The Anon Framework for Community Governance

“There is no power for change greater than a community discovering what it cares about.” — Margaret J. Wheatley

Introduction —

Governance as a topic of human discussion has long been one that naturally causes debate. There are countless theories to the systematic management of decisions dating all the way back to Ancient Greece. Even animals and insects display forms of governance models that aren't too dissimilar to models adopted by nation states. The most prevalent drawback seeming to be with reaching final consensus on the end goal of said governance.

Natural ‘final’ Consensus —

Not every individual can say they understand the end goal of their nation states. Many nation states do not communicate the point of governance clearly and individuals did not choose to be a part of these governance groups as they are born into them. And thus incentives to contribute and create value within these system often isn’t the desire of the individuals within.

In the simplest terms: Consensus can be defined as a general agreement amongst a group of participants — Final consensus refers to agreements amongst participants that presumably will never change going forward. Examples of this would be the general global consensus that murder is not acceptable and should be punished. Another of these presumed general global agreements would be the right to freedom and to privacy. These are naturally occurring consensus topics.

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L. and Loewenstein, G., 2015. Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), pp.509–514.

You see security, freedom and privacy are all natural desires of society. Goals that occur in the minds of most all individuals on the planet today. These type of goals we at 888AC define as goals of ‘final consensus’ — And are the building blocks for the Governing DAO of the Anon Club.

What makes the Anon Club’s community framework so unique is that it is built on these natural consensus agreed goals of society. The Anon Club acts as stewards and representatives of this final consensus @ the blockchain layer of human interaction.

Modelling the DAO & Its participants —

The creation and purpose of ‘Decentralization Autonomous Organizations' in recent years has primarily been based around the idea of digital financialization and different approaches to generating returns and yields to shareholders within those ecosystems. And in very recent times through events conducted by communities such as pleasrDAO we have seen the accumulation of funds for social and moral good.

Modelling the DAO based on a traditional model and their approaches to governance in our opinion is not relevant when building communities around an inherit ‘human right’ as the end goal. Especially when dealing with privacy as this foundation. Lets take a look at the proposed DAO framework for 888AC as opposed to traditional DAO’s.

Traditional DAO’s & Exclusivity —

Traditional DAO’s essentially act as web3 models of traditionally structured companies that live on-chain and via the use of a ‘council’ or boardroom manage the underlying product that the shareholder’s use and or invest in. The primary technological advancement in this case is that users now have direct access to the daily consensus decisions of the organizations and take part openly should they see fit. This process is usually entirely internal with the token that is distributed tied to some internal value process that is meant to accrue or distribute a ‘dividend’ over time.

We primarily see the exclusivity within traditional DAO frameworks because in most instances it is a exclusive product or MVP that they have designed and implemented and thus they seek to advance internally hoping to increase the returns from the MVP of the product.

But what if that underlying focus, was a goal that has global consensus — something that all want to benefit from? like privacy.

Introducing Stewardship DAO’s & Inclusivity —

In essence Stewardship DAO’s act as a ‘Decentralized Proof-of-Authority’ whereby the authority is all of the members within the DAO and the proof is the contributions of said members to its underlying goal (in this case privacy). These contributions can range from a vast array of possibilities such as web3 protocols, governance systems, financial backing, analytics/research, counselling and so so much more. Stewardship DAO’s unlike traditional are designed to be implemented and interacted with by third-party protocols AND its internal ecosystem while also providing benefits to the total blockchain ecosystem as a whole.

In ELI5 terms this means that stewardship DAO’s are more focused on helping to guide an ecosystem to reaching a goal rather than being the exclusive ones to reach and benefit from the goal.

Why are stewardship DAO’s needed?

Stewardship DAO’s are needed by the community and by creators to help build communities and guide developers in the right direction. Stewardship DAO’s are built by members who genuinely care about a given topic and have contributed in different ways to prove as such. These DAO’s are leveraged by the network and creators/developers by utilizing its community and tools. In the case of The 888 Anon Club, this is both its community that is hyper-focused on privacy and its eventual privacy tooling and network contributions to other privacy based protocols.

Why would a new protocol want to leverage an already established community with ‘stewards’ of the underlying goal?

Seems like this question answers itself — Stewardship DAO’s offer new teams the chance to build and get involved with a passionate community in that topic from the jump. Day 0. Not only this but it will provide a base security level should the protocol you develop become decentralized and Stewardship DAO’s issue governance bonds to new integrations.

In the case where for example — a protocol wants to leverage a Stewardship DAO as a single entity in a 10 member multi-sig council they can simply designate the treasury address of the stewards to do so.

Long-Term Governance & Proposed Stewardship Bonds —

Ensuring members of your community see the long-term vision is hard. This space is very technical and ensuring that everyone is on the same page so that we can fairly understand why we did or did not reach quorum is something that we still struggle with. This will require a lot of education, something which protocol developers and teams themselves don’t really have the time for. This means that we cannot have stable governance over time when working towards a goal due to the uncertain level of feedback from internal communities. By utilizing stewards and the many communities they may be linked to its possible to raise governance participation rates and stabilize governance around one idea.

Here steps in Stewardship DAO’s. Note that not any DAO can be a Steward and thus the use of the phrase: “Proof-of-Authority” here refers to Authority as both a large and active community focused on that industry and a community that has actively contributed to that field over time. It is up to the integrator to decide whether or not that DAO acts as an authority for its field.

The Stewardship Bond Exchange —

In order to make the exchange of Governance bonds fair for a newer protocol leveraging a stewards community and contributions you must use some fairly smart game mechanics to ensure both sides worst outcome is the un-vesting of tokens between the communities. This is the worst outcome because of the use of the ‘Nash equilibrium’ game theory.

In simple terms the Nash equilibrium ensures that no player can increase their own expected payoff by changing their strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged. This constitutes a fair bond of governance assets. More on this will come out regarding the $NOIR Tokenomics paper.

Holt, C. and Roth, A., 2004. The Nash equilibrium: A perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(12), pp.3999–4002.

So what does this mean for the ‘Anon Club’ —

The Anon Club will take up a stewardship role across the Solana Ecosystem for privacy protocols and teams hoping to develop or integrate ZK functionality and tooling who aren’t managing to build a community or achieve governance where it is needed. It is entirely possible that due to this inclusive approach of governance for other protocols that The Anon Club could be one of the first multi-governance assets on the Solana Blockchain whereby 1 token grants a vote across many protocols.

Some of the key benefits this would have for the ‘Anon Club’ are:

• Actually get to have governance stake in integrated protocols.
• Get early access to working with new ZK and Privacy Protocols
• Community Benefits from the integrating protocols themselves.
• More $NOIR Bonded & Vested over time.
• Diverse staking rewards.

In Conclusion —

Today we discussed a possible framework that the Anon Club is likely to adopt. One that encourages external and internal growth and one that stabilizes the governance regarding a certain topic. By growing our own ecosystem in this model, we in turn grow those who have integrated with us and create an inter-twined web of products and utilities around privacy. The goal is to build and provide access to privacy tooling for all and this is the way we plan to encourage that.

Thank you for reading — 0xNico