Over the past month, the Scroll ecosystem has seen a significant governance pivot. With the announcement of the search for a new structure (one that emphasizes speed, alignment, and Foundation oversight) a new chapter is being drafted.
In the middle of that transformation, an important question emerges:
How can we design a governance model that enables agility without reverting to hierarchy?
This post is an open invitation to consider Holacracy, not as a plug-and-play solution, but as a source of inspiration for Scroll’s future. 
Based on my experience implementing Holacracy both as a team member and a facilitator, I believe it offers key design patterns that could help us achieve what (I believe) we’re collectively seeking: clarity without rigidity, speed without domination, and collective intelligence without chaos.
A False Dichotomy: Speed vs. Decentralization
The recent restructuring implies a familiar trade-off: decentralization is too slow, and therefore we need to centralize power (at least partially) to move at the speed the market demands.
But what if that trade-off isn’t necessary?
Holacracy was born from this exact tension. It emerged from organizations that wanted to scale their operations without becoming bureaucratic.
What it proposes is simple in theory but powerful in practice:
- create dynamic roles in circles of responsibility with clear mandates,
- allow decision-making authority to live within those roles, not in a pyramid.
In Holacracy, decisions don’t require voting. Nor do they require constant alignment with every other team. Roles have sovereignty within their domain, and only escalate tensions when collaboration or coordination is needed. This creates flow, not friction.
At the same time, it allows these domains to be collectively defined and adapted to avoid overlaps or gaps, generating greater transparency and accountability, which maintains checks and balances across roles. Add to that community vetoes, and we’re approaching a decentralization that’s lean, dynamic, and resilient.
This model isn’t just theoretical. It has powered companies with hundreds (even thousands) of collaborators. It works because it replaces central control with clear structure, not with free-for-all consensus.
Scroll Doesn’t Just Need a New DAO. It Needs a New Foundation
One of the challenges I’ve observed (not just in Scroll, but in other L2s as well) is that DAO design happens in a vacuum (as if it were separate from the Foundation). But if the Foundation remains a traditionally hierarchical organization, while the DAO is designed to be participatory and experimental, then we are bound to have friction.
A better approach is to design both sides of the system together. Or rather, what if both were operationally the same organization?
And this is where Holacracy shines again. If both entities operate under a system of roles and circles, then there will be coherence regardless of their legal status or their employability model.
If we’re serious about long-term decentralization and resilience, we can’t have one part of the system evolving while the other remains static.
Accountability Without Managers
One of Scroll’s stated priorities is improving accountability. But accountability is often confused with control. In traditional structures, someone is held “accountable” by their manager. In Holacracy, roles are accountable, not people. And roles are reviewed regularly, through structured governance meetings where tensions can be processed.
This allows individuals to own multiple roles, step out of roles that are no longer needed, and propose changes to the system itself. Power becomes liquid, not concentrated.
Moreover, Holacracy includes mechanisms for regular check-ins, clear expectations (via role descriptions), and transparent metrics. It’s not a loose or informal system. It’s structured, but flexible.
Building Anti-Fragility Through Tension Processing
Perhaps the most powerful element of Holacracy is its approach to change. Every time a team member senses something that could be improved, they are invited to process that tension. Not in an open-ended debate, but through a clear structure that asks:
- What role does this affect?
- What change could solve the tension?
- Is it safe to try?
This allows the organization to evolve continuously, rather than through massive, irregular redesigns. In a fast-moving ecosystem like Scroll, this kind of adaptive governance could be a major asset.
Why This Matters Now
Scroll’s Governance Council are soon to be tasked with drafting a new structure. That structure will define how power, accountability, and learning are distributed for the foreseeable future.
Rather than reinventing the wheel, we could learn from systems like Holacracy, adapting them to our unique context (which is similar to gaining superpowers with on-chain technology). This would mean:
- Designing roles and circles with clear domains.
- Giving operational autonomy to those roles, within boundaries.
- Establishing recurring governance spaces where structure can evolve.
- Applying the same model to the Foundation, not just the DAO.
Of course, I’m sharing this reflection not as a final answer, but as an opening move.
If others are interested, I’d love to co-host a session to go deeper into what this could look like.
Let’s build a system where decentralization doesn’t mean slowness, and where speed doesn’t mean exclusion.
Onward.
