Discuss potential new Council members and 2 discourse moderators

My Proposed procedures to be adopted for the election of the council members/moderator.

:ballot_box_with_check: General Election Room.
:ballot_box_with_check: Nomination, election and the application process.

:ballot_box_with_check: General Election Room

A new category should be added to the Discourse called Council/ Moderator Election. (This is where election resources and process will be done). Within this category, there should be 5 sub-categories:

Announcements (sub-category 1)

This is where the election announcement wil be made throughout the cycle.

Council Nominees (sub-category 2)

This sub-category is where the community will be able to engage with, ask questions and seek clarification from nominees on their nomination profile pages of the council member nominees

Moderator nominees (sub-category 3)

This sub-category is where the community will be able to engage with, ask questions and seek clarification from nominees on their nomination profile pages of the moderator nominees

(Nominees are applicants that have submitted an application and completed the KYC and background verification process.)

Election Candidates (sub-category 4)

For the nominees profiles that has been proven and chosen by the community should be moved from “Council Nominees and moderators nominees ” to “Election Candidate sub-category. And could be on the basis of if:

There are 5 or fewer nominees in total or were there are greater than 5 nominees but the applicant is one of the top 5 nominees for council nominees)

Rejected/Withdrawn Nominations (sub-category 5)

Any application that is withdrawn by the applicant, rejected by a community vote (at either the nomination or election stage) or withdrawn for any other reason will be moved to his sub-category for record purpose.

:ballot_box_with_check: The Nomination and Elections Process
The preliminary process should be as follows:

Phase 1: Applications process

The candidate who which to submit themselves for the service should have to apply via a Google Form. Applicants should submit their KYC information, relevant documents, and nomination profile drafts.

Phase 2: Community discussions

The community discusses the nomination profile of those who pass the KYC and background verification process. Members to have a deliberation period to discuss and interact with the nominees.

Phase 3: When the nominees are finally chosen then the election can be done on Snapshot.


This looks great, I am looking forward to seeing these sections added :muscle:

1 Like

so, which structure is this most suitable for? the structure of voting on the forum with the selection of candidates or the structure with the submission of an application and the passage of KYC or all together ? I think we need a simple and convenient interaction tool

Apparently there is kyc involved in becoming a proposal moderator… of I read this correctly… @Joris @Hodlerboi ?

So @Hodlerboi no more being anonymous you must kyc privately via Google forms?

1 Like

is the issue of anonymity crucial here? or is it not necessary? is everyone ready to lose anonymity?

Hodlerboi himself said he is a presale investor but does not want to be doxed when I suggested participation should require indicating actual ownership of ZKP… So curious his view on this.

" *

Panther Governance framework proposal

Panther DAO

Feb 2

I agree. The community is relatively small but sufficient to set up proposals. I am a private sale investor and I do not really want to be doxed for security reasons."

1 Like

that’s why I asked if it contradicts the idea itself, I’m also interested in the opinion about it, I don’t think the Google app will provide anonymity, that’s my opinion

1 Like

I agree @ToXiC_eHC. Thank you @Wisdom for the above. I agree with the above that KYC is necessary at this early stage in order to protect the Governance Framework from hostile takeovers. It’s important that community members with the best interests regarding the protocol are having their spot on the Moderator Council.


I see KYC as mandatory in order to prevent harmful takeovers by bad actors, competing projects and team members even.

The Zcash foundation has a lot of known people on their council, we can see how they manage this process, which already was pointed out above. Once this is done I can continue drafting up the governance flow diagram.


Can the community please confirm if the selected members above are okay with KYC & nomination profile drafts as @Wisdom suggests?

This way we can move forward in a sustainable, transparent manner like other community DAO councils.

Like the Snapshot council I would suggest that the above should only be applied once where the community can manage this process themselves next time.


I agree if it is necessary for security


Happy to provide such.
Looking forward to implementing @Wisdom idea.

1 Like

I agree for safety it is necessary

1 Like

Not sure if I can say yes but its good for me :slight_smile:


I think that I should provide more context on why these selected council members are so important for the Panther DAO & Governance Framework.

A proposal’s origins starts with a convo hence newly created topic on the Panther forum. The selected (2) Discourse moderators guide these conversations and enable a high level of conversation, so that the community and Panther Protocol can move forward improving and expanding the protocol and the ecosystem.

But more importantly, the selected Discourse Council decides if the drafted up proposal is suitable to be voted on hence being moved to Snapshot. Hence why, this group of individuals on Discourse should be independent from the group of community members on Snapshot. Otherwise the Governance framework could become centralized and thus vulnerable.

Being ‘suitable to be voted on’ is rather implicit. Meaning that, for the sake of transparency, the community has to decide what this means. Harmful proposals, or proposals which do not align with Panther’s mission and vision for example shouldn’t be seen as suitable. Examples of this could be proposals that would be threaten the sustainability of the protocol, as in security, decentralization, and so forth.

Let me know if this clarifies this part of the framework.

1 Like

And yes, it would furthermore be wise to discuss emergency removals from this council if certain members do not vote at all or misbehave once selected & approved.


Fully agree. I do however believe we need to have a ‘formal’ round of elections for the suggested members.


Holding others accountable in a decentralized governance space is difficult. The lack of structure often leads to inefficiencies that can go unchecked. The Council structure will need to function in a transparent environment that allows the community to assess its performance. To that end, I guess setting up clearly their:

  1. Roles and responsibilities

  2. Mode of operations
    (this raised question like, how will they be operating, will they be holding meeting among themselves, do they need a special room to operate because they may need to carry out voting within themselves before reaching agreement for any proposal, are they working collectively or individually. Again I do not know if the community or themselves have to discuss this.)

  3. Removal
    Yes as earlier asked by @Joris it pertinent to state this out.

I suggest that during a Council term, a member may be removed from the Council through these methods:

A. Resignation
In the event of resignation, the member will remain on the Council for a month i.e One month notice to allow the community to find a new Council member. And the process of replacing a new member should follow as the initial procedure.

B. Community Removal
If the Community wishes to remove a member, the community may submit a proposal to remove a member of the Council.

C. Council Removal
Council members may also submit a proposal to remove a member ( call it council proposal, where only the other council members will vote and if 4/5 voted yes) a community proposal will be made. The member is removed if the community passes its proposal.

Once removed, a new member will be elected through the initial procedure.


Assessing moderators performance could be done by using a rewards structure for fulling their duties.
This will entice Mods to act optimally and with veracity. We should not offer a basic rate for just being a mod, rather they need to be judged on a few criterias. In the end, the council should judge their performance against the DAO agreed criteria’s, where they determine their reward rate on a X basis. X Time being what we deicide in the end.

If mods are unable to sufficiently fulfil their duties, concurrently failing to do so should invoke the removal process – council members will carry out these proceeding as well as re-election for a replacement.

A few ideas for Mod metrics:

  • Responsiveness to community needs
    Answering community questions
    Organising community topic correctly
    Removing harmful posts
    Banning malicious actors

  • Quality of moderators’ contributions and feedback
    Were the mods acting optimally and with veracity
    We can’t have lazy answers.
    Communication needs to be clear

  • Engagement with the community, such as number of community interactions
    Interactions need to be proportional to communities needs.
    Is one Mod interacting considerably more than another?
    Hosting community calls for discussing Topics , and recording such to post in the forum for record

  • Timeliness in addressing community issues or concerns
    What is an adequate delay Mods can have with issues.
    For example; Yes a mod maybe removing harmful posts, but how long did it take to achieve such?
    Exception can be made due to personal situations.
    We cannot expect Mods to never take a break.

  • Quality and success rate of proposals put forward by moderators
    This is the end Goal of Mods, to gate keep bad ideas and promote good ones.

  • Feedback from community members on moderator performance
    Does the community have any complaints against the mods performance?

Before we even elect a Mod, we should look at their history acting as a regular community member.
What are their merits and how does it fit in the above criteria’s?
We don’t want to attract the wrong people; acting with low effort to collect rewards or just fail to uphold duties. Replacing mods because we fail to properly measure them will just waste time and resources.

What do you all think?


I agree with your thinking here.