Community Pool Governance Initiative

It has been several months since the new ecosystem development program was announced, which publish the Eco-Development Funds Community Management Plan. So there’re a large number of tokens in the community pool now and the community members can jointly manage them for a booming IRISnet ecosystem in a decentralized way through on-chain governance, such as applying a certain amount of tokens for a marketing campaign or a community activity. But since the on-chain governance will automatically execute operations such as distribution, it will be difficult to ensure the outcomes and results of community activities or campaigns once the proposal passes.

For this reason, we’re thinking about bringing in the multi-signature committee with a multisig address where the total budget will be first distributed when proposals pass, and make a basic standard for this kind of community pool governance for community events.

Multi-signature Committee:

The initial idea is to include more than 3 trustworthy members (maybe 4-5) into this multi-signature committee, at least 1 member from the IRISgardian community, at least 1 from the creditworthy validator and 1 from core-dev team. The committee may need to take charge of reviewing the results and distributing token based on different cycles.

Basic Standard for Proposal Content:

For those community pool proposals that intend to apply for tokens for conducting community campaigns, there may need a basic standard for their proposal content which need to include the campaign themes, intention, duration, targets, budget benefits for IRISnet ecosystem, executive methods, measurable outcomes for every stage, etc.

Basic Standard for Distribution:

Considering that some events may need certain tokens to start up and prepare, a percentage of the initial tokens may need to be set that will be distributed at the beginning of events. But for sure there’re many differences between each event proposal, so the committee needs to think about different distribution methods based on the various situations.

The following are some preliminary ideas for distribution based on the campaign duration:

(1) If it’s a one-off campaign , such as a meetup, there may be 2 stages to distribute the budget.

a) Before the campaign: 40% of the total budget

b) After the campaign, the proposed outcomes have been achieved (Share outcomes in public, reviewed by the community and confirmed by the committee; Or at least reviewed and confirmed by the committee; etc.): the left 60% of the total budget

(2) If it’s a short-term campaign , such as 1 month, the budget may be distributed in bi-weeks.

a) Before the campaign: 30% of the total budget

b) After 2 weeks: 35% (outcomes reviewed)

c) After 1 month: 35% (outcomes reviewed)

(3) If it’s a long-term campaign , such as 3 months, the review and distribution cycle might be 1 month.

a) Before the campaign: 30.1% of the total budget

b) After 1 month: 23.3% (outcomes reviewed)

c) After 2 months: 23.3% (outcomes reviewed)

d) After 3 months: 23.3% (outcomes reviewed)

These are just some examples of distribution for reference, the actual situation may be more complex, so the distribution method perhaps can be decided by the committee as well. The vital intention is to make the outcomes boost our community and ecosystem.

These are our very initial ideas that aren’t very specific, so feel free to share your thoughts and discuss them together to make them more detailed and feasible.


Multi-signature committee is a good idea. Also we need effective tracking of the results of a grant.


Exactly! Different grants can have different result tracking method. In principle, tokens shall be transferred after committee approvals based on the outcome