Panther Governance framework proposal

Hi everyone.

I finally made an acc on the Panther forum so that I could make a topic about the Governance framework. I saw this being mentioned on Telegram a few times earlier and I think that we ZKP holders should draft up a Governance framework PIP with input from Panther team. Let’s discuss and publish after a few weeks.


I agree. We can think of drafting up the existing process like moderator review, building a more formal framework and PIP reviewing process. Now that exchange PIP is coming closer we need clear process.


Thanks for starting this topic!

There’s a lot to discuss here since a Governance framework is an extensive process to document.

A few suggestions that should be discussed and drafted up by the ZKP holders for example are:

  • Voting priorities and conflicts
  • The PIP template structure
  • A Discourse Moderator for review council (a group of individuals deciding if a proposal’s suitable for Snapshot). These individuals should be independent from the Snapshot authors so that the Governance process is secure and more robust and decentralized.

I would say that, right now, the process on Discourse as in how a discussion turns into a proposal mostly needs to be crystalized out, into detail. And concurred on by the ZKP holders. Especially since the Panther DAO already has a functioning group of Snapshot authors and admins (incl multisig), an Ethereum namespace and so forth as earlier decided through PIP-8. Let’s take the time to discuss the Panther Governance framework into detail here during the next few weeks. From our end, we will contribute to this discussion as well.


I’ve wondered, what’s a good litmus test for our drafted proposals.

You may agree that the active forum users don’t represent the whole community.

To no fault of ours, nor does it mean we are acting in bad faith in any way (considering every vote was a resounding success). Just a question of vocal minority including the silent majority in the drafting process.

We could have something similar to Optimism where users can also choose a delegate?

We would get more votes; users voices are also represented more.

This will also work within the Governance framework, as certain delegates can fill the roles you have describe. Some having more responsibilities in the drafting proses due to the weight of their representation.

What do you think?



What I like to see is an structurized process here on the forum especially since the ZKP holders (including me :smiley: ) already voted for the snapshot council and voting criterea.

I would like to make an flow diagram for Discourse especially and share it here somewhere at the end of the week so that everyone understands this topic and my ideas better. Everyone can understand PIP process better after such a thing is voted for hopefully at the end of this discussion. For example we all want exchange listing like MEXC but how is hard to define for community. Especially the part before an proposal is live on Snapshot.


I agree on this also but lets discuss voting criterea after community agrees on Discourse flow diagram.


This is very good idea.

Some panther forum process like this but on a diagram:

  1. forum topic started
  2. topic turns into PIP or not
  3. Independent moderator review PIP
  4. Panther and a snapshot council (can be same thing) review proposal instead of just one snapshot author pushing live directly. Acceptated or rejected if its against pantheer DAO values.


1 Like

Yeah bro. I tink that we should seperate technical and non technical proposals from each other on flow diagram. Lokking forward to discourse flow diagram :100: :100:

1 Like

I wonder who will draw that flow diagram that you refer?

1 Like

Great idea. A flow diagram/functional diagram would be an ideal first step for the community to define the Discourse workflow and process. A diagrammatic representation of a PIP process.

Setting things on paper also helps with defining an implicit (rough consensus) process so that a set of rules and procedures can be voted on by the ZKP holders. Hence a more transparent, explicit governance process for all DAO participants. I am looking forward to your idea & diagram and also think that MoonRocket made some good suggestions earlier on.

1 Like

I too look forward to seeing this great idea :slight_smile:

1 Like

Something like this?


Yes, I am putting the cart before the horse!
Let me add something keeping with the topic at hand

Please add any suggestions!


I just made the flow diagram for Discourse based on earlier shared flow diagrams and comments of @MoonRocket, @DanP and Praetorian.

We should split Discourse moderators and Snapshot authors as these should be seperate individuals. Otherwise there are vulnerability risks of the governance process. Next step after the Discourse flow diagram we should discuss the Snapshot flow diagram that comes after the moderator review process.
If we outline a governance process in phases, we can discuss it better before drafting it up and have the entire proposal voted in.


This is good.

We should have 2 forum moderators and discuss panther DAO values and continue diagram discussion after that. Also PIP template, time to share.

1 Like

And moderators should get small ZKP reward for moderating and reviewing PIP drafts i think

This is a great start of the flow diagram!

The community should indeed think about splitting Discourse moderators and Snapshot authors I would say, for decentralization purposes as suggested above.

Moderators should review the formal PIP(s) and provide an in-depth PIP Analysis Report. The purpose of a PIP Analysis Report is to ensure that all:

  • Costs
  • Steps to implement
  • Legal considerations
  • Third-party review requirements
  • Potential conflicts of interests
  • Any further implications have been properly considered and identified in order to ensure the DAO members have enough information to make an informed decision.

As @Mikhail12 suggested, the community could discuss a small ZKP reward for reviewing PIP drafts.

To give everyone a better idea, a PIP template consists of the following:

Proposal Name:

(Title of the proposal)


(List the author of the proposal; can be a real name, TG, Twitter or Discord handle)


(summary of the proposal in 2-3 sentences)


(Provide the motivation for and background info about the proposal and why it is necessary)


(Outline the benefits that implementation of the proposal will bring)

Proposed Actions:

(Provide the tasks that need to be executed to achieve the goal of the PIP and related details, and who will be involved in the implementation of the PIP and their responsibilities)


(Insert key dates and milestones)


(Provide detailed costs of implementation and where the funds will come from)

Voting and Participation:

(Provide the ways in which community members can vote on this PIP - yes/no - and outline the steps that need to be taken for the PIP to get approved, including when PIP will begin, how long voting will be open, and other details)

We can see a similar proposal structure at Apecoin.


Good input :+1:

I am wondering what PVL’s input on DAO values is longterm. I like idea of having both seperate council on Discourse and Snapshot.

First council reviews PIP and set up report for analysis by PVL. Snapshot council should put proposal to vote like current snapshot authors but after analysis report for community PIPs.

1 Like

I was listening to an AMA for OccamDAO today - very interesting.
Members ( Stakers ) get an NFT, they can join guild’s who then together propose and launch OIP’s… I need to do more reading they have a very thick document stack and actual dedicated people who run this.

1 Like

This said I am seeing the need to create 2 seperate ‘locations’ in this forum, a unified space for discussing PIP’s which we can then archive for example once they are completed or rejected - since currently things are very disorganised here…