Skip to main content

Action Research for OpenGov

Project Description 📄​

Context:

OpenGov was introduced as a new governance system for the Polkadot ecosystem in November 2022 on Kusama, before being deployed on Polkadot in June 2023. It pioneered the transition from a centralised decision-making model to a more decentralised executive system. From the previous Gov1 model, OpenGov has altered some specifications (i.e. conviction voting, vote delegation) and removed others (i.e. proposal endorsements, representative bodies). As a new model, it has introduced original on-chain processes (i.e. origins and tracks, proposals whitelisting) and integrated a unique on-chain operator (i.e. Polkadot Technical Fellowship).

Polkadot technologies are fundamentally agile and designed to evolve to reflect the aspirations of various stakeholders and prevent the system from becoming dysfunctional. However, after 14 months of operations, there is still no comprehensive research, analysis, or review of OpenGov as a model for decentralised decision-making (i.e. the social layer) and a decentralised executive system (i.e. the technical layer). This is a missed opportunity for the entire ecosystem. Without an all-round reflection on the value-proposition of OpenGov, it becomes difficult to evaluate its actual impact and subsequently plan for further developments.

There have been numerous discussions touching on OpenGov posted on Polkassembly, Subsquare, and the Polkadot Forum. However, these perspectives are often fragmented (i.e focusing exclusively on Treasury funding metrics/outcomes), highly detailed (i.e promoting specific technical/configuration changes), disjointed (i.e debating private/quadratic voting), and biased (i.e campaigning against validators/whales’ participation). There is the need for more encompassing, neutral, practical, and actionable case studies of OpenGov’s implementations, which can help establish a feedback mechanism and prioritise future developments for OpenGov.

Project objectives:

  • Analyse OpenGov as the new model for on-chain governance in the ecosystem
  • Review current implementations of OpenGov in the ecosystem
  • Evaluate the impact of OpenGov on the growth of the ecosystem
  • Propose a tentative roadmap for future OpenGov developments

Project outcomes:

  • Reports on the state of OpenGov (value proposition, strengths, limitations)
  • Case studies of OpenGov implementations (Kusama, Polkadot, and Bifrost)
  • Recommendations for improvements to the OpenGov decentralised system

Suggestions for deliverables 🔩​

  • Total Estimated Duration: up to 12 months
  • Total Costs: TBC.
  • Note: Proposers are invited to expand on the generic topics suggested below in as much breadth and depth as they see fit in the course of their reflections and analyses.

Example outcome 1: A report on OpenGov as a model for decentralised decision-making.​

NumberExample objectives
1.What was the rationale for OpenGov?
2.What were the objectives of OpenGov?
3.When and how was OpenGov deployed?
4.When and how were OpenGov communications/resources relayed/disseminated?
5.How was OpenGov perceived/received?
6.Which ongoing challenges/setbacks exist within OpenGov?
7.Which future opportunities/avenues exist within OpenGov?
8.Other theoretical/practical observations
9.Recommendations for further research or roadmap developments
10.Notes on the methodology/ies adopted in the course of this review
11.Appendices of all materials and resources used in the course of this review

Example outcome 2: A report on OpenGov as a decentralised executive system.​

NumberExample objectives
1.What are the key specifications of OpenGov?
2.How do these specifications align with the objectives of OpenGov?
3.What is the current process for getting OpenGov specifications revised/updated?
4.How often have OpenGov specifications been revised/updated over the past year?
5.Which specific teams/individuals have been/were/are in charge of delivering/implementing OpenGov revisions/updates?
6.Which ongoing challenges/setbacks exist in revising/updating OpenGov specifications?
7.Which future opportunities/avenues exist for revising/updating OpenGov specifications?
8.Other theoretical/practical observations
9.Recommendations for further research or protocol improvements
10.Notes on the methodology/ies adopted in the course of this review
11.Appendices of all materials and resources used in the course of this review

Example outcome 3: An analysis of Governance participation on OpenGov implementations.​

NumberExample objectives
1.What does participation in OpenGov look like?
2.Are there incentives for OpenGov participation?
3.Are there obstacles to OpenGov participation?
4.What are the profiles of OpenGov participants?
5.What are the motivations of OpenGov participants?
6.Are there trends in off-chain debates?
7.Are there patterns in on-chain voting?
8.Other practical observations
9.Recommendations for further research or initiatives
10.Notes on the methodology/ies adopted in the course of this analysis
11.Appendices of all materials and resources used in the course of this analysis

Example outcome 4: A review of Treasury funding management in OpenGov.​

NumberExample objectives
1.How is Treasury funding allocated under OpenGov?
2.What are the profiles of Treasury funding applicants?
3.What are the categories of Treasury funding requests?
4.How are Treasury funding applications impacting OpenGov?
5.How are Treasury funding allocations reviewed/monitored?
6.How are Treasury funding allocations impacting the ecosystem?
7.Other practical observations
8.Recommendations for further research or initiatives
9.Notes on the methodology/ies adopted in the course of this review
10.Appendices of all materials and resources used in the course of this review