Discuss potential new Council members and 2 discourse moderators

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.


Thanks for your input @Wisdom. I think that this is a very good set of guidelines.

Regarding @Praetorian’s comment, we should distinguish the difference between the moderator council and Discourse moderators as the council reviews the proposals where as a Discourse moderator guides/monitors/manages the conversations and topics on the Panther forum.

I think that @Praetorian’s bulletpoints are indeed valuable guidelines for Panther’s Discourse moderators.

So in practice, the Discourse moderators, the Discourse Council and the Snapshot council will be 3 different, independent, groups of individuals.


Totally - My points are soley towards discourse moderators. I was also thinking about writing a few guidelines for the council members also.

Regarding my initial comment, would a reward scheme be possible?

I am not suggesting for it to be a large sum of ZKP, Discourse moderators should not be able to live off these rewards by any means. But it seems like Discourse moderators will be carrying out quite a bit more work in comparison to council members. For them to consistently guide Quailty proposals, an incentive on performance seems like a good idea?
As the reward scheme would function on the basis of performance, with Council reviewing such;
PVL and Community Council members can influence the type of Discourse Moderators they believe to be healthy. Poor performance would justify removal, with metrics to support that.
Also, If one quarter there is hardly any activity, then the rewards should reflect that. Vice versa for a really busy quarter. Bear and bull markets could impact how busy this forum gets.


I definitely think that rewards in ZKP should be discussed by the community. Right now, there’s still a (relatively small) ambassador program through where a few community members are getting ZKP on a monthly basics. However, I believe that the community should come with a proposal regarding framework incentives.

Not only for Discourse moderators but also perhaps in order to stimulate DAO participation. I think that it is also interesting to partner up with social DAOs. I will share my thoughts about this next week as this would be another topic.


This does indeed sound interesting.

I think DAO incentive frame work should be a separate topic for discussion also we should wrap up on the council member framework, make a proposal and implement it so they can swing into action for other upcoming proposals as they are many topics I will be bringing in for discussions.

1 Like

Just to get this moving - @Wisdom you suggested that you would create new sections for nomitations etc but that you have not done so yet. Could you please move forward on that so that we can get this ball rolling…

Yes, I’m waiting for @Joris to allow access to handle that

No issues - that is to much to make a sepereate category for - I started a new thread - just finalising the details then I will share it