GM!
Inspired by today’s meeting and the context of the CCC co-design, I am encouraged to share an idea that may serve as inspiration during this process.
Modular Circle Structures for Scroll DAO
I’d like to share a proposed structure inspired by Sociocracy 3.0, but adapted to Scroll’s context and existing governance.
Rather than suggesting a full adoption of any one model, this post invites us to explore modular practices. Tools we can integrate selectively to strengthen alignment, transparency, and participation within the DAO.
A circle-based org chart where:
-
Each council or working group is represented as a circle
-
A General Circle (6–8 roles max) acts as a space for alignment across domains
-
Circles are connected by two roles:
-
A Coordinator, chosen by the Foundation (or parent structure)
-
A Representative, chosen by peers within the circle
-
This double-linking structure reduces bottlenecks, ensures information flows in both directions, and avoids single points of failure; a key concern in any governance system.
The prototype
You can find a first draft in this mural of how such a structure might look, with circles like Community, Governance, Growth, Comms, Treasury, etc., interlinked through the General Circle.
I allowed myself to represent numbers of people and half-fictional names to give an idea.
This is just a starting point for discussion.
Roles, not individuals
Like in Holacracy, this map is designed around roles, not people.
That means:
-
A single contributor can hold multiple roles in different circles
-
Some roles may live in both a “parent” and a “child” circle
-
Cross-pollination of context becomes a feature, not a bug
Then, you can add guilds or squads of different support roles (like a scribe/accountability-cultivator) in every council to add even more fluid coordination and fewer silos.
Flexibility by design
Each circle could choose its own decision-making process. Some may use consent (as in Sociocracy). Others may use weighted voting, signal-based feedback, or a wider community process, etc. I don’t pretend to change the decision making, but use it as a communication flow chart. The structure simply creates clear interfaces between spaces.
CCC3 aims to clarify:
-
What work is being done and what’s missing
-
What new councils or support structures should be created
-
How to track contribution, accountability, and impact
…a visual, role-based org map could be a lightweight tool to:
-
Make responsibilities legible
-
Reduce confusion
-
Improve onboarding and collaboration
-
Avoid proposals getting stuck due to unclear ownership
Why just 6 circles in the General Circle?
To keep the General Circle small enough to be functional (max 12–15 people), only 6 primary circles are connected to it in the initial draft. These could evolve depending on what CCC3 surfaces as core priority areas (e.g. Governance, Ecosystem Growth, Community, Treasury, Comms, Accountability).
Additional working groups can still exist, but ideally, they may link into one of the core circles, merge two or operate as satellite spaces reporting through aligned domains.
This is not a rigid structure, it’s an invitation to co-create an org chart (which IMO is useful to understand some things). Take what’s useful, adapt the rest.
Looking forward.
