[SCP-60] - Proposal Addendum to Governance Process - Official Ideation Post

Summary: The ShapeShift governance process is the act of proposing, discussing, and deciding initiatives for the ShapeShift DAO. This proposal is to update our current governance process for clarity and standardization. Changes include formalizing the first step, clarifying additional steps in the process, including proposal execution and resolving issues due to length of proposal.

Abstract: While important, this proposal does not seek drastic change to the current governance proposal. If this proposal is implemented, the first step will now be required and named Incubation (instead of the current recommended Forum step). Timelines will be formalized as well as the requirements for each step.

Motivation: As the DAO has grown and gained experience, opportunities to improve the original governance process arose. The original recommended first step was optional to allow more flexibility in the conversation as well as move governance forward quickly. The community has spoken and would like more time with the proposal. This proposal requires a post to remain in Incubation for at least three days. There have also been a few housekeeping items (when to assign a SCP number, how many days to leave posts up) that are being clarified. The motivation for this proposal is to help alleviate these issues and allow us to focus our time on the content of proposals, instead of the logistics.


Proposed governance process tl;dr:

Incubation - 3 day minimum: Post your idea in the relevant Workstream

  1. on the forum to obtain feedback from the community. No specific template is needed.

Ideation - 5 day minimum, 60 day maximum: Once incubation post has been live in the forum for 3 days to received feedback, post a draft proposal in Proposal Discussion. Proposals must follow this template

  1. and include a yes or no poll. Proposals may continue to be refined based on community feedback during this stage.

Voting - 3 day minimum: After at least 5 days in Ideation, if a draft proposal has more upvotes than downvotes, it can be posted to Boardroom

  1. for official vote.
  2. Detailed process:


Post in

  • forum.shapeshift.com
  • Posted under appropriate category (listed at the bottom of this proposal)
  • No specific format required
  • Intent is to engage the community
  • Timeline: 3 days/72 hours
  • No other requirement to move to Ideation
  • Ideation:
  • Posted in Boardroom ideation (Note: this will take place on the forum until Ideation functionality on Boardroom has returned)
  • Posted under “Proposal discussion” category

ShapeShift Community Proposal (SCP) format or Workstream Proposal format

  • must be used

SCP number is included in title (SCP # should be 1 greater than the most recent SCP posted in

Voting power is calculated using the strategies defined on SnapShot, explained here

  • (while ideation is still in the forum, each Forum user has one vote)
  • Include link to the Incubation post

Must include poll

  • - with three options:
  • For/Yes with no amendments/changes
  • For/Yes with amendments/changes
  • Against/No
  • Timeline: 5 days minimum, 60 days maximum
  • Proposal may move forward if the majority votes in favor after timeline specified above
  • Voting:
  • Post to SnapShot following instructions found here.
  • Address must hold 100 FOX to create a proposal.

Voting is available on both Snapshot and Boardroom

  • (Boardroom is another interface to Snapshot.

Voting power is calculated using the strategies defined on SnapShot, explained here

  • (while ideation is still in the forum, any Forum user can vote)
  • SCP # is included in the title

ShapeShift Community Proposal (SCP) format or Workstream Proposal format

  • must be used
  • Include links to the Incubation and Ideation posts

For proposals over 6400 characters (the current SnapShot limit), use https://foxpin.xyz/

  • . Include link to IPFS pin in the Live Voting.
  • Timeline: 72 hour minimum

Ratifying proposals - Voting is powered by Snapshot and accessible on Boardroom

  1. . SnapShot and Boardroom enable foxes to vote on proposals by signing messages (free) rather than sending transactions (costly).

ShapeShift DAO currently practices Liquid Democracy, which means voting power is based on FOX held in wallets (or certain liquidity pools) as well as FOX delegated to the address used to vote. 1 FOX = 1 vote

  1. .
  2. Quorum: A minimum of 4,000,000 FOX must participate in the vote for it to be considered ratified.
  3. Soft Quorum: For votes that do not reach Quorum, assume that 70% of the votes necessary to achieve quorum would be against the proposal. If this would still result in a majority of votes being in favor of the proposal, the proposal can be considered passed. See

    • Soft Quorum Calculator
    • Other items of note

      Any proposals not following governance process will be removed.

    • All meaningful governance discussion should take place on this forum to ensure the community has full transparency.
    • As FOX continues to expand across DeFi and across chains, the SnapShot voting strategy will be updated to grant 1 vote for 1 FOX wherever feasible.
    • Remember, this is a living document. If there’s anything you want to add or anything that’s unclear, please suggest it below or make an addendum proposal!

    Conflicting Votes

    From time to time there may be conflicting proposals. To avoid issues, the Ideation phase can also serve as time for anyone to list their preferred alternative option on the forum. Each proposal on an associate topic will have a [TOPIC] block placed in its title.

    After that time, a formal proposal will be put forward including all options available to move forward with that received majority support in Ideation. This will ensure that everyone has the ability to surface their preferences while keeping decision timelines reasonably short.

    Proposal Execution

    If your proposal requires transaction(s) to be executed from the DAO’s treasury, there are currently two options available:

    Manual Multisig Execution (fast and free)

    1. :To have your transactions executed by the DAO’s multisig, post a message in the #dao-treasury channel in Discord with the following details:

      Desired date of execution

    2. Type of transaction to be executed (transfer or contract interaction)
    3. If transfer: amount, asset, recipient (ie. 1000, FOX, vitalik.eth)
    4. If contract interaction: contract to interact with, call, and inputs (ie. eth:0xE2aE37B8077CD3BC7ef1C6580f6dc93673078A01 (Olympus Bond Treasury), withdraw, _token(address): eth:0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48, _destination(address): eth:0x90A48D5CF7343B08dA12E067680B4C6dbfE551Be, _amount(uint256): 830168207423)

    If you need help figuring out the details of the transaction(s) necessary to execute in order to enact your proposal, feel free to post a question in the DAO Treasury channel.

    Automatic SafeSnap Execution (slower and costs more gas):To have your transaction executed via SafeSnap, you must first include the details of the transaction(s) when creating the proposal on SnapShot. Then, once your proposal has passed with Quorum (soft quorum will not qualify for automatic execution and must be executed manually), you will see a button on SnapShot to trigger a question on Reality.eth, the smart contract oracle that uses game theory and bonded FOX to bring the results of off-chain SnapShot votes on chain. The resulting Reality.eth question asks if (1) the linked Snapshot proposal passed, (2) did the proposal include the payload, and (3) does the payload do what the proposal describes. If a question on Reality.eth is successfully resolved, the Reality.eth Safe Module installed on the DAO’s Treasury enables the transactions included in the proposal to be executed via SnapShot’s UI, bypassing the DAO’s multisig.

    More information on SafeSnap

    Benefits: More efficiency and clarify to the governance process.

    Drawbacks: The documentation (pinned messages, forum posts, etc) will need to be updated with the new process. Education regarding the new process will need to be pushed for easy adoption.

    Proposal categories to choose from for the Incubation step:

    Progressive Decentralization: Transitioning responsibilities and ownership of all ShapeShift operations to the DAO.

    Partnerships: Developing mutually-beneficial partnerships and affiliate revenue opportunities with aligned DAOs and products.

    Product (Features and Product): Planning the optimal feature roadmap for achieving ShapeShift’s vision as the open-source interface to the decentralized universe.

    Engineering: Planning and executing the open-sourcing of all ShapeShift code and infrastructure. Developing new features, fixing bugs, and optimizing performance of ShapeShift’s web and mobile applications.

    FOX Tokenomics: Evolving and enhancing FOX token utility and value accrual.

    Marketing & Growth: Executing campaigns focused on growing the ShapeShift ecosystem.

    Moderation: Supporting the community and maintaining the integrity of all ShapeShift various platforms such as Discord, The Forum, Boardroom and Notion.

    Operations: Managing and optimizing ShapeShift’s operational processes.

    Special Projects: Propose new workstreams to be added.

    Customer Support: Delighting and educating customers as they navigate and experience The ShapeShift DAO.

    Information & Globalization: Strategizing, implementation, and optimization of growth campaigns/initiatives for the ShapeShift DAO.


I support this addendum and look forward to hearing reasons for voting NO, so I can understand in more detail if there is any contention.

This suggestion will extend for all of governance voting and is not so much about this particular proposal which is very well drafted and excellently presented.

Since this proposal is about amending governance I will post it here.

I would propose more general wording for ideation voting along the lines of:

Choice 1 - Unacceptable/No - do not proceed

Choice 2 - Acceptable/Yes with amendments/changes - incorporate feedback and repost.

Choice 3 - Acceptable/Yes with no amendments/changes - proceed to governance voting

This observation is about substance over form.

Presenting binary choices with " ideation" is paradoxical. In substance it is moving a single idea forward. Functionally, ideation in this format is less about inclusive iteration and more in the direction of “do you agree with the general principle, or not”.

The voting option of “Acceptable/Yes, but with amendments”, every time, might be an example of substance matching form.

It’s not lost on me this proposal includes the words: “Proposals may continue to be refined based on community feedback during this stage.” in ideation.

A problem space here is in substance, it enables moving goal posts during the voting period so votes at different times are for unknown and different things as time advances and interpretation is entirely the opinion of the proposer. Substantively, the binary measure of “yes or no” does not accurately reflect a measure of community intent nor a commitment to inclusion. Whereas, a third vote-option meaningfully measures community support and creates an obligation on the proposer to make amendments when there is feedback before proceeding to the next stage and removes opining on the merit of the feedback received.

From a strategic lens, there are a number of community issues that can arise over the longer term from non- inclusive structures including voter alienation and apathy, rubber stamp voting, and departing community members.

That’s it. 1f642

really love this suggestion ! I’m in favor of requiring the 3 choices you laid out during the ideation phase. thanks for suggesting this and explaining your reasoning

I agree as well. The suggestion ads great clarity to the intention of the proposal.


  • , just thought of one more thing to consider adding:

    “, 14 day maximum”

    We can add to the end of this bullet underneath “3. Voting:”

    Timeline: 72 hour minimum

Open to other ideas for max duration, but realizing we technically don’t have a max and if we don’t put something in place somebody could theoretically troll us with an otherwise valid proposal for a gazillion years (would be a long and fruitless con, but maybe worth specifying to be safe?)

I can see the logic of the maximum, but think should be longer than 14 days more like 30 or even 60 days. There could always be really important decisions the community needs to make in the future that deserve much longer vote timelines than typical.

I support 30 or even 60 days. Was thinking 30 initially.

The “We Fox’d Up” fund proposal would be a good example of needing a longer timeline. I suppose this would be fairly easy to resolve by reposting the ideation post if it remained idle past the maximum period. I would recommend 60 days.

Can one or two of you give this a quick once over with the updates to the maximum ideation timeline and additional poll options?

Then I can get it moved to voting! (Finally!)

This is amazing , thank you again for taking the initiative to propose this addendum!!

Just read through it and overall it’s fantastic. Only had a few final minor suggestions:

Add this as a bullet under Step 3 Voting (we have it as a requirement in the ideation phase but not in the Voting phase)

ShapeShift Community Proposal (SCP) format or Workstream Proposal format

  • must be used
  • Any proposals not following governance process will be asked to be removed.
  • Let’s make this say “Any proposals not following the governance process will be removed.”

    Address must hold 100 FOX to create a proposal.

We may want to include this a bit higher up in the Step 3 Voting section so it’s easier to find in case people run into this.

otherwise LGTM 1f680