The Shimmer Governance Framework (Phase 1 - Discussion)

The Shimmer Governance Framework


A proposal by the Community Governance working group based on an initial proposal by @Phylo. Group members and main contributors to this proposal have been: @Deep_Sea @AndyW @Werner @overclocked @TonyO2 @Ben_Royce @Linus @NickelanddimeO @mariana.delaroche @OdieF @ryosaeba @DrZ @BenDe @asa.dahlborn @Stone and many others that have joined the calls and contributed to the discussions and worked on the documents we used to shape this proposal.

A first draft version of this proposal was posted in this governance forum on May 14th, 2022 - see here for reference.

Since June 2022, this proposal has been publicly discussed in the IOTA community during the Governance calls in the IOTA Discord every Tuesday at 4 pm CEST and Thursday at 5 pm CEST. All meetings are recorded and available here on our Youtube channel.
Further, several action meetings have happened that also took place in the public General-voice channel of the IOTA Discord.

The framework Google document that was publicly shared through Discord, Telegram, and Twitter in many different IOTA community channels and was used to collect input from the community can be found here.

With this post in the forum, we ask every community member to give a last round of input to this proposal and invite you to post any questions that may arise here in this topic thread so that we can answer and clarify them and come to a final version that has been reviewed by the community and agreed on.

The plan is to collect this last round of input from the community and then treat this proposal following the below-described process.

The final version will be published in this governance forum as a Phase 2 post. This Phase 2 post will also include a Poll to collect the community’s sentiment. In this poll, the community would have seven days to signal support for the proposal.

If the Poll receives 100 supporting votes, this governance framework proposal will be implemented as a Phase 3 vote amongst all Shimmer token holders in Firefly as soon as possible once the Shimmer Mainnet is released.

Please give this post a “like :heart:” at the bottom of the post if you think this proposal is useful to our community. Please add any questions or suggestions as comments to this post.


This framework defines the governance process for selected topics in the Shimmer network. Changes will be proposed using a three-stage process that can result in a vote by Shimmer token holders. The governance forum hosts the discussions and proposals. This framework defines the detailed rules that must be followed and standardizes decision-making in the network.

Table of contents

1.) Simple summary:

2.) Abstract

3.) Motivation

4.) Governance Specification

4.1) Proposal Lifecycle

4.2) Shimmer Governance Framework Guiding Principles

4.3) Defining the stakeholders of the governance process

4.4) Phase 1 - Discussion phase

4.5) Phase 2 - Temperature check phase

4.6) Phase 3 - Voting

4.7) Counter proposals

4.8) Seasons

4.9) Timing / Planning of proposals and votes

4.10) Execution of a decision - cooldown period

4.11) Phase - 3 Emergency proposals

4.12) Governance proposal template (phase 2 & 3 & emergency proposal)

4.13) Hosting of the specification in Github

4.14) Hosting of the participation events for Governance votes on GitHub

5.) Rationale:

6.) Implementation

7.) Glossary

8.) Recommended readings, knowledge library

This proposal is written and structured following its proposed rules.

[SGP - 0001] The Shimmer Governance Framework (Phase 1)

1.) Simple summary:

As a community and a project, we need to define our processes to enable and empower community participation and decision-making in Shimmer. In our opinion, we need such structures and processes to find shared ground on governance and establish an efficient way to propose changes to the project’s current state.

Over the last 12 months, intensively researching governance and DAO models of dozens of projects in the web3 space, we came across some very good governance models. Some projects have created an environment that welcomes participation and makes it easy to access. Others have created “governance monsters” without practical use for their communities. In the Footnotes of this proposal, you can find links to a selection of further recommended readings that will help to get a deeper understanding of the topics.

As a result of this research, this document proposes rules and structures that will allow us to make effective governance decisions in the future. The below-described process should become the standard for introducing and implementing governance decisions in the Shimmer network.

2.) Abstract

Currently, no process is defined to give Shimmer token holders a chance to participate in governance and influence any decisions about what should happen in the network. People can raise an idea in the governance forum, Discord, or other social media channels of IOTA. Still, from this initial idea, there is no path established to discuss, evaluate, and potentially move from concept to execution.

On the other hand, proposing technical changes or additions to the protocol using the TIPS process is an option, but this process is only established to cover the source code of the project. Besides proposing a change by suggesting a new TIP, any further implementation of the suggested ideas in a TIP depends on the decisions of the IOTA Foundation.

This means that sufficient independent ways to influence certain aspects of the network by the community do not exist yet. Combining Shimmer protocol governance from the TIP process with a decision-making process that involves the Shimmer token holders on technical program parameters will be one of the goals of Governance decentralization in the upcoming months and years. Currently, any proposals that can be covered in the TIPS process outside the defined parameters open for community governance are automatically rejected by the governance moderators of this forum.

It is also the wish of the IOTA Foundation to enable and empower our community to take more ownership and responsibility in the protocol to progressively decentralize Shimmer. That’s why this governance framework has been developed. It paves the way to a fully decentralized protocol.

3.) Motivation

This proposal aims to define what community governance in the Shimmer network should look like. Developing a participatory approach to give everyone the option to propose ideas and participate in specific decision-making processes is the primary goal of this proposal.

Learning from other projects that have implemented community-driven governance processes in different stages and with different outcomes and successes is essential.

Developing new ideas and proposing changes needs a staged process consisting of the following steps.

  • defining an idea and introducing the concept to the community,
  • giving the community a chance to suggest changes and additions to the concept,
  • The ability to signal support for the proposed changes,
  • Finally, reaching consensus and making a binding decision for the network via secure and sybill-protected voting.

As we are just getting started with governance, the design is a flexible process that allows adjustments on the way if we see that certain aspects do not play out as intended. This is the very first beginning of community governance. Nothing is set in stone forever. This framework offers the ability to test and change.

The community should also understand that most of the protocol features of Shimmer must currently, at the launch of the Shimmer Mainnet, stay under the control of the IOTA Foundation to fulfill Shimmer’s purpose as a network to validate Coordicide and implement the huge protocol updates that lay ahead of us.

The IOTA Foundation pledges itself to increase the number of network parameters open for governance as soon as the components’ development has matured, and the Foundation believes that it does not need to steward them anymore. Here, we focus on security more than on quick decentralization.

Parameters that are open for Community Governance in Shimmer

(Defined by the IOTA Foundation)

The currently allowed scope of governance can be found in the following file in the Shimmer Governance Github repository:

This file will be kept up to date by the IOTA Foundations engineering team and is the source of truth that defines where governance is possible and to which topics governance proposals are allowed to be issued under this framework. The IF engineering team will slowly increase the number of parameters in this list once they have matured enough to be governed by the community.

4.) Governance Specification

4.1) Proposal Lifecycle

The governance forum, introduced by the IOTA Foundation in May 2022, is the host for our governance process and is used to move a proposal through the three phases of governance:

  • Phase 1 - Discussion
  • Phase 2 - Temperature check
  • Phase 3 - Voting

Once an idea successfully passes phase 2, a vote is initiated in phase 3 using the Firefly voting mechanism based on Shimmer token ownership. This method uses the functionalities of the already developed Firefly Governance and the Hornet participation plugin used in the Build vs. Burn vote that happened in June 2022.

To be accepted and implemented as a vote in Firefly, a governance proposal must successfully pass through the first two phases of the framework that work as a filter mechanism to only allow proposals that fulfill specific criteria to be implemented as a Firefly vote.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Consensus mode none Soft consensus Network consensus
  • Introducing an idea by posting in the forum
  • Approval by moderator
  • The moderator adds the proposal to the phase 1 category
  • If the proposal does not meet the guidelines, it goes to the archive
  • All specifications and changes to the idea happen in phase 1. This can include several rounds of polling and edits to the original proposal to include input from the community.
  • All edits require a new post with a version number
  • Receive 50 likes or 50 yes votes in a poll from the community
  • If the proposal does not have any engagement over a 30 days duration and does not have the minimum 50 likes / yes votes, it will be archived
  • The moderator approves the final version of phase 1 proposal → moves to phase 2
  • Post in the forum
  • Follows a defined structure of the governance template
  • Approval by moderator
  • Receives a unique identifier number by a moderator
  • A finalized concept ready to be voted on by the community (during phase 2, the proposal should not be possible to edit anymore)
  • Includes a poll to signal soft consensus
  • Poll duration 7 days
  • Poll must receive a minimum of 100 yes votes to be accepted
  • If accepted, it leads to a network-wide vote in Firefly
  • Poll must include “Make no changes” option
  • It is a non-binding decision
  • Can also be conducted as a runoff poll if any counter proposals qualify
  • Announcement post in the forum by a moderator once all requirements are met
  • Voting is implemented in Firefly. For the transfer, the exact wording of the question is used without modification in FF. Node operators implemented counting.
  • Must include “make no changes” option
  • Vote duration 14 days
  • Cooldown 7 days before execution
  • 5% quorum for passing
  • Simple majority needed to pass
  • Decisions are binding
  • Poll must include “no changes” option
  • Follows a defined structure as described in the proposal template
  • No edits allowed
  • Text that will be used in the Firefly votes is already specified
  • Participation event created by the submitter
  • Checked by a minimum of two moderators or Admins
  • Must include the option “Make no changes” and the same text as the phase 2 poll
  • Ideas can be posted on the forum any time and should be discussed as long as needed.
  • Poll duration is seven days
  • Vote duration 14 days (7 days pre-vote, 7 days counting period)
Decision making to move to next phase
  • Poll: 50 votes in favor of the proposal in the last version poll
  • no poll: The latest published post version received 50 likes.
  • Poll must receive a minimum of 100 votes in favor of the proposal
  • Spam
  • Does not talk about the parameters open for governance
  • Proposal has no engagement over 30 days
  • Proposal doesn't reach a minimum of votes/likes
  • Proposal conflicts with the resubmittal delay rules
  • Proposal does not meet the guiding principles.
  • Does not reach the required votes in favor of the proposal in the poll in the seven days
  • A counter-proposal reaches community support within 7 days. The proposal then is halted for a runoff.
  • Option “Make no changes” reaches the simple majority of votes
  • Does not reach 5% quorum of maximum achievable votes
  • Canceled through an emergency proposal submitted during the 7-day cooldown.

4.2) Shimmer Governance Framework Guiding Principles

  1. A proposal must be relevant to the Shimmer network and ecosystem.
  2. If voted for, the proposal must add positive value and support to the Shimmer ecosystem.
  3. All proposals must not segregate individuals, organizations, or communities based on sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.
  4. The proposal’s intent must not have been submitted within the current submission season and follow the resubmission delay rules.
  5. The proposal must meet the defined parameters that are open for governance. All technical proposals relevant to IOTA, Shimmer, and Assembly protocols must be submitted through the standard TIP process.
  6. The proposal should not be directed towards using, requesting, or managing the Shimmer Treasury Funds once a Shimmer Community Treasury DAO is established under its own guidelines and rules. Until the Shimmer Community Treasury DAO has been established, this framework can be used to make decisions on the structure and rules of the Treasury DAO. This governance framework can also be used to make decisions on allocating a budget from the Shimmer community Treasury Wallet to the Shimmer Treasury DAO once the Treasury DAO has been established.

4.3) Defining the stakeholders of the governance process

  • Governance Forum members:

Everybody who successfully registers an account in the governance forum.

  • Governance Proposal submitter (phase 1):

A Governance Forum member who posts a governance proposal under the [Shimmer Governance Proposals] [Phase 1] Discussions category or who submits an Emergency proposal in the governance forum.

To submit a topic in the [Shimmer Governance Proposals] section of the forum, the member must have reached the Trust level 1.

This member is responsible for the proposal and needs to make sure that the proposal fulfills all acceptance requirements defined for the different phases of the governance process.

The member is also responsible for all needed coordination with moderators to move a proposal to the next stage or implement it as a vote in phase 3.

A proposal can only move forward at the request of the proposal submitter.

This requires the proactive involvement of the proposal submitter. After 30 days of inactivity in the forum (no new comments), a proposal is to be rejected and archived by moderators if it has not met the acceptance requirements to move to the next phase.

The moderators or entities like the IOTA Foundation or Node operators will not automatically take action on a proposal if the original proposal submitter does not request this. If a proposal is not followed up within 30 days, it is considered abandoned by the original submitter and will be closed and archived following the guidelines defined. The topic could then be picked up by someone else and resubmitted as a phase 1 discussion post.

  • Governance Forum voters (phase 2):

Governance Forum members that reached Trust level 1 in the forum are allowed to vote on polls in a phase 2 proposal.

The requirements to achieve Trust level 1 are set as follows:

  • Active registered account in the governance forum and,
  • has opened a minimum of 3 topics and did read a minimum of 3 topics completely in the forum and,
  • has spent a minimum of 45 minutes (aggregated) reading posts in the forum

  • Firefly voters (phase 3):

Everybody who is in control of the minimum amount of Shimmer tokens required to produce one vote. This amount is currently defined as 1000 Glow and follows the technical specification for the Hornet INX - participation plugin.

  • Governance Forum Moderators:

To enable an effective governance process, some community members need to handle administrative tasks in the governance process, mainly in the governance forum. The community group that works on governance and meets weekly to discuss these topics has selected five community members to fill these positions. The community can propose to remove moderators through the here-defined governance process.

Currently, these community members are selected as governance forum moderators:
@Deep_Sea, @Werner @overclocked @AndyW @Stone

Tasks and responsibilities:
  • Daily check the forum if new posts are submitted that are requested to become a phase 1, phase 2, or emergency proposal.
  • Check every newly submitted post in the [Shimmer Governance Proposals] Category if it fulfills the Proposal Acceptance Requirements for phase 1, phase 2, [phase 3](#proposal-acceptance-requirements-phase-3-30 or emergency proposal. This includes checking all provided links in the post for correctness.
  • If all requirements are met, approve posts in the respective Forum subcategory and add the unique identifier number and the phase tag to the post.
  • Keep the public Notion page that hosts the unique identifier numbers up to date.
  • Run the official Shimmer governance Twitter account and use it to inform the community about ongoing phase 2 and phase 3 decisions.
  • Ensure that phase 2 polls and phase 3 votes are published following the specified timelines
  • Before approving a phase 2 poll into phase 3, ensure that there has been no successful counter proposal submitted.
  • If a Phase 2 poll is accepted, inform the community by posting about the poll from the official Shimmer Governance Twitter account.
  • If the requirements are not met, inform the initiator that the proposal misses specific requirements via a private message and keep the proposal unpublished until the requirements for accepting the post are met.
  • Support the initiator of a proposal if they lack the technical skills to create the executable participation event that will be uploaded to the nodes for a phase 3 Firefly vote.
  • Merge the participation event in the Github “participation events” repository if approval for phase 3 vote has been granted by two moderators or one moderator and one administrator.
  • If a phase 2 poll has successfully met all requirements to become a phase 3 Firefly vote, publish an announcement post under the [Phase 3 vote] subcategory following a specific template that includes the unique identifier, the link to the phase 2 discussion, and the time and date when the phase 3 vote begins in Firefly. This announcement post is locked from comments and serves only as information to forum users.
  • Publish this announcement post from the Shimmer governance Twitter account.
  • Inform one of the IOTA Foundations community managers that a vote in Firefly is planned so that the IF comms department can schedule the social media posts to inform the wider community about the upcoming vote.
  • Move finished or declined proposals (phase 1, phase 2, or phase 3) to a separate subcategory [Proposal Archive] in the forum for ended proposals. Proposals moved to the archive will be tagged accordingly [accepted] or [declined].
  • If a Firefly vote has been conducted, edit the phase 3 announcement post to include a link to the validated results of the vote published on GitHub.
  • Observe the forum and the governance process and propose required adjustments to the parameters under probation after consent in the moderator group has been achieved.
  • Prepare the seasonal vote to ratify the new seasonal specification that includes all recently made changes.
  • Moderators will manage discussions during the phases to ensure they are not disrespectful and focus on the proposal topic in a positive manner.
  • If a participant is aggressive during the discussions and continues to add negative comments within a discussion thread, a minimum of 2 moderators and one admin should discuss and ban a member if decided upon. Guiding principles are described in the forum’s Terms of Service that regulate all users’ activities. They build the foundation for all moderator actions regarding moderation.
  • If a submittal is rejected, a moderator or admin will write a brief (one to three sentence) summary stating how the submittal did not follow guiding principles and/or the defined requirements set for submittals.
  • The forum moderators will only be granted access to the functionalities required to fulfill the above-described tasks in the forums [Governance] section. This does not provide special access to other administrative functions or the [Research] section of the forum.
  • Governance Forum admins

Employees of the IOTA Foundation which have full access to all functionalities of the Forum. They are responsible for granting moderation rights to the selected Governance Forum Moderators. They can act as Forum moderators if no forum moderator is available to fulfill a required task.
Currently, these IF members are Forum admins: @antonio.nardella @Phylo @anyong @Junwei

4.4) Phase 1 - Discussion phase

Getting feedback on an idea, adapting it, and including input from others is the primary goal of phase - 1. The Governance forum has a specific category [Shimmer Governance Proposals] where this process is hosted. The Discussions phase starts in the [Shimmer Governance Proposals / Phase 1 - Discussion] subcategory.

Phase 1 initiates the start of a proposal’s lifecycle. Anyone that has reached trust level 1 in the governance forum can step forward and propose a change to the above-described aspects of the Shimmer network.

The discussion phase must be used to refine the idea to a point where it can be boiled down to either one or two clearly defined options. It may be required that the proposal submitter puts up several polls during the discussion to present a clearly defined and specified concept to the voters in the following phase 2 poll.

All posts in the forum that a trust level 1 member submits are automatically locked from editing 5 minutes after publishing. This means that if a proposal submitter wants to implement some changes in the phase 1 proposal after it has been approved and published by a moderator, the following process needs to be followed (also by members of higher trust levels):

  • Close the current topic so that no more comments are possible.
  • Submit a new post as a phase 1 Discussion with the same topic title and add Version 2, 3, 4, … to the title
  • Directly reference the previous discussion by including a link to the previous post in the new version.
  • Follow this process until the proposal submitter is sure that the final version of the proposal has matured and can be formulated as a phase 2 proposal.

The outcome of this process in phase 1 should be a defined and specified proposal ready to be put up for a community poll in phase 2 and implemented in a Firefly vote in phase 3.

To initiate an idea’s discussion and decision-making process, a forum moderator will only allow a post to be published in the [Shimmer Governance Proposals / Phase 1 Discussions] subcategory and grant the phase 1 status to a discussion if the topic of the proposal fits one of the defined governance parameters and follows the Shimmer governance framework guiding principles.

Proposal Acceptance Requirements Phase 1:
  • Discussion topic created in the governance forum under the [Governance Proposals / Phase 1 - Discussion] subcategory tagged with phase 1
  • Duration: topics close automatically after 30 days of inactivity.
  • The post must be written in English language
  • The post must follow Shimmer governance framework guiding principles.
  • A phase 1 topic post needs approval by a moderator and receives the phase 1 tag once it is approved to be published.
  • It can only receive a phase 1 tag and become a governance proposal if it discusses one of the parameters open for community governance, follows the guiding principles and does not conflict with the resubmittal delay rules.
Requirements for a phase 1 proposal to move forward in the process and become a phase 2 temperature check proposal:
  • The latest version of the proposal posted by the proposal submitter has either received 50 likes or the latest poll created by the proposal submitter on the latest version of the proposal has received 50 votes in favor of the proposal.
Requirements to close a proposal in phase 1
  • Topics that have been approved as a phase 1 but have not seen any activity (comments/likes) on the topic for more than 30 days will be automatically closed by the system and then removed from the category and archived by a moderator in the [Proposal archive] category
  • The proposal can also be closed and archived at any time by written request of the proposal submitter to a governance forum moderator.

4.5) Phase 2 - Temperature check phase

The Governance Proposal submitter feels confident that the proposal includes everything he or she deems necessary. Hence, a solid and specified proposal has been developed, considering suggestions and refinements raised in phase 1. The proposal is structured using the provided governance proposal template which is implemented as a preconfigured template for all posts in the [Phase 2] - Temperature check subcategory. The submission contains a 7-day lasting Poll conducted by the Governance Forum voters. If the poll receives enough engagement, it signals support and confidence that the community wants to do a public vote on the manner, which will then be part of the following phase 3.

Phase 2 polls are non-binding decisions and only show sentiment in the community that allows distinguishing if a topic receives enough support to justify a vote in Firefly. All changes to the Shimmer protocol will require a decision by all IOTA token holders in a phase 3 vote in Firefly.

Proposal Acceptance Requirements Phase 2:
  • A Governance Proposal post was created in the governance forum under the [Shimmer Governance Proposals / Phase 2 - Temperature check] subcategory and tagged with “phase 2”.
  • The proposal links to the phase 1 discussion conducted beforehand. If no phase 1 discussion was conducted, the phase 2 post request will be rejected by the moderators.
  • The phase 2 proposal is posted by the same proposal submitter that had posted the corresponding phase 1 proposal that started the discussion.
  • A phase 2 temperature check poll** **can only begin on specified dates:
    • First and 3rd Monday of a month before 4 pm UTC and last seven days. Moderators ensure that the poll gets published on these days and times.
    • To ensure this, the phase 2 post must be submitted at least 24 hours before the start date of the poll (which is Monday at 4 pm UTC). Proposals that get posted later than 24 hours before the deadline can not be included in the phase 2 period and will have to wait until the next phase 2 period opens (2 weeks later)
  • The proposal uses the provided template for governance proposals. The proposal template requires all submissions to speak to relevant fields, such as a Simple Summary, Abstract, Motivation, Specification, and Implementation. The template is implemented by default in every post in the [Phase 2] subcategory and shall not be altered besides removing the descriptions in blockquote.
  • The text for the participation event is part of the post and contains the exact question and answers. The text is 100% identical to the text used in the poll.
  • The proposal receives a unique identifier from a forum moderator with an increasing number. This identifier will follow the proposal through all stages of the governance process. The Identifier follows the form: SGP - 0000 (SGP stands for Shimmer Governance Proposal). The unique identifier is taken from the public Notion page.
  • The proposal contains a poll created by the proposal submitter. This poll must always include the option “Make no changes”.
  • Besides the option “make no changes”, the poll can only contain one or two different other options. So it is either a “Yes / No changes” or an “Option 1 / Option 2 / No changes” vote.
  • The text of the whole proposal and poll is not allowed to be edited in phase 2 after the moderators approved it.
  • Poll duration must be set to 7 days
  • Poll option “limit voting to these groups” must be set to: [trust_level_1 & trust_level_2 & trust_level_3 & trust_level_4]
  • Poll option “Show results” must be set to “Always visible.”
  • Editing any proposal or poll text is only allowed in the first 5 minutes after publishing the text. The forum settings block further editing of posts.
  • If the proposal submitter becomes aware of an error in the text after these initial 5 minutes, he can request that the post gets removed by a moderator by posting a public comment with this request and tagging the @Governace_moderator group under the topic.
  • Resubmittal of a corrected proposal version in phase 2 is only possible on the next proposal round (The first or 3rd Monday of a month) and after a moderator approves the corrected post.
  • Accepted phase 2 polls will be announced by the official Shimmer governance Twitter account and reposted by the Shimmer network main account run by the IF.
Requirements to win a phase 2 poll in the forum and qualify to process to phase 3:
  • The Poll must receive a minimum of 100 votes in favor of the proposal.
Requirements to close a proposal in phase 2
  • If the minimum votes are not reached in the specified time, the phase 2 poll is marked [declined] and archived in the [Proposal archive] category by a moderator
  • The proposal can be closed and archived at any time by written request of the proposal submitter to a governance forum moderator.

4.6) Phase 3 - Voting

The final decision if we shall change a parameter in the Shimmer network is conducted through a Sybill-protected and transparent network-wide vote asking the whole community of Shimmer token holders to make a decision. All other phases before this vote are just steps to get feedback on community sentiment on an idea and do not have any binding character. But a phase 3 vote in Firefly has protocol-wide consequences and represents a binding decision by the community.

The IOTA community has developed a technical solution for the BUILD vs. BURN Treasury vote. Firefly and the Hornet nodes are also prepared to conduct these votes in the Shimmer network using the same technology.

The current process created for the Build vs. Burn vote already has functionalities implemented to protect the vote from the influence of short-time speculators by using a time-based build-up of voting weight and has proven to be efficient and user-friendly.

For a network-wide vote by all token holders, all required voting preparations must be in place before a phase 3 vote gets announced. These preparations include creating a participation event by the proposal submitter (forum moderators can support upon request of the Proposal submitter) that can be implemented into Hornet nodes. This participation event is based on the specifications designed for the Treasury vote.

The participation event needs to be merged by a forum moderator or admin into the respective [Github branch reserved for Shimmer voting participation events]9 before the phase 3 vote can be announced, so that node operators can implement it from this repository.

In this stage, it is required that two forum moderators or one moderator and one admin double-check that all requirements are in place to approve publishing the phase 3 vote announcement. Merging the event in the GitHub repository requires merging rights. These rights can be given to the forum moderators but currently reside with @antonio.nardella and @Phylo.

A forum moderator publishes an announcement post under the [Phase 3 votes] subcategory stating that the proposal has successfully passed the requirements to be implemented as a vote in Firefly. The announcement post includes a link to the phase 2 discussion and states the time and date when the Firefly phase 3 vote begins. This post is “locked” without options to comment and only serves as information to the community.

The same announcement will also be posted on the Shimmer governance Twitter account, which the moderators run.

The announcement forum-post in phase 3 uses this template:

[Phase 3] Shimmer Governance Vote announcement:
The proposal [unique identifier and title] has reached soft consensus by the community in the governance forum phase 2 poll [link to the phase 2 poll]. It has fulfilled all requirements to be presented to the community in a governance vote using the Shimmer Firefly Wallet.

The vote in your Shimmer Firefly Wallet will begin on [date and time in UTC] with a seven-day pre-vote phase during which you can cast your vote before the counting phase begins.

The seven-day counting period during which you are required to hold your Shimmer tokens in the vote to receive your maximum possible votes will begin on [date and time in UTC].
The voting process will end on [date and time in UTC]

[Governance vote title] [unique identifier]:

Question: [copy text from the participation event]

Answer 1: [copy text from the participation event]

Answer 2: [Make no changes]

Node operators that want to participate in counting this vote can add the participation event to their nodes from this link: [link to the raw event hosted in Github].

Proposal Acceptance Requirements Phase 3:
  • Successful phase 2 poll
  • The Proposal Submitter has created a participation event in Github containing the JSON file for the vote, following the specifications described in the IOTA Treasury vote process.
  • The name of the participation event file in Github must begin with the unique identifier of the proposal - given by a forum moderator, followed by the proposal title.
  • The text of the participation event in the “additional info” section must contain the URL of the phase 2 post in the governance forum so that voters in Firefly have the direct link to review the proposal and all discussions that did lead to the vote.
  • The text of the “vote question” in the participation event must begin with the unique identifier of the proposal following the form
    • SGP - xxxx: (followed by the Text of the proposal question)
  • One “answer” in the participation event must be “Make no changes.”
  • The text of questions and answers is identical to the text used in the phase 2 poll for the question and answers
  • **Vote Duration: **The created participation event used in the vote must contain seven day “commencing” period starting on the milestone that defines Thursday 01:00 pm UTC, directly followed by a 7-day “counting” period.
  • Accepted phase 3 votes will be announced by the official Shimmer governance Twitter account and by the Shimmer network main account, which the IF runs.
Requirements to win a phase 3 vote:
  • The option that wins the phase 3 vote in Firefly must receive a result with a simple majority of votes counted for this option by the hornet nodes participating in the counting. The phase 3 vote must reach a quorum of 5% of the maximum achievable votes (based on the circulating supply of Shimmer & the defined counting period in milestones) to be accepted as valid.
  • The number of circulating Shimmer tokens used to calculate the vote results is based on the circulating supply of Shimmer at the milestone “counting start.”
  • If the simple vote majority achieved in the vote signals the result, “Make no changes”, the proposal will not be accepted and will be considered closed and rejected.

4.7) Counter proposals

We may see that some specific topics will receive intensive discussions, and there may be fractions that strongly oppose a proposed change. In that case, a group might want to address the same topic with an entirely different approach. If this is the case, they may create a counter-proposal opposing a discussed proposal. Such a counter proposal must be named as a proposal that aims to counter an already existing proposal by its proposal submitter by calling it “counter-proposal” and adding a link to the proposal it opposes.

A counter-proposal will lead to the situation that a phase 2 poll will need to be conducted with both proposed solutions as voteable options (the original proposal and the counter-proposal) to decide which of the two will be presented to Voters in Firefly.

This means that once a proposal has reached enough support in phase 1 and would move to phase 2, the moderators will need to check if an active counter-proposal is submitted. If no counter-proposal is submitted, the proposal will go through the normal process of phase 2.

If a counter-proposal has been published and submitted, a runoff poll between the proposals will be conducted if the following conditions are met:

Conditions for the runoff poll:
  • The counter-proposal reaches the required 50 likes/votes in Phase1 during the seven-day poll timeframe that the original proposal spends in phase 2. In that case, the runoff poll will be started directly (on the same day) after the initial phase 2 poll has finished successfully (meaning the original proposal has reached 100 votes in favor of the proposal).
  • This runoff poll will only contain the original proposal and the runoff proposal(s) as options in the poll and will not include the “Make no changes” option.
  • If the counter-proposal fails to receive enough likes until the original proposals phase 2 poll is finished, the counter-proposal has failed, and the original proposal will go the usual way towards phase 3 (if all requirements are met)
  • The counter-proposal will be deemed as declined when:
    • It fails to receive 50 votes/likes in phase 1, while the original proposal resides in the seven-day phase 2 poll.
    • It fails to receive more votes in a runoff poll than the original proposal.
    • It fails to receive more than 100 votes in a runoff poll.
  • If declined, the topic addressed in the counter-proposal can only be resubmitted following the rules stated under the resubmittal delay guidelines.

If the counter proposal qualifies for a runoff poll in phase 2, the moderators will create a special post in the [Phase 2] category. This post in phase 2 will include all proposals (original as “Proposal 1” and counter-proposals as “Proposal 2”, “Proposal 3,” etc.)

The option that wins this runoff poll with a simple majority of votes and fulfills the set requirement of a minimum of 100 supportive votes will be the winner and move to phase 3.

4.8) Seasons

We divide a year into four governance seasons, three months each.

Season’s start and end dates will be set as follows:

  • Season 1: 2022/10/01 - 2022/12/31
  • Season 2: 2023/01/01 - 2023/03/31
  • Season 3: 2023/04/01 - 2023/06/30
  • Season 4: 2023/07/07 - 2023/09/30

Season numbers will further increase following the above schedule.

Purpose of the seasons

Guaranteeing stability - Resubmital Delay

Once a decision has been made by the community in phase 3, and it has not been subject to any emergency proposal, we deem the decision final and will implement the change. Changes need to have enough time to prove if they have the intended effect; therefore, a direct submittal of a proposal that intends to change the recently made decision must be declined.

  • A proposal declined in a phase 3 governance vote cannot be resubmitted in the same season again. This includes all similar proposals that speak to the same topic or follow the same intent as the declined proposal.
  • Also, proposals that intend to revert a decision taken in a successful phase 3 vote fall under this category and must follow the same rules.
  • Only after the start of a new season a proposal that speaks to the same topic or follows the same intention can be submitted as a phase 1 discussion and has to pass the defined governance process successfully.
  • If the proposal topic succeeds through phase 1 and phase 2 but is declined a second time in phase 3 by the community, the waiting time for resubmittal is increased to 2 seasons. Failing this again in the phase 3 vote leads to a 4 season resubmittal delay which is the maximum delay time. This means a topic with the same intent can only be brought up one year later again as a phase 1 proposal if it has been declined three times in a phase 3 vote.
    • Declined one time: Resubmital Delay 1 Season
    • Declined two times: Resubmital Delay 2 Seasons
    • Declined three times and more: Resubmital Delay 4 Seasons
Allowing flexible parameter change by soft consensus in phase 2

As we are just starting with governance in the Shimmer network, we believe that specific parameters of this framework need to be open to changes through a process that does not involve all token holders in every decision directly. This is why we have defined that the first two seasons will be used as a “probation period”.

During this probation period, forum moderators can change specific parameters by agreeing to the changes in a vote between the moderators with a 2/3rd majority and then proposing the change as a phase 1 discussion. After passing a successful phase 2 poll in the forum, the changes can be implemented without the need to facilitate a phase 3 vote. Only the forum moderators can submit these proposals.

A moderator must update all parameters in the table parameters under probation to become effective.

To avoid confusions and situations where rules seem unclear to the community, we will host seasonal specification votes, where all changes that have been done in the current season or are planned for the next season will need to pass the proposal process, and a phase 3 vote by all token holders to be implemented. If this vote is successful, the changes made before using the probation rules will be officially accepted. Github and the IOTA Wiki will be adjusted to reflect these changes.

This means that the governance moderators can change specific parameters during a season but need confirmation from all voters to establish these changes permanently for the next season.

The proposal that involves all the parameter changes needs to be published 30 days before the end of a season as a phase 1 discussion posted by a governance moderator in the forum.

The moderators must agree on the proposal before publishing it with a 2/3rd majority vote.

The probation period for parameter soft consensus changes can be extended for additional two seasons in the proposal that establishes the governance specification for season 3.

Specification parameters under probation

The following parameters of this framework specification can be adjusted by a moderator proposal and a successful phase 2 poll in the forum:

Parameter Current value
Minimum required proposal likes in phase 1 50 likes
Minimum required positive votes in a poll phase 1 50 votes in favor of a proposal
Minimum required positive votes in a poll phase 2 100 votes in favor of a proposal
Required majority to win in a poll in phase 1 none
Required majority to win in a poll in phase 2 none
Poll duration Phase 2 7 days
Trust level 1 metrics tl1 requires topics entered: 3

tl1 requires read posts: 3

tl1 requires time spent mins: 45 min

Emergency proposal phase 2 poll duration 48 hours
Emergency proposal phase 2 poll required positive votes 200 votes in favor of the proposal
Cooldown duration after phase 3 vote 7 days
Season interval 3 months
Time a phase 2 proposal must be submitted in advance to the moderators to be included in the next phase 2 poll round 24 hours before the next phase 2 round begins (Monday 4 pm UTC)
Automatical closing of topics after inactivity for xx days 30 days
Moderator tasks and responsibilities As defined in the section 4.3 [Governance Forum Moderators][tasks and responsibilities]

4.9) Timing / Planning of proposals and votes.

We have seen in many other projects that it can become challenging for community members to follow a Governance Process and stay up to date with several proposals floating around in different phases.

A good suggestion brought up by the community and used in other DAOs already is implementing fixed and defined “voting days”. This should make it possible for those who want to contribute and participate in governance to check on new proposals and execute their voting rights regularly.

Remember the timings for the different phases laid out above

  • A discussion in phase 1 is open-ended and has no defined time limits.
  • A temperature check poll in phase 2 lasts seven days.
  • After this poll is finished, voting in Firefly needs to be prepared.
  • The preparation for this (participation event creation, node preparations) may take two to three days.
  • One Moderator approval in the forum is required to move a proposal from phase 1 to phase 2. From phase 2 to phase 3, a minimum of two moderators (or one mod and one admin) must approve, which may also sometimes take a day.

We, therefore, suggest the following fixed times when phase 2 polls and phase 3 votes begin:

  • A phase 2 temperature check poll can only begin on the…
    • The 1st and 3rd Monday of a month before 4 pm UTC and will last seven days. A moderator ensures that the poll gets published these days.
  • The network-wide phase 3 votes of all tokens holders with Firefly starts…
    • Every 2nd and 4th Thursday of a month at 1 pm UTC with the “commencing” phase of the participation event. The total duration of phase 3 is 14 days (seven days commencing, seven days counting). The phase 3 announcement post can be published by a moderator after the phase 2 poll has ended successfully and the participation event for the phase 3 vote is created and approved on GitHub.
  • Phase 3 votes will be officially announced in a tweet by the Shimmer Twitter account to reach most community members. A Forum admin will forward the information to the IF comms department.

This leads to a simple-to-follow schedule:

  • Vote on polls in the Forum happen on the 1st and 3rd Monday of a month.
  • Firefly votes of these proposals happen on the Thursday following the end of a phase 2 poll.

4.10) Execution of a decision - cooldown period

We need to implement a cool-down phase after a decision in Firefly (phase 3) has been taken. During this period, the execution of the voted changes rests.

There are two important reasons to wait a certain amount of time before we will execute a decision:

  • Ragequitting: Voters that do not agree with the majority decision must have a reasonable time to leave. If someone cannot agree and does not want to continue being part of the project, this person can sell the owned Shimmer tokens and leave the project before the change they do not agree with will happen.

  • Emergency moves: In case any formal errors, flaws, or security risks get uncovered during or after a decision.

    An ongoing phase 3 vote that has reached the network-wide Firefly voting cannot be stopped. The event exists in the network, and votes are counted by the nodes already. Experiences in other projects have shown that sometimes errors happen even if everyone acted according to a predefined plan. We cannot take human mistakes out of account.

Suppose this: During an ongoing phase 3 vote, the community encounters that the vote would lead to a result whose consequences have been unknown to the voters at the beginning of the voting process. Or a former unknown security risk is discovered that would be implemented if the action proposed in the vote is performed.

In that case, a mechanism should be in place to stop a vote from being executed. I suggest that in such cases, the community can request to initiate a phase 3 emergency proposal to prevent the current voted proposal from being executed.

To implement an emergency move, a certain time delay must exist between the end of a phase 3 vote and the execution of the actions decided in this vote. In such a cooldown period, or already during the ongoing vote, the community can propose emergency actions.

We propose this cooldown period to be seven days.

These seven days act as a security buffer to avoid accidentally implementing decisions that would harm the network and also leave enough time for everyone who cannot accept the decision taken in the vote to leave the network by selling the tokens.

Suppose no emergency proposal that successfully declines the outcome of the previous vote during these seven days is initiated. The decision of a phase 3 vote will be deemed final, binding, and implemented as proposed.

If an emergency proposal has been accepted during the seven-day cooldown period, the execution of the decision is postponed until the result of the emergency proposal is verified.

4.11) Phase - 3 Emergency proposals

An emergency proposal must be implemented as a phase 3 vote event within the seven-day cooldown period of the vote decision it seeks to stop. Therefore, such an emergency proposal does not require passing phase 1 and only requires** 48 hours of phase 2 poll**.

If this poll reaches the required votes, the emergency proposal can be directly implemented as a phase 3 vote in Firefly.

Two Forum moderators must check if an emergency proposal fulfills the Acceptance Requirements and approve and implement this proposal in phase 2. It is up to the emergency proposal submitter to inform the Shimmer community and urge them to look into the proposal and participate in the poll.

Acceptance Requirements Emergency proposals:
  • [Emergency proposal] post created in the governance forum tagged with “emergency proposal”. The text describes the motivations of the initiators and the exact reasons why the community should not implement the result of the ongoing vote it aims to cancel.

  • The post contains the link to the phase 3 vote announcement of the vote it seeks to cancel.

  • Identifies the challenged proposal by the unique identifier of this proposal.

  • The emergency proposal is given a unique identifier from a forum moderator with an increasing number. The Identifier follows the form: SEP-0000 (SEP stands for Shimmer Emergency Proposal).

  • The emergency proposal submitter has created a participation event in Github (repo to be defined) containing the precisely defined JSON for the emergency vote following the specifications described in the Treasury vote process.

  • The text of the participation event in the “additional info” section must contain the URL of the phase 3 announcement post in the governance forum so that voters in Firefly have the direct link to review all discussions that did lead to the vote.

  • The text of the emergency proposal must begin with the unique identifier of the emergency proposal following the form

    • SEP-0000: (followed by the Text of the proposal question)
  • There are only two voteable options allowed in an emergency proposal:

    • “Accept this emergency proposal! Do not execute proposal (unique identifier)” and
    • “Decline this emergency proposal.”
  • The emergency proposal starts as a phase 2 poll with a poll duration of 48 hours.

  • This poll must reach 200 votes in favor of the option “Accept this emergency proposal! Do not execute proposal (unique identifier)” to be moved further into a phase 3 vote

  • If the poll fails to reach enough votes in favor of the proposal, the emergency proposal is declined and will be archived by a moderator

Requirements for a successful emergency move against a proposal:
  • A result with the simple majority (50% + 1) of votes counted for the option “Accept this emergency proposal! Do not execute proposal (unique identifier)” is required for an emergency proposal to pass the vote successfully
  • To qualify as a binding decision that cancels an already conducted or ongoing vote, an emergency proposal vote must, to be successful, reach higher participation of votes than the winning option of the phase 3 vote. Participation is based on the metric “average votes per milestone”

Read some examples about emergency proposal votes in this section Here are some examples to clarify the principles used:

4.12) Governance proposal template (phase 2 & 3 & emergency proposal)

This is a suggested template for proposals in the governance forum. It would be required for proposals in phase 2 and phase 3 of the process. The purpose is to provide a unified structure, so proposals follow a predefined form.

Unique identifier

  • A unique number will follow the proposal through all process stages, starting with phase 2. The Unique identifier follows the standard:
    • SGP - 0000 (Shimmer Governance Proposal), or
    • SEP - 0000 (Shimmer Emergency Proposal)
    • The number is assigned by a Forum moderator, increasing the number +1 for every new accepted and published phase 2 proposal
    • All Unique identifiers will be hosted in a public notion page hosted by the forum moderators

Simple Summary

  • You don’t understand it well enough if you cannot explain it simply. Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the suggested change


  • A short (~200 word) description of the issue being addressed. (What is the problem?)


  • Motivation is critical for proposals, especially if they want to change the Governance process. (why do we need this?)


  • The specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow for it to be reasoned about by the community. (What is the new state of the system parameters after the change?)


  • The rationale clarifies the specification by describing what motivated the design and why the proposer made particular design decisions. It can describe alternate procedures that were considered and related work. The rationale may also provide evidence of the consensus within the community and discuss significant objections or concerns raised during the discussion that lead to the published version of the proposal. (why have the proposed changes been chosen, and how do the proposed changes solve the described problem?)


  • The section should include any implementation dependencies and potential timelines. What is needed to consider the process finalized and implemented? Who needs to act in a specific manner to implement the changes?
  • It includes the texts and milestone numbers for a participation event used in the phase 3 Firefly vote. The text for “question” and “answer” must be identical to the text used in the poll

Vote Name, question, answer, and optionally additional information

  • Write down the exact text that the poll question, the answers in the forum poll, and the potential vote in the Firefly wallet should state. Remember that one vote option must be “Make no changes”.
  • The text you put here cannot be changed once the phase 2 poll has been approved and published by a moderator in the forum and must be 100% clear, understandable, and syntactically correct. Follow the example below. You can copy it and exchange the example text with your texts.

4.13) Hosting of the specification in Github

  • Once accepted in an establishing vote by the Shimmer token holders, this framework will be hosted on Github under this repository:
  • Starting with Season 1, the specification agreed on by the voters in the Phase 3 vote will be hosted as the “main” branch of the repository.
  • Any changes that happened during a season based on the parameters under probation rules will be added as a pull request and merged in the “develop” branch.
  • Once the voters have accepted the specification for the next season in a phase 3 vote, the community managers will merge the changes logged in a pull request in the “develop” branch into the “main” branch.
  • Pull requests should be made by the governance moderators. Reviewers are welcome, and the Community managers will do merges if the vote approves the new specification.
  • Every seasonal specification will be saved as individual files in the repository to achieve a persistent history.
  • The IOTA / Shimmer Wiki will always display the state of the “main” branch.

4.14) Hosting of the participation events for Governance votes on GitHub

All participation events for governance votes in the Shimmer network are hosted in the following repository:

A proposal submitter needs to create the participation event for the phase 3 vote of a proposal as a pull request against this repository and add a new file to this folder:

The participation event needs to be named with the unique identifier number given by a forum moderator.

Once a proposal has successfully passed the phase 2 poll. A forum moderator will merge the pull request of the participation event into the main branch and announce the phase 3 Firefly vote. Node operators can pick up the event under the provided link (part of the announcement) and add it to their nodes.

5.) Rationale:

The reasoning behind the chosen metrics in the proposal process:

Phase 2 poll:

  • Of course, we must know that the forum is not a fully Sybil-protected environment. We have several measures provided by the discourse engine to avoid bots and Sybils entering the forum. Still, sophisticated and knowledgeable users can find ways to avoid those measures and create sybill accounts in the forum. A phase 2 poll is always only a sentiment check in the community and represents a non-binding decision. It is not suitable to make final decisions on a topic. This can only happen in a phase 3 vote in Firefly.

Counter proposal process:

  • We have discussed several options for this process. Ultimately, we agreed that it is a legit tool to offer the chance for opposing opinions to be heard. We removed the option “make no changes” from the runoff poll because of the following reason:
  • The runoff poll will only start if the original proposal has already successfully passed a phase 2 poll (so it received enough supporting votes) - adding the option? Make no changes” into the runoff poll could lead to the situation that the first legit decision (original post won the phase 2 poll) will be canceled if the runoff poll ends with a majority for “make no changes.”
  • Removing the option ensures that the Token holders will get the chance to decide on this topic.

Emergency proposal process:

The “Participation” metric

  • The average number of counted votes per milestone is the essential metric here because of the nature of the currently used voting system. The number of votes counted increases steadily with the time passed in a vote (every 10 seconds, new votes are added based on used tokens).

  • This makes average votes per milestone the only reasonable metric to follow here. It directly measures participation. Therefore shows us if a large number of voters are interested in executing an emergency decision.

  • We don’t want this emergency rule to enable a small group of voters to overthrow the consensus in the community. So an emergency motion must be the last resort and not easy to execute successfully. But also needs to give a reasonable metric to clearly state that even if the total number of votes reached is lesser (because the timeframe for counting will likely be less), the movement in the community was stronger in favor of the emergency vote.

  • Participation is, in my opinion, the best metric to reason about the legitimacy of such an emergency decision. We must accept that an ongoing vote cannot be stopped or reverted.

    So, even if everyone who voted in favor of the uncovered flaw first would stop voting once a flaw is uncovered or change his vote to the option “make no changes”, it would be possible that the option which introduces a flaw would still achieve a majority vote and therefore needs to be implemented.
    We will likely see that most votes will not reach very high participation. This is why a passing quorum of 5% for an average vote might be the way to go (it can always be increased if we want). An emergency proposal that brings up a valid argument can likely activate a much bigger group of community members that feel the need to stop this.

  • An emergency move against a proposal must prove that the community realized the decisions taken in the vote it aims to cancel were wrong. Therefore only strong participation can show this. It could be thought about defining specific metrics for an emergency proposal to succeed besides having higher participation like

    • Participation must be xx% higher than the participation of the vote it counters
    • Reach a minimum quorum of max. Achievable votes of 10% (compared to 5% in a normal phase 3 vote)
    • A 2/3rd majority of votes could be required instead of an absolute majority.
    • We can visit such ideas in the future

Here are some examples to clarify the principles used for the emergency proposal:

Assume that during the ongoing Firefly vote (let’s call it Vote A), some people step forward and declare that the execution of the vote will result in a dangerous network configuration and provide some data that they feel is sufficient to prove their claims. Let’s observe two different sample scenarios and how the framework would handle them.

Scenario 1:

A strong movement in the community against Vote A after the issue is discovered. Many voters feel this needs to be stopped and vote accordingly in favor of the emergency proposal with high participation.

Vote A:

  • SMR circulating supply: 1.000.000 SMR
  • counting period chosen: 5000 milestones
  • cooldown period: 500 milestones
  • maximum achievable votes: 1.000.000 SMR x 5000 milestones = votes
  • required quorum to pass the vote successfully (5% of max. achievable votes): 250.000.000 votes
  • Result from vote A:
    • Option 1 - 1.750.000.000 votes,
    • Option 2 - 120.000.000 votes.
    • Option 1 would be a valid winner (simple majority and quorum rules passed) and will be executed after seven days of cooldown
    • Participation in Option 1:
      • Average votes per milestone = 350.000 votes/milestone

Emergency vote against Vote A:

  • SMR circulating supply: 1.000.000 SMR
  • counting period: 5000 milestones
  • maximum achievable votes: 1.000.000 SMR x 5000 milestones = votes
  • Result from the emergency vote:
    • Option 1 (stop vote A) votes
    • Option 2 (no changes) votes
    • Participation in Option 1:
      • Average votes per milestone = 650.000 votes/milestone

Final Result:

  • In the emergency vote, the option to cancel Vote A achieved the majority of votes. Also, it earned higher participation with more average votes per milestone (650.000 > 350.000) than the winning option of vote A.
  • The result of Vote A is therefore invalidated by the emergency vote. It will not be executed because more voters have rejected the result of Vote A in the emergency proposal.

Scenario 2:

Some people feel that the issue is a big problem and initiate the emergency proposal. Still, most others do not see it as an issue, dont care, and abstain from participating in the emergency proposal.

Vote A:

  • SMR circulating supply: 1.000.000 SMR
  • counting period: 5000 milestones
  • cooldown period: 500 milestones
  • maximum achievable votes: 1.000.000 SMR x 5000 milestones = votes
  • required quorum to pass the vote successfully (5% of max. achievable votes): 250.000.000 votes
  • Result from vote A:
    • Option 1 - 1.750.000.000 votes,
    • Option 2 - 120.000.000 votes.
    • Option 1 has passed the quorum and the simple majority rule. It would be a valid winner and will be executed after seven days of cooldown.
    • Participation in Option 1:
      • Average votes per milestone = 350.000 votes/milestone

Emergency vote against Vote A:

  • SMR circulating supply: 1.000.000 SMR
  • counting period: 5000 milestones
  • maximum achievable votes: 1.000.000 SMR x 1300 milestones = votes
  • Result from the emergency vote:
    • Option 1 (stop vote A) 500.000.000 votes
    • Option 2 (no changes) 450.000.000 votes
    • Participation in Option 1:
      • Average votes per milestone = 100.000 votes/milestone

Final Result:

  • Option 1 in the emergency vote achieved the majority of votes but did not reach higher participation in average votes per milestone (100.000 < 350.000) than the winning option of vote A
  • The result of Vote A stays valid and will be executed. The emergency proposal has not achieved enough participation to counter the decision in vote A, even if a majority of voters in the emergency proposal have voted in favor of the emergency proposal.

6.) Implementation:

We propose that we take the following steps to implement this framework:

  • The final discussed version will start as a phase 1 discussion in the Governance forum, given the community that has not taken part in the governance calls during the last ten weeks the last chance to suggest some edits to the framework. This process will be conducted till the post reaches 50 likes or a maximum of 2 weeks.
  • After phase 1 - a temperature check poll will be conducted in the forum for seven days (phase 2).
  • If this poll reaches 100 votes in favor of the proposed framework, we officially implement a phase 3 vote in Shimmer Firefly. In this vote, the Shimmer community can decide if the framework shall be enforced as the standard governance framework for Shimmer governance.
  • We prepare an outreach campaign in the community to inform everyone about the vote. This includes tutorials and easy explaining summaries of the process
  • If the Framework is accepted, it will be proposed as a pull request against the following Github repository and merged within seven days after the end of the vote by one of the owners of the Repository (Community managers Antonio or Phylo):
  • Only part 4 - The specification of this governance framework will be seen as a “source of truth”, as this part defines the rules of governance, whereby the rest of this proposal only offers explaining and reasoning behind it to help in the decision-making process of accepting this proposal. Therefore future changes to the governance process via proposals may only focus on changing the specification.
  • The Framework will be published on the IOTA Wiki in the Shimmer section as a governance reference implementation by Phylo within one week after the vote has successfully ended, and the IOTA Foundation will issue a blog post on the Shimmer - blog website announcing the implementation of the framework within seven days after the vote ends.

7.) Glossary:

Participation event:

A JSON file containing all required information to display a vote in Firefly and used to count the votes in the hornet nodes. It defines specifically

  • Unique Identifier of the proposal
  • Name of the proposal
  • the text of the vote question
  • The text of all possible answers
  • The milestone when the pre-vote period starts (milestoneIndexCommence)
  • The milestone when the counting period starts (milestoneIndexStart)
  • The milestone when the counting period ends (milestoneIndexEnd)
  • Potential additional information texts if they have been part of the poll texts in phase 2

The exact definition of the participation event can be found here:

An example of how such an event file looks like is the event we used for the BUILD/BURN vote:

Simple Majority:
  • For a binary decision, “yes/no” or “Option A/ Option B” it is the option that receives more cast votes than the other option. (51 of 100)
  • For a decision with more than two options, it is the option that receives the most casted votes of all available options (100 total cast votes: A = 23, B = 32, C = 45 - where C is the simple majority winner)
Maximum achievable votes:
  • The number of votes that would theoretically be possible to count if
    • 100 % of all circulating tokens would participate in the vote during all milestones that the counting period consists of (milestoneIndexStart until milestoneIndexEnd)
    • Calculated as Total token supply x number of milestones in the counting period
    • The maximum achievable votes are based on the circulating supply of tokens on milestoneIndexStart of the votes counting period.
Average votes per milestone:
  • The number of tokens voting on an option of a vote per milestone
  • It is calculated as the number of total votes counted for an option divided by the total amount of milestones the counting period holds.
  • Measures participation
Total supply / circulating supply:
  • The number of coins already created, minus any coins that have been burned.
Maximum supply:
  • The number of coins that have ever been created, including coins that have already been burned

8.) Recommended readings, knowledge library:



First of all I would like to thank everyone involved for their commitment!

Not to make it too long, I’m with you on 99% of the content.

However, I am very critical of one thing -
the proposed “simple majority decision” (phase 3).

Why would a simple majority decision be a fatal and possibly catastrophic step for a community-oriented organization?

Simple majority decisions run the risk of tight decisions being pushed through without further discussion, even though a large part of the community disagrees (as in the example of the proposal to increase the Shimmer Supply).

However, a proposal should want to support a large majority of the community.

Tight decisions (f. e. 55:45) are an indication that the community has not yet found a suitable solution.

The decision shouldn’t be pushed through.

This would be less of a concern if every voter had one vote.
But even then, this decision-making process would entail the same risks.

With Shimmer, however, it’s several degrees worse.


Not every person has a vote, but those who have more capital also have a relatively larger share of the vote.

In the case of tight decisions, it is no longer the absolute majority of the community that decides, but the richer majority.

The disadvantages that this entails do not really need to be explained in more detail.

Nevertheless, I will name a few key points:

  • It is not democratic

  • It damages the sense of community within the ecosystem

  • There is a risk that proposals that are disadvantageous to the general public will be pushed through by the smaller but wealthier minority

  • It is not a decentralized process, as there are few central Instances, that can easily reach a simple majority.

I’ve been looking at several crypto ecosystems and their governance framework over the past few months and I’ve picked up some good examples to circumvent the negative points mentioned above.

I would like to explain 2 ways here:

  1. Proposal - In order for a proposal to go through in phase 3, it needs 70% of all yes votes.

  2. Proposal - There is an option to vote “No with veto” and if “No with veto” gets 35% of the votes the proposal will be rejected as this proposal seems to need further discussion and there are major concerns.
    (There are 3 voting options: yes, no, no with veto)


  • Reducing the risk that the richer majority will push through a decision that the general public does not want.

  • Strengthening of the open ecosystem

  • The large majority is behind the decision and one can proceed without major waves of FUD.

I hope that you will consider these arguments and options and move away from simple majority voting, as this will bring untold disadvantages to our ecosystem.

If anyone has any questions or comments for me, feel free to reply here or contact me on Twitter.

Thanks again for your input, that’s great and certainly took a lot of time!



Edit Notice

After we discovered some new features yesterday in the huge amount of forum settings, I have implemented some small edits to this post:

Phase 1 Discussions

The forum offers an “Auto-close topics” function, so the system will do this automatically instead of requiring a moderator to manually close a topic after 30 days of inactivity. I have adjusted the wording accordingly and removed it as a requirement of manual work for moderators.

Specification parameters under probation

I added the time when a topic gets auto-closed to the “Specification parameters under probation” mentioned here: (The Shimmer Governance Framework (Phase 1 - Discussion))
This allows the moderators to propose a change to this parameter by proposing and getting it approved by a phase 2 poll in the forum.

Added all the “Tasks and Responsibilities” of Governance Forum moderators to the “specification parameters under probation” so that these tasks can be easier adjusted should we discover that adjustments are needed for the workflow of moderator tasks in the forum.

Phase 2 Proposal template

We have discovered that a subcategory can have a pre-implemented template. I, therefore, implemented the proposal template for the Phase 2 posts into the system instead of requiring the proposal submitter to implement it manually.
This means that a post in phase 2 will always show the predefined fields (Simple summary, Motivation, specification, etc) and the submitter just needs to fill in the proposal text in the sections.

Editing of topic posts

The system has a setting that defines how long a post can be edited after publication. This is currently set to 5 minutes. We discovered that this setting is only active for Trust level 1 members and that members with higher trust levels are excluded from this rule. We want this to be still a required feature, so I mentioned that it is also a requirement for members of higher trust levels and they need to follow the same process as a trust level 1 member.

Thanks for your attention!


I strongly agree with DLTimes here. Tight decisions form a real threat here.

His first solution -In order for a proposal to go through in phase 3, it needs 70% of all yes votes- appeals to me.


I have noticed that certain requirements for proposals to be passed on are stated in nominal values. For example, needs 100 votes in favor of a proposal. For now, this would seem suitable regarding our relatively small user base. But once our community grows, this becomes problematic and proposals are passed too easily in phase 1.

My idea: instead of requirements in nominal values (100 votes/likes) why not use relative values (25% of active forum users e.g.). With this approach, deciding on phase 1 proposals will scale with a growing community base. The current approach will NOT be able to scale.


These are parameters that are easily adjustable once the userbase grows through proposals of the moderators. They will monitor this and have the ability to propose changes that do not need to go to a network-wide vote. You can read up here how this is planned to work. Such parameters like % of active users, Average votes of the last five proposals, etc. can be used to distinguish if a change is needed.
We want to try this out for a minimum of 6 months and leave certain adjustments to the moderator team until we have the data available to implement harder requirements.


We certainly discussed that. One issue I have read about with another DAO is there were proposals pushed through during obscure times, like “New Years Eve”, where the active participation numbers were very low, and thus a small group was able to reach that 25% easily.

We discussed some method which averages participation over a period of time. This would mitigate such a risk, though it would be hard to start the framework off like this. As the numbers and data accumulates we certainly think we can find a better dynamic value to support growth.

1 Like

Considering the only thing you need are 100 votes in favour, which is not that hard to get, the only true limitation on which votes are put up to Firefly, are which topics moderators approve. Even if 500 people vote against it and 100 in favour, it still gets put up to Firefly.

Not to mention the question if it doesn’t make more sense to just leave most of these decissions to the engineers working on it. It is a staging net after all, that eventually when you got an actually decentralized tangle you need ways to handle changing parameters I get, although then it would be up to node owners mainly, but well.

Which brings me to the question, what can you vote for? There is this link: Shimmer-Governance/ at main · iota-community/Shimmer-Governance · GitHub, but how should I read it? Can you vote on everything from TIP-32, or what I think, only the ones listed there? If it is just the ones listed there, then the things which are actually Shimmer network related and you can in the future vote on are:

  1. Shimmer units: Which are purely a UI thing afaik (and you really don’t want to screw around with this later on, would be confusing as hell).
  2. Genesis supply: Which you obviously cannot change after Genesis
  3. VByte Cost: Which you could vote on yes.

And sure I understand it can change in the future. But in the end it is up to IF engineers to decide what is even allowed to be voted on. It seems for now a kinda large framework considering you can only vote on one relevant parameter. Since it is a staging network, can’t IF engineers also just decide on this one?


Am I correct in understanding the following?

  1. Voting options will always be a binary “Yes [proposal] or No” after entering Firefly for the public vote?
  2. Phase 2 will only be open for a period of 7 days?

If so I have a few thoughts.

Binary only votes:
Binary decisions/the limit to only one option, can be quite problematic and the enemy of nuance depending on how robust the level debate happening in Phases 1-2 of crafting a proposal is.

Similar to how omnibus bills are terrible but unfortunately common in national governance today, binary voting enables and even facilitates the incentive to gloss over nuanced discussion on secondary and tertiary elements of a proposal so long as the primary goal is more highly desired.

This leads to subtle perversion and decay over time similar to “death by a thousand cuts” where little inconveniences run the risk of being ignored until they compound or become bigger problems.

I think this framework does a good job of laying out guiding principles that help with this, but I think it’s worth calling out to stress the importance of guiding principles and a constitution that keeps the ideals of decentralization core to future proposals (after the network has evolved past the IOTA Foundations incubation phase).

One final thought on this topic is before the final voting phase, some sort of a Phase 1 & 2 vote on individual components of a proposal will be a good way to avoid omnibus-like proposals that can sneak one undesirable element into a largely good proposal.

My proposal is to introduce some sort of “filtration by sub-element” process into Phases 1 & 2 to make sure only the most valuable and highly desired sub-components make their way into a final Phase 3 vote.

Phase 2 - 7 day limit
My thoughts tie in a lot with the themes mentioned above, but I see this as a potentially problematic in that it may be too short a period to have enough robust discussion and debate on the nuances of a proposal.

We can assume that proposal interest will pick up exponentially as it progresses to each new phase. Only the most die-hard niche of the community will be involved in crafting and debating Phase 1 ideas, and it’s likely that many people will only be interested in participating in proposals that gained enough validation to enter Phase 2 (since it will likely be too time consuming to not filter like this). That group who enters at Phase 2 will still be quite small versus the broader voting pool, but may contain a lot of key contributors who provide valuable input.

By limiting this second phase to 7 days we run the risk of missing out on a lot of valuable input from “time-strapped” contributors and having sub-par proposals get accelerated through the voting process.

I propose we set a minimum time on this phase to 7 days with a “per-proposal” option to keep Phase 2 open as long as is seen fit. The goal being to give adequate time and attention before an item enters the Firefly voting phase


You are correct, IF Engineers determine what cannot be voted on by this framework. Of course, the IF engineers will use the TIP-32 process for technical changes.

This framework I think is more intended to use for community interactive (non-technical) decisions. Primarily I think it will be used to develop and create the Shimmer Treasury Governance Framework. The small community groups that are building the Treasury or other things, will now have some defined parameters to put those difficult decisions where a real community consensus is needed.

1 Like

Wow…Holy Shit Batman. Ask a bunch of computer-loving crypto geeks to create a government and our constitution looks like PYTHON CODE of course! You all put A LOT of time and effort into this. THANK YOU. The complexity of this system is a significant barrier to entry for most Shimmer Community Members and while I did see a few abstracts and summaries, may I make a suggestion? Write Dummy’s Guide HOW-TO participate step-by-step for community members 1. looking to propose something and 2. looking the be involved in a vote. In doing so you may make some discoveries about the process and how it may be simplified, improved, or at minimum how to explain the process succinctly. GOAL: fit it into one Tweet


Every proposal should listen to the opinions of the majority in the early stage. Moreover, some of the proposals we are discussing now have different ideas and seek improvement, so we need to give time for the community to further discuss and improve. I think 1. The time for community discussions in Phase 1 and Phase 2 should be extended. 2. Before entering Phase 3, 1.) The weekly or monthly voting day should be fixed uniformly, and all proposals will be voted on on the voting day, because wallet users are not always online. 2.) After the voting date is determined, all proposals that need to be voted should be announced in the wallet in advance, giving time for wallet users to review and think about how to vote


:laughing: Absolutely. Thanks for the comments. How-to guides are worked on at the moment, and I am also going to do daily (if I find the time every day) tweet threads explaining the single topics one by one.
It has grown into a pretty detailed and complex thing over the last 12 weeks. The entry barrier is an issue, but we wanted to have a first working solution ready for the network launch that works, has no flaws, and can then be adjusted and improved.

Thank you for the input.

I see what you are addressing here, and it may be a good idea to define a minimum time for the [Phase 1 - Discussions] period.
All potential changes and additions must be brought forward and implemented in phase 1, so it may be good to define a minimum of 2 weeks for this.

After this, it should be up to the proposal submitter how much additional time is needed to discuss the proposal. This can be many more weeks because it is up to the proposal submitter when the proposal will be moved to the next stage and not happen automatically.

Once the submitter feels confident and thinks the proposal is ready to be decided, it can be submitted as a phase 2 poll. I am not sure if a longer time for the poll in phase 2 is needed, but we will discuss this. We have seen that 80% of the votes in polls have been coming in in the first 2-3 days, and then it usually slows down and dies out, so I don’t know if the second week of polling will be beneficial.

If you take the current proposal, It may seem a bit overwhelming. It will probably be the most complex and extended proposal that will be brought forward in Governance for a long time. And therefore, we have also spent nearly three months discussing it publicly. The text has been publicly shared with the community, and we have received very much good input to arrive at this current form.

Once the Framework is in place, I believe most proposals will focus on a single parameter or aspect and therefore be much easier to understand and discuss than this extensive document here.

Again, thanks for your comment.

Lets see what people here in the forum think about it:

Should we set a minimum required length of 2 weeks for a Phase 1 Discussion? (instead of currently no defined minimum length)
  • Yes, set 2 weeks minimum length for discussions
  • No, don’t set a minimum length for discussions
  • I am not sure

0 voters


Thank you for your input.

The voting theory is an interesting topic, and we have had extensive discussions in the community about this. It was widely discussed if we choose a simple majority or set a higher requirement of majority for our governance votes during the months of discussions that have been going on for the First BUILD vs. BURN vote.

During these discussions in 2021, several hundred community members who participated in those discussions and meetings agreed that the simple majority is the way to go in our community governance and therefore defined the rules for the treasury vote like this.

So, we are following here established community consent.

We have discussed these topics again during the last 12 weeks in the governance meetings working on this framework document. Still, as far as I remember, no one has brought up the idea of changing the established majority rule for the Shimmer governance framework.
We have discussed and decided to implement changes to the minimum quorum rule of 5% and shorten the counting period for the phase 3 vote in Firefly from 10 to 7 days. But, no interest was there to touch the established simple majority rule.

I have mainly one concern with implementing a 70% rule here.
We rely on token-based voting, which has its flaws as all voting schemes have (I don’t need to go into details here), but it is sybill protected and the game-theoretical right approach here.

Going with a 70% majority would have the effect that it will make every decision harder, as you have described. So it may be more difficult for a small group of large token holders to enforce a proposal they brought forward.

On the other hand, this also works the other way around:
A 70% majority requirement allows a minority of token holders (30%) to enforce their will on the bigger majority.

Because with only 30% of the votes, you can block and halt any proposal that goes against your own interests.

Meaning that a small group of large token holders could hold the community hostage and decline every proposal they do not like.
Leading, in the end, to a situation where we are stuck with decision-making and can not move forward in any regard if we do not propose something that suits this minority of “blockers”.

So you see, it has two sides here, and I think we should start with a simple majority to have a better balance in our process.

A very interesting approach has been used in the Polkadot governance (though they are currently changing it again) called Adaptive Quorum Biasing
I like this approach from Polkadot, but it is also, again, very complex. It may be worth to look into such methods in the future, and I am always open to discussing such things.

I also favor adjusting things if we see a need for it. However, this would be better suited as an individual governance proposal that seeks to change the majority rule and lets the community decide on it once the framework is implemented. The framework is made exactly for these kinds of proposals and adjustments.

Should the established simple majority rule (50% +1 vote) for governance votes in Firefly be changed to require a 70% majority?
  • Yes - change it to 70% majority required.
  • No - keep the current used simple majority (50%+1 of all votes decide)
  • I am not sure

0 voters

1 Like

Yes, mainly well observed.
Firefly (token holders) is, of course, the only thing to make binding decisions in the network. The forum does not have perfect sybill protection, so it can’t serve as a final decision-making tool for essential things.
The 100 votes in the poll must come from Trust level 1 members, so not everyone can participate in these polls.
And yes, correctly, only the parameters that are part of this GitHub file are currently possible to vote on. So the framework is a comprehensive tool for not much to decide on the protocol level at Mainnet launch.
It is also important to see that engineering will open other things for governance once they are specced out (like inflation), so more stuff will become available for the community.
Core protocol parameters in Shimmer will primarily stay under the control of engineering, where they belong. Nevertheless, we are prepared to move towards more decentralization with this framework; therefore, I think it serves its purpose very well.

I think a big part of governance proposals in the near future will circle around the community Treasury and other “non-code” decisions that interest the community.

1 Like

Hey Sefear. Thanks a lot for your comments!

In regards to your questions:

1. We propose to allow a vote to contain a maximum of 2 Options and the option “Make no changes”, so not a pure binary vote is enforced (of course, it can be if the proposal submitter wants this).

Maybe let me explain the thought process:

Having too many options available will be very difficult for a casual community member to decide. Presenting 6 or 7 different options in Firefly may be overwhelming and potentially lead to the voter not making any decision.

All your points here are very valid, and we have discussed this. Still, to have more than 2 “positive” options to choose from seemed too much for us.

We believe that a proposal needs the discussion phase [Phase 1] to refine an idea until it does not have too many open options available.
A bit like I just did it today with the comments we received, where I did include individual polls for such a topic.
It may be helpful to use these polls on sub-topics in the forum to make decisions on such parameters, leading to a more refined proposal, especially if there is a complex proposal like the current one.
We require that if such comments lead to changes in a proposal in phase 1, it will be reposted again to get a final clarifying opinion for the final version, which will move (after it receives enough likes/upvotes) to the Poll in [Phase 2]. Also, the idea of enforcing a minimum time of 2 weeks, as suggested by some other commenter, will be a very good way to make sure enough input is received.
With most polls in this forum, we have (until now) seen a similar behavior: More than 80% of the final votes are received in the first 2-3 days. After that, it flats out quickly, and not much happens anymore.

2. The good thing is that the moderators can adjust all those timings quite simply, should we see that we need more time. This is then the moderators’ job to act on demand if we see that the data from the forum use points in this direction. Therefore these parameters have been set “under probation” for six months to allow flexible adjustments without too much burden. As defined here

One thing that you could clarify is your proposal:

I propose we set a minimum time on this phase to 7 days with a “per-proposal” option to keep Phase 2 open as long as is seen fit.

I don’t exactly understand how you mean this.

Again thanks for your valuable input!

1 Like

I think also it is a balance at times. Having a larger majority ensures a greater consensus of the community; however, the consequence is that it will take longer to pass proposals. For example, Kappy’s proposal would not have passed. Now, I’m sure if the proposal was edited, changed a bit, then maybe, just maybe, it would have passed rraching a higher majority requirement, yet it would have taken several months. So then we have to ask ourselves, do we want to extend governance and developmental progress in regards to time to ensure a greater consensus? I think there is a fine balance to be found.

Truly I don’t think neither one is necessarily better than the other, that each has its own pro’s and cons. I do think we should try to analyze the first initial proposal votes if this framework is chosen by the community. Then we can assess and change the parameters accordingly. The great thing is, if the community sees a higher majority % as a better option, we can submit a proposal to enact that change within the framework.


Note, in regards to the binary option for “Phase II”, a proposer can set a multi-answer poll in Phase I in order to gain the communities agreement of the best option.

Yet when it comes to Phase II, which would be Firefly essentially, it is easier not only with the UX to have a binary option, but also we discussed how multiple choice options could change the vote outcome.

So the idea in this framework is to have that discussion and interaction about getting the community consensus in Phase I. I also agree also, not everyone will pay attention to Phase I; however, that will be up to us to really communicate publicly important proposals.

Saying all of that, I do think, especially in Phase I we should have a minimum 2 week time set to ensure the community discussions have time to take place. We did write within the Framework that the community, moderators, and admins can change these variables in the first year without a major Firefly vote. Things won’t be perfect on day 1, we can learn as the process takes place, and then make adjustments together as a community.


I agree with maybe creating a minimum time for Phase 1. In Phase 2, even though the actual voting time is two weeks, there is then a one week hold period before a firefly vote. So Phase 2 is really like two weeks. I believe Phylo made a set schedule for Phase 2 and Firefly votes. This way busy people know when to look out for the votes in Firefly.