[Implemented] Upgrade the Hashflow governance process

Proposal Structure

  • Title: Upgrade the Hashflow governance process
  • Author(s): Victor Ionescu @gxmxni
  • Related Discussions: N/A
  • Submission Date: 30 May 2023

Simple Summary:

This proposal changes the phases of Hashflow Governance in order to both create more rigor / structure, and allow for more voices to be heard. It introduces a multi-stage governance process that allows for more thorough discussions on the proposals and requires more details to be shared prior to passing a vote. Given that the previous proposal was voted “for” but had trouble reaching quorum, the quorum requirements have been relaxed in this version, which constitutes the only difference between this and the previous version.


We propose to change the governance process into the following phases:

Phase 1: Request for Comment

User creates forum post to gather initial comments.

Proposal maturity:

  • It must be reviewed & commented on for a minimum of 5 days
  • It must comply with the designated template
  • It must contain all relevant information that would be in the HIP
  • It must have thoughtful discussions addressing feedback from the community

Phase 2: Temp Check

After the 5 days comment period, community member can submit a first [Temp Check] Snapshot vote to gauge initial consensus:

  • Voting period: 2 days
  • Create poll: 5K veHFT
  • Majority (50%) passes
  • Quorum: 10K veHFT

Phase 3: HIP

If proposal passes the initial [Temp Check], it will advance and become “HIP”

The user:

  • Tags forum post title with [HIP]
  • Incorporates any last iterations based on feedback


  • They are notified to approve or veto
  • Need majority approval before it can be submitted by community for final vote

The same forum post remains open for minimum of 3 days before final vote
Community submits final Snapshot:

  • Voting starts after 48h
  • Voting period: 3 days
  • Create poll: 25K veHFT
  • Majority (50%) passes
  • Quorum: 25K veHFT


The proposal has the following objectives:

  • Drive & grow active participation by meaningful stakeholders within governance
  • Streamline end-to-end process & comms
  • Promote a decentralized community

Specification & Rationale:

This change would require:

  • changes to the existing Snapshot page
  • creating another Snapshot page for Temp Check (Snapshot only supports one configuration per page)
  • changes to forum categories / templates

Benefits (Pros):

  • more time for people to get familiar with the proposals
  • higher degree of decentralization
  • more rigor and quality around the contents of the proposal

Downside (Cons):

  • longer time to pass proposals


  • yes for the structure to change
  • no for the structure to stay the same
1 Like

Good proposal :+1: will see more proposals if it passed.

What do u means veto

Hi it means that the Guardians will review the submitted proposals to ensure that: 1) the proposal doesn’t create a systematic risk to the protocol, and 2) the proposal conforms to what was submitted in step #1. Hope that helps!

Can veto disturb value of decentralization ?

completely agree with new phases, temp check will let users decide if they really want to vote for proposals