Previously, Rhythm Research Institute discussed the impact of capital on the governance of decentralized agreements in the article "Governance Capital is a Value-Driven Governance Right | Rhythm Research Institute Talks about Governance Series II", and pointed out that The final value provided by each group in the agreement determines its governance capital, and the forkability of the agreement on the chain limits the extent to which equity capital can control the development path of the agreement to a certain extent.
However, if you want to essentially prevent giant whales from exploiting the rights and interests of other groups in the agreement through capital, protect the decision of all participants To achieve fair decentralized governance, the optimization mechanism is the only choice.
This article is from Status and 1Hive core contributor Sacha. The Gardens governance template (Gardens) maximizes the governance rights of small currency holders by combining belief voting, community contracts, and blue sky courts (Celeste), ensuring that the protocol will not be influenced by giant whales.
(Rhythmic BlockBeats Note: For more details on Conviction Voting, see Faith Voting: Integrating Voting Mechanism of Bionic Dynamic Model | Rhythm Research Institute Talking about Governance Series 1")

Rhythm BlockBeats Note: Ideally, people's income and assets will be in the encrypted network. But the premise is that the ability of large players to use their capital to extract value needs to be limited. So we need to spend some time on the mechanism design.
When governance power is completely determined by capital, all decisions are centralized, and the rich will get richer . Those who are not whales do not have any representation in governance decisions, and the wishes of the whales will not be changed by the ideas of the community.
On the other hand, attracting capital is crucial to the success and sustainable development of the tokenized community is crucial. When all decisions are backed by the principle of "risk sharing", this also ensures that decisions made by those who are not interested in the long-term interests of the community will not unduly affect the allocation of resources and the enactment and implementation of policies.
So how do we balance these opposing forces and create a more productive, more aligned community?
Let's take a look at the Garden governance template.
The Garden Governance Template was pioneered by the 1Hive community, aiming to create a template for the public community that can coordinate shared resources in a bottom-up manner (essentially, the template draws lessons from the 1Hive community and enables any DAO to plug and play use).
Three core pillars of garden templates:
1. Brand new voting system (vote of faith)
2. Decentralized social contract (community contract)
3. Dispute Settlement Agreement (Celeste Blue Sky Court)
Only when the three are combined can it be effective at the moment Community-driven on-chain governance.
Confidence Vote

(Note: Faith voting is the best tool for future decentralized governance)
Conviction voting is at the heart of the Garden Governance template, allowing people to express their preferences on an ongoing basis, rather than forcing them to "make a one-time Decide". From the perspective of community users, its user experience is very intuitive, and users will only see events they care about and support.
Quote from Jeff Emmett's article :
  ;
Conviction voting provides a novel decision-making process that can fund different proposals based on the overall preferences of community members, and the community can continuously express preferences.
In other words, voters need to support the proposal they want approved all the time, not just once A single vote in Time-Boxed Voting.
Voters can change their preferences at any time, but the longer they keep The "stronger" the belief of the proposal.
This "belief" mechanism allows members of the community to support a proposal for a long time than those who only try to influence votes in the short term participants have more influence.
Conviction voting has the ability to resist Sybil attacks and complicity, and blocks many attacks in time-limited voting mechanisms way.
In a vote of conviction, not everything requires a majority consensus. In this way, we can achieve a real "proportional discussion system". Community members can propose and support the things they care about without fear of opposition from whales. In other words, even if you have a lot of rights and interests, you cannot influence the decision of the community.
Proposals only need enough support to pass - the less money a proposal needs, the more support it needs smaller. This is also true in the sense that everyone has a voice. The only consideration for token holders is whether they want to support a proposal, nothing more.
Under this framework, various proposals can be put forward and opened in parallel. This enables DAOs to seamlessly explore, trial and error, and innovate at high speed. If the experiment works, more complex proposals can be made.
An underappreciated advantage of Conviction Voting is that it allows the DAO to grow into a 「Headless Brands」, at deviation and convergence is continuously iterative , and constantly reflects the preferences and interests of token holders.
In summary, by empowering small token holders to contribute Common governance problems: governance attacks, low participation, and inability to prioritize among competing proposals.
Community contract (writing value into code)
Rhythm BlockBeats Note: Has anyone considered making an application on Ethereum? I'm curious if it enables a decentralized social contract.
The second core pillar in the garden template is the community compact. You can think of it as similar to a "charter" or "decentralized social contract".
From a practical point of view, a contract is a document stored on IPFS, which uses the most concise The language of explains what DAO means. It establishes values, rules, and customs of all kinds. And protect the DAO from bad actors without sacrificing the rights of its members.
The key point here is that contracts subject behavior within an organization to subjective rules; In smart contracts, it may make the organization complex and slow.
With 1Hive’s pact as an example:
1Hive is an activist The community is committed to creating a more free, fair, open and humane future.
1Hive is also an economic protocol, similar to Bitcoin or Ethereum, its native token Honey is issued and distribution. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, the 1Hive protocol does not narrowly define what counts as valuable activity, but rather allows community members to build token distribution proposals, backed by staking Honey tokens.
The goal of the 1Hive protocol is to continuously distribute Honey tokens to the development, maintenance and support of the 1Hive community Upgrades of public goods that bring the greatest value, thereby promoting a healthy community economy.
Anyone who interacts with the 1Hive protocol must abide by this contract. Any proposal that violates the spirit of the contract can be handed over to the "Blue Sky Court" (Celeste decentralized court).
To sum up in one sentence, the contract allows DAO to abide by the agreement of value consensus, and outlines the subjective rules of the proposal standard. This also enables finer-grained and more complex governance.
Blue Sky Court (Value Protection)
Rhythm BlockBeats Note: Blue Sky Court is an integration BrightID's Dispute Resolution Agreement. In the 1Hive community, we use the Blue Sky Court to uphold our core values (as stated in the contract). Blue Sky Court allows small holders to challenge proposals that do not comply with the terms of the contract.
The third core pillar of the garden template is the blue sky court, which acts as the shared values of DAO , Faith and Hope. Blue sky courts provide avenues for resolving subjective disputes and harmoniously cement contracts.
From a technical perspective, Blue Sky Court is integrated BrightID's Fork of Aragon Court - Integration with BrightID allows limiting the total amount an individual can stake in the system.
The details will be covered in the next podcast, but it is important to note here that only when a behavior is Blue Sky Court is invoked when challenged (i.e. only in exceptional circumstances).
Once the Blue Sky Court is invoked, a decentralized group of (randomly selected) BrightID Verified Personnel - known as Guardians - will be selected for dispute adjudication (their task is to decide whether a disputed action is in accordance with the contract of this community).
If the guardian decides that the proposal is compliant, execution will continue on the chain. If they think the proposal is not compliant, the proposal will be blocked.
By allowing small holders to challenge proposals that do not align with community values, Blue Sky Court provides a trustless way to maintain the core values of DAO.
Conclusion
Rhythm BlockBeats Note: DAOs ∩ better voting system ∩ soft-strengthenable social agreement = hope for a better world
The Garden Governance Template provides a foundation for public communities to coordinate shared resources in a bottom-up fashion.
By combining the three most important decentralized software - belief voting, community contract (Aragon Agreement) and blue sky Court (an Aragon Court integrated with BrightID), we are now able to achieve community-driven on-chain governance.
With these building blocks in place, we now basically have the ability to have a fully decentralized and fully autonomous organization.
Original link
< img src="https://image.theblockbeats.com/upload/2021-06-04/15bb82e3cfbf4bc73af26f6cbd47298edf51737c.png?x-oss-process=image/quality,q_90/watermark,image_d2F0ZXJtYXJrbmV3LnBuZ z94LW9zcy1wcm9jZXNzPWltYWdlL3Jlc2l6ZSxQXzMw,g_center">
p>
Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:
Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats
Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App
Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia
