Governance Constitution

Hi there! Here’s Vlad, Head of Community and PR at Citadel.one. This topic was inspired by recent discussions on prop. 72, prop 73 on Cosmos Hub and by a number of proposals on other cosmos ecosystem networks. As you might know, when making governance decisions, Citadel.one is following the Validator Constitution that describes conditions for “Yes”, “No”, “No with Veto” and “Abstain” votes. For a long time it has proved to be a very useful document in making informed and unbiased decisions when voting on most of the proposals. After proposals 72 and 73 went on-chain our team has got an idea that the Validator Constitution can become a universal handbook for all validators and help them make weighted decisions on proposals, and also a standard or at least a guide for future proposers on how to improve their governance practices, deliver more transparent proposals and thus increase chances that their proposals receive enough publicity, reach quorum and get passed. Decentralized governance is a very new industry, there are no standards, common practices, rules or must-haves. But that does not mean there shouldn’t be any. We decided to share our Validator Constitution and…

Excerpt (1191 of 5735 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey Vlad!

Thanks for sharing - this sort of document is super valuable and I’d love to see this sort of thing adopted through governance so we have a ratified shared understanding of voting options. At Hypha we are drafting a proposal to define No With Veto.

What you’ve listed as conditions for ‘Abstain’ are what I’d expect to use a veto for. Is this a mislabel? How do you differentiate between abstention and veto?

I’d like to see abstain used for the following:

• Express a neutral position on the outcome of the proposal, but support for advancing the proposal process
• Recusing oneself due to conflict of interest

Interested if anyone has thoughts on other valid use.