value.

Also, I will never censor voices daring to express dissent about the status quo of the project and I will work to enable a community that fosters plurality and effective decentralization of the responsibilities and roles required for its growth.


I set up a confirmation vote for this decision. Since I realized that I can’t just reverse a passed decision if the poll fails, I instead committed to setting up a proposal to reverse the decision if the poll fails.

1 Like

As debates on POH heat-up, a snippet of a recent Bankless podcast seems relevant. The podcast centers on productive open dialogue between Ethereum and Bitcoin communities (R Adams and D Hoffman being eth bulls, and P Pysch a bitcoin bull). Often times discourse on social media can be trite and reductive, and face to face interactions can foster more civil discourse. The podcast is a refreshing open conversation between two typically polarized communities especially in online discourse.

R. Adams:
is um every bitcoiner i’ve met
in real life has been like awesome
like really cool really fun i mean david
just i didn’t go to miami but david just
came back he’s like i had a blast these
people are great yeah
D. Hoffman: bitcoiners are lovely people they’re
very very nice in real life
on twitter you can kind of find some
nasty ones but and i’ve never met a mean
bitcoiner in real life
P. Pysch
i think it’s more of a function of just
uh like when you’re talking to somebody
face to face
you have this real like human
interaction i think when you’re on
twitter i mean i’m
just as guilty as the next person but
it’s so easy to like fire a shot
um to somebody because it’s not like
it’s virtual you don’t even see a facial reaction
right and i think it brings out the
animal spirits and
and that it’s just so easy to fire these
shots i mean there was one that i
that i did today that i i wasn’t you
know if i
i’m sure if i was sitting next to the
person i would have been way nicer than
just saying
oh you’re just i’m sure you’re an
academic from ivy league school or
something like i said something like
that and of course it wasn’t like the
nicest thing but
um i think it’s more of a function of of
that dynamic than anything else i think
most people are well intended
um but as a human being
there’s gaps in everybody’s thinking i
don’t care who you are
like you’re a product of your past and
your interactions and the people that
you’ve associated with
in your preconceived notions and that’s
kind of led you to the place where you
sit today
so that’s where i sit that’s where you
guys sit and there’s going to be deltas
in the way that we see things

I think the audio chat in the governance telegram chat is a step in the right direction, although I have not participated and we all have busy regular lives. If and when a Mission Board is assembled and/or when a Product Manager is hired by the DAO, a weekly community video/audio call open to all can be established on a reoccurring basis. Perhaps the audio can be recorded and uploaded for transparency and posterity sake. Weekly community call timing can be difficult to manage with an international community, but hopefully the time can alternate so all have opportunity outside of typical working hours to participate. This could be a method to foster healthy debate. I wrote in reaction to the discourse that took place in the previous week or two on telegram channels where I felt lots of personal attacks were taking place, and very little listening, understanding, and exchanging of ideas in good faith. I felt like @Nachobr’s comment above was emblematic of this discourse failure.

I really enjoy your co-authored book System Override: How Bitcoin, Blockchain, Free Speech & Free Tech Can Change Everything and I have seen a few of your recorded talks related to Democracy.Earth. I love your charisma and passion for giving Democracy its overdue 21st century digital make-over. I have no doubt about your commitment to Proof of Humanity and I’m glad we can all work together and foster collaboration.

Hopefully we can settle this constitutional assembly phase and establishment of executive structure for POH and whether or not this should be the same as the $ubi governance. Looking forward to all to come with the POH community.