Proposal: Governance Council (GC) Formation

Governance Iterations
,
1

Summary

Requested Budget: 1,500,000 SCR
Timeline: 6 Months

This proposal would establish the Governance Council (GC) - a dedicated body responsible for overseeing experimentation and research relating to the future directions of governance at Scroll DAO. The creation of this council would enable much more active research and experimentation towards the dual goal of growing the Scroll network while advancing on the value of progressive decentralization.

Motivation

As Scroll DAO matures, governance processes must evolve to be more resilient, transparent, and participatory. Thus, it is important to have a dedicated to funding new research and experiments that can help define the tools that the DAO will use the, as well as the future direction of the governance architecture overall.

However, a dedicated, representative council is needed to:

  • Develop an initial research and development roadmap that the DAO will pursue in regards to governance.
  • Work with the governance team to develop a decentralization roadmap.
  • Develop and oversee any governance Requests for Proposal, as well as any one off proposals for a grant, experiment, or investment.
  • Maintain relationships with and ensure reporting from all relevant projects supported by the Governance Council.

Execution Plan

Council Size

  • 3 Members
    • 2 Scroll Foundation representatives
    • 1 delegate or governance professional with strong relevant experience

Term

  • 6 months

Time Commitment

  • 10 hours/week per member

Selection Criteria

  • Track record in governance participation (e.g., proposal authorship, delegate voting)
  • Familiarity with onchain/offchain governance tooling
  • Awareness of the landscape of governance research and what can help address the challenges that Scroll DAO faces
  • Understanding of DAO legal/regulatory environments
  • Cannot be an active member of a budget-disbursing council

Core Responsibilities

Core responsibilities would include:

  • Produce a governance research & experimentation roadmap, initially for ~6 months
  • Produce any relevant RFPs needed
  • Provide regular updates on the forum (at least once every two weeks)
  • Publish a summary report after at least 3 months

Initial Focus - Research & Experimentation

The initial focus of the council in terms of domains of research & experimentation could entail, but is not limited to:

  • How to make it as easy as possible for projects building on Scroll to partake in governance.
  • AI + governance (e.g. an RFP for tools such as Event Horizon or x23ai to help ease the cognitive load of governance, building out a KOI instance for Scroll, producing a ‘manifesto for the use of agents in AI’, etc.).
  • Exploring the deliberative tooling landscape to better understand which tools can be most helpful to experiment with and for which outcomes.
  • Use of futarchy style solutions for specific governance and/or funding decisions.
  • Alternatives to Discourse as the primary knowledge base for Scroll.
  • Research roadmapping to both articulate the problems we want to work on and to better understand the state of research more broadly.
  • How to most effectively operationalize progressive decentralization.

The GC would be responsible for review and, if appropriate, expanding this list and turning it into an initial roadmap.

Approval & Veto

The GC would be able to use it’s budget to approve new growth initiatives. The council would need a 2/3 vote to pass any proposal that uses less than 25% of the total budget, and a 3/3 to pass any proposal that would use more than 25% of the budget. Requests for more budget for the council would need to be put to a full DAO vote.

Once votes conclude, a 3 business day veto window kicks in. During this time, delegates are able to call for a veto on a GC decision if they see fit.

The veto would require a simple majority vote (either in the form of an off-chain vote that can be audited by the community or a formal on-chain vote)

Budget Request

Total Budget: 1.5m SCR

  • 10k SCR per month * 6 months = 60k SCR [this assumes an SCR price of $0.3 - to be revised once approved to reflect market rates]
  • Remaining funds can be used for grants, tooling, or other relevant expenses to support the initial goal of the Governance Council.

Evaluation

The primary focus for this council is to:

  • Produce a roadmap
  • Produce a charter for the council going forward
  • Review relevant proposals to fund research and experiments
  • Support at one relevant research project
  • Conduct at least three relevant experiments
  • At least two forum posts a month with short updates on activities
  • At least one in-depth report on activities in the first 5 months
  • Produce a proposal to extend the GC, as appropriate

Conclusion

This proposal puts forth the idea of forming a Governance Council (GC) with a budget of 1.5m SCR. This council would be require a commitment of roughly 10 hours per week over 6 months. The GC would have the ability to review and then approve or reject proposals directly without requiring a full DAO vote, though the DAO will be able to veto any decisions.

The formation of the GC would ensure that Scroll DAO can become a place for innovative governance, which itself would both attract top talent and make it easier for relevant stakeholders in Scroll (especially projects building on Scroll) to partake in governance.

9 Likes
2

Thank you, @eugene for another well thought out proposal. I do have a couple of questions:

Does “not an active member of a budget-disbursing council” mean that the candidate cannot be a current member of any council or working group?

Your proposal mentions one delegate or governance professional, does that imply that this will not be a ‘split seat’, if so, I would suggested making that more explicit.

For core responsibilities, I would like to see recommendations/next steps for future committee members (if this council continues after 6 months) and if it does not continue, then execution/implementation plans for the roadmap.

And finally, the proposal doesn’t implicitly state it, but I would like to see the inclusion of the selection process (i.e. application process, interview by the Gov team, etc.) for candidates.

3

Appreciate @eugene for this thoughtful proposal, we’re excited to see its implementation within Scroll DAO! Love to see innovation that helps shape Scroll governance.

Could you clarify how proposals will be formally categorized as “within scope” for GC decision-making to prevent overlap with other councils or broader DAO governance activities?

4

Yes, we want to limit people to one council for now. Especially considering the sociocracy convo that’s happening, there will likely be structures that bring folks across councils and working groups together. So we are thinking that it makes sense to avoid one person being on multiple councils for now

Thanks for calling that out, will make it more clear. We are open to this also being a split seat.

We will make this more explicit in the revised proposal as an expected outcome / how to evaluate the council

Apologies for the omission - this will follow the same recruiting process as the other councils/working groups for now. That is to say, the Foundation will lead a transparent hiring process where applicants will fill out a form where applicants are asked if they are comfortable sharing their full application or at least their name. The results, along with the data we have consent to share will be shared in the post announcing the decision. The DAO will have a 3-business day veto begin once the forum post is made.

This will be part of what the GC will define with the research roadmap, which is meant to outline the specific areas of focus for research and experimentation. There may be ad hoc considerations as well.

Ultimately, the scope of this council relates to researching and experimenting with ways to fundamentally improve how governance functions at Scroll DAO.

When it comes to, say, educational efforts, the GC would only oversee governance related educational efforts (such as developing more materials). As currently written, the GC would NOT have the ability to approve a new delegate accelerator as that would entail approving funds to delegate, which is not in scope as written.

Let me know if you have specific scenarios or clarifications you’d like to have added

4 Likes
5

Generally, I am very pleased with the DAO’s overall council structure so far. Could you throw more light on why there are two seats for the Scroll Foundation and one seat for the DAO?

1 Like
6

Same logic as with the CC - as of today, the Foundation team has the highest context for current plans and where we’re coming from.

Additionally, whoever sits on this seat will have to be someone who will not be pushing their own governance proposals / be involved in other groups, so it would be easier to start with one person who works closely with the gov team, which makes it easier to roll off one of the gov team folks sometime in the future for a second external person.

Let me know if you had other concerns not being addressed here.

2 Likes
7

The rationale makes sense to me, thanks for the clarity.

1 Like
8

Thank you for the clarification, Eugene. That makes the GC’s scope much clearer. We appreciate your explanation and don’t have any further questions at this time.

9

Hi Eugene,

Overall, I think this is a good step forward.

The Delegates above have asked good questions and I think your rationale has been soun. Ill save my questions for the refined proposal.

Cheers

10

Hi, As mentioned in the Gov call: It would be good to add a standard Conflict of Interest paragraph like:

Candidates and members agree to avoid any situations or relationships that could create a conflict of interest during the duration of their mandate.

1 Like
11

Hi!

Definitely exciting to see the GC proposal in the forum and shaping up! We had some questions that have already been adressed by other delegates and wanted to say that we’re overall aligned with the expected composition and internal process of the GC so far.

We do have some thoughts regarding what the potential scope based on this initial list. As we see it, the council has three high-level depicted verticals: Research, Experimentation and Operations.

We support having those three verticals but we do want to point out the particular focus on governance operations, something that the latest bullet refers to. In that sense, we think that the GC should act as a key stakeholder behind the governance process while providing live-operational support, something that could translate into some non-exhaustive tasks such as:

  • Liason between the DAO and the Voting UI provider (Currently Agora) in order to have an integrated feedback loop to adapt to the DAOs needs.
  • Exploration of secondary UIs: For Voting and Optimistic Governance
  • Exploration of on-chain endorsements as per Scroll’s Constitution
  • Ensuring alignment of on-chain proposals, Gov Docs and forum posts
  • Providing support and guidance for proposal drafting and ideation
  • Provide and innovate on governance metrics in order to contribute to data-driven decisions (Supermajority votes, Capture, VP monitoring, Whale behaviour, Auto-Abstaining wallet analysis, Airdrop, etc.)
  • Overseeing decision-making / Governance processes within the DAO
  • Fostering delegate activations and communities

Although these items might be included in the potential roadmap to be put in place, we didn’t want to let by the opportunity to mention them explicitely and build on top of the research and experimentation tracks since, as we know, governance as such comprises a very wide set of responsabilities. We are also particularly glad to see the project governance onboarding item, something that should be tackled thoughtfully.

In such case, we are hesitant on the expected hours to settle at 10-weekly hours given that this is a 3-seat council, therefore we’d suggest to increase those up to 15 at least.

Happy to keep discussing this proposal!

1 Like
12

Thank you very much for this proposal @eugene

This reply makes much sense, thanks for clarifying it. I get why Foundation context is crucial at this stage, especially since governance at Scroll is still in that “laying the tracks while the train is moving” phase.

My only lingering thought is more about optics and trust-building than immediate function. Even if Foundation-heavy makes sense now, signaling a clear path toward shifting the balance could help reassure contributors that this won’t become a permanent default.

From a legal/governance perspective, the current setup works fine short term, but it’s always stronger when councils that hold funding/approval power build in gradual decentralization milestones. It reduces any perception of capture and sets a precedent for fairness if tough decisions ever come up.

Another point I would love to state that i couldn’t mention in the call today is that since this council will be funding experiments (possibly with service providers), it might be smart to include a basic disclosure + conflict policy for GC members. It doesn’t have to be heavy, but some lightweight guardrails could help avoid reputational blowback if members end up approving grants to people/projects they’re affiliated with.

13

We see this proposal as a fundamental step towards strengthening both the resilience and innovative capacity of the Scroll DAO’s governance model. The establishment of a dedicated council tasked with developing a research and experimentation roadmap, including RFPs on critical areas such as the use of AI in governance, deliberative tools, and structured decentralization pathways, is not only timely but also highly strategic and visionary. By creating a space where governance can be systematically tested, challenged, and iterated, the proposal lays the groundwork for Scroll to lead by example in the broader Web3 ecosystem.

The proposed distribution of seats, two representatives from the Foundation and one delegate or governance professional, reflects an acknowledgment of the DAO’s current maturity stage. However, to build long-term legitimacy, we recommend the incorporation of formal decentralization milestones within the six-month timeline. These milestones would act as tangible signals of commitment to gradually transition from foundation-led structures to community-driven decision-making.

Equally important is the inclusion of explicit and well-defined criteria for conflict of interest assessment in the council’s design. Such safeguards are essential not only to ensure fairness and impartiality but also to strengthen community trust, transparency, and the perceived legitimacy of council decisions. Clear disclosure frameworks, recusal processes, and accountability mechanisms would help establish a culture of integrity that is vital for the DAO’s sustainability.

14

This is an interesting proposal and I would like to touch the point other delegates assessed: the council composition.

While I understand the reasoning behind the choice, it seems thay would be sufficient to have 1 seat to the Foundation to provide the high context here.

The scope of the council is to research and experiment with governance tooling and practices and, after that, produce a roadmap for Scroll’s governance improvement. I believe that DAO would be better served with plurality of experience/knowledge by having 2 seats from external parties and 1 from the Foundation.

15

Thanks for the proposal, I’m excited to see a council dedicated to governance research.
The initial focus might be a bit vague, but that’s alright for a first iteration.

The budget is very significant, though, in terms of the “open funds”, that the council can spend on grants and tooling. Is this supposed for just the 6 months, or a longer period of time? I’d prefer a bit more detailed breakdown there.

I feel like ecosystem growth should still be the first priority of the DAO, and funding research is a goal that’s a bit more long-term. The internal gov research and experimentation parts make much sense to me, but the research funding remains a bit unclear.

16

blockful’s Perspective on the Governance Council Proposal

blockful is pleased to see this proposal and supports the formation of councils as a governance evolution mechanism. However, we have some observations and suggestions regarding the council composition and broader strategic direction.

Council Composition Concerns

While we appreciate the proposed structure, we expected to see more seats allocated to DAO delegates rather than Foundation representatives. Given the current low quorum and engagement levels among a significant portion of delegates, having a majority of Foundation seats (2 out of 3) may inadvertently discourage new delegates from participating and could slow the decentralization process.

The Foundation team undoubtedly has the highest context for current plans and strategic direction. However, this knowledge gap could be addressed through better information sharing with the entire DAO community rather than through seat allocation. The issue isn’t necessarily the number of seats, but rather the shared context that could enable more DAO representation while maintaining institutional knowledge.

Decentralization Opportunity

Since Scroll is actively pursuing progressive decentralization, councils present an excellent opportunity to advance this goal. Currently, significant voting power remains with the Foundation, and this council structure could serve as a testing ground for more distributed governance models.

Best Practices Consideration

We strongly support the principle of limiting individuals to one council participation to encourage diversification and prevent the formation of governance cabals.

Learning from Successful Models

We recommend examining ENS’s MetaGov Steward model as a potential reference point. ENS has demonstrated excellence in council structuring and governance frameworks. While Scroll and ENS are distinct DAOs with different needs, studying their council attributions and frameworks could provide valuable insights for our governance evolution.

Conclusion

We support this proposal’s direction but encourage consideration of how the council composition can better reflect and accelerate Scroll’s decentralization objectives while maintaining operational effectiveness.

17

Hi all, thank you so much for all your thoughtful questions and comments!
Replying to some of the questions raised above:

After some thoughtful consideration, we thought it would be better if Foundation (Governance team) would take 1 seat (shared by the gov team) and there would be 2 seats for external contributors (delegates, external professionals, etc.).

Applicants to the GC should be aware that holding a council seat excludes the possibility of also serving as a service provider in tooling or services that intersect with the council’s scope. We see this as necessary to avoid conflicts of interest.

Thank you for the suggestion! Yes, since the questions on COI resurface often, we suggest to put this disclaimer in the proposal:

"Candidates and members agree to avoid any situations or relationships that could create a conflict of interest during the duration of their term. A conflict of interest is understood as any circumstance where personal, professional, or financial interests may compromise, or appear to compromise, a member’s ability to act impartially and in the best interest of the DAO.

That may include, but is not limited to:

  1. Acting as, or seeking to become, a service provider in areas that fall within the council’s scope of responsibilities.
  2. Holding financial interests that could benefit from decisions taken by the council.
  3. Maintaining professional or personal relationships that may bias judgment or decision-making."

Lets us know if there’s anything else you would want to see added/clarified.

Thank you for the detailed feedback! We can increase the commitment by 15 hours per week, however, please note that this would raise costs, given that the Foundation will hold only one seat while the two additional seats would be hired council members. At this point we are not adjusting that and would recommend that be an adjustment in the future (especially given there will be two external seats, so 20 hours per week total)

Having the GC actively involved in experimentation and research would strengthen decision-making and improve governance processes overall. In terms of overseeing decision-making, that responsibility seems to fall more within the scope of the EOC, particularly when it comes to cross-council coordination.

From my perspective, the GC’s primary focus should be on developing the DAO’s roadmap, conducting research, and leading experimentation. Ideally, this would generate RFPs, experiments, and investment opportunities, rather than day-to-day operational support. For example, tasks such as “providing support and guidance for proposal drafting and ideation” could remain with the Governance team for now—at least until roles like Scriber and Weaver or the alternatives to that are introduced.

Thanks for your comment. As mentioned above, the updated draft will include only 1 seat reserved for the Foundation out of 3. On the gradual decentralization perspective - yes, we agree. For instance, from the proposal itself:

On a more general note, please check timelock test (if haven’t already) that we hope to include in the September voting cycle. On your point for inclusing the statement on COI, we agree, please find the suggested phrasing earlier in this post.

I can definetely see GC assesing the state of the governance and building up on the performed research producing those decentralization milestones. We can discuss whether this is something we would want to see GC accomplish within the first months of work, also please share your thoughts if you have any particulat milestones in mind that you would want to see included. Other than that, i don’t think it’s feasible to come forward with the set decentralization milestones just yet to be included in the proposal, it seems more like one of the deliverables for the GC to produce those.

2 Likes
18

Something I’d add to the existing comments is the space between facilitating and doing. Whereby the council could on one extreme do the roadmap fully behind closed doors and present it as done (no input nor feedback) and on the other extreme the council doesn’t decide anything about the roadmap and only runs a process for the community to define it.

In this case, I belive the council should be the decision maker but with ample input and feedback from the community. The exact methodology doesn’t need to be mandated but in an era where many “DAOs” are becoming closed and uncollaborative to their detriment, I think it’s important to set some guidelines in the proposal for the council to operate openly and with abundant input and feedback from the delegates and broader community.

Process wise I envision inviting governance service providers, researchers, and other governance folks to discuss with the council in open sessions. But again, the process is not something to be mandated but its “qualities” (the adjectives of the process/approach) could well be referenced and mitigate some failure points of other ecos.

1 Like
19

Thanks for the answers! Some comments below

The additional seat solves the dedication concern we had so supporting the amendment!

To clarify on the decision-making item: we were referring to the consensus-mechanisms that the Councils utilize not on the impact or outcome of those. I.e: Majority vs Unanimous, etc. Just another potential research surface are for the GC.

Agree!

20

Thank you for the updates to this proposal, I do have one question regarding the increases to the two delegate seats (and reducing the Gov team to a single shared seat).

If the dedicated hours are still 10 hours per week for each of the two delegate seats on this council, does this require that the proposal budget needs to be adjusted or increased to reflect this change?