Settling on a discussion process for eUSD governance proposals

These two governance proposals were posted without any forum posts preceding them:

Admittedly, we don’t (yet!) have a 100% clear standard as a community for how discussions should precede onchain proposals, but posting them with literally no discussion at all (here or on discord) makes it very hard to evaluate what they are about and whether to support them.

Sinatra originally set the tone with his guide to posting an RFC for eUSD.

Ann recently added a top-level welcome post that explains the process in a little more detail.

I think now is a good time to try and settle on what the process should be. If we can achieve a broad agreement amongst currently-active voters and proposers, then we can vote against anything that does not follow that process, and thus enforce the process and train ourselves (even as a small semi-disorganized mob) into following that process. In order to change that process, one would then need to build consensus around a new process, which would be the new norm one needs to follow in order to get “yes” votes.

Critically, it is important to vote “no” for any proposal that does not follow the current consensus process, whatever that may be, or else we will drift towards skipping the process, as seems to have just happened. As a result, I voted “no” on those proposals.

I would propose that we adopt Ann’s suggested best practices exactly as they are stated. If we can build agreement around that, then I think we can ask Ann to update her post or make a second post that is more clearly the pointer to what our consensus is rather than just a suggestion.

I’m adding a poll here for you to express your opinion one way or the other. If you disagree, please explain why in the discussion on this post.

  • I support adopting the RFC process exactly as Ann laid it out
  • Something needs to change about that proposed process for me to support it
0 voters

I am in favor of adopting the suggested RFC process. But perhaps one additional remark: I can assess the proposed change with the described benefits and risks and make up my mind based on that how to vote. What I cannot check is the match between what is written down in the proposal and the proposed resulting code/config changes. Can/should we have a party that can impartially confirm that what is proposed is actually really implemented with the code/config changes in the proposal?

1 Like

Ann’s proposal seems solid - not sure I have much to add on that front. Only possible suggestions that come to mind are ways to drive visibility to the forum posts in the first place. I’m not sure if the habits are established yet of Rtoken participants and if stakers/govenors are being effectively directed into this process here? The Register interface seems very clear and well laid out as far as accessing information about votes and proposals and the forum is likely the best place for in depth discussion, but I wonder if some sort of best practices for publicly alerting people to the proposals could be considered. Perhaps a bot on Twitter/X similar to the Rtoken Alert account for minting etc. Something that timeously announces the proposal in the most public venue(s) that includes all the relevant info including forum links, ticker, maybe even time-stamping/dating the windows eg 3 days for discussion, voting window etc. I don’t know how feasible this is technically, but in essence, if the key info could be automatically posted in a consistent format on say X/Twitter by a verified account that everyone could be driven to follow and interested parties could follow/retweet to ensure maximum exposure, it could be a helpful pattern? That way individual Rtoken communities could effortlessly get the word out about proposals and Reserve official could share important ones without having to clog up their feed in the even that the frequency and volume of this activity increases over time. Admittedly I have not yet begun to participate onchain yet, but I do follow fairly closely and observing these processes over time is helping me consider how I might begin - strategy and risk tolerance wise.


I completely agree with Nevin. The process must be clear and respected to avoid any drift or events with bad intentions.
I hesitated for a long time before voting for the last proposal, until I saw Nevin’s message, which confirmed my first impression.
It has to be clear and rigorous.



Exposing in an RFC process a change that you want to apply to an RToken is undoubtedly a good start so that the community has time to read and think about whether said changes are good or not.

I also agree 100% with what @LeVic expresses.

This move that eUSD made was undoubtedly something unforeseen and was not very pleasant…


I 100% agree. There needs to be standards and processes that everyone follows. This way we are all playing on a level playing field. I see it just like change management process in any corporation. Everyone has to fill out a form.

There needs to be the option to notify people via email (or whatever) for new proposals. I often only get notified after someone DMs me. We all have 100000000000 other things we focus on so an automated alerting system would be nice. Email would be my preference.


It’s really important for a DAO to keep a level of public professionalism as well as activates the community to works towards sustainable longterm decentralised processes and systems.

Here’s some thoughts

Ann’s Framework
Ann’s post offers a clear and trusted process that safeguards against bad actors and ensures thorough evaluation of proposals. We should extend the framework to proposal by categories.

Introducing specific categories for proposals—such as code changes, collateral updates, and enhancements to RSR utility will streamline the conversation and help readers read a proposal with a clear understanding of what is happening.

As the RToken vision grows, having members that can forward people to an RFC Proposal Guide as well as designing RFC based on category will not only be efficiency, will add professional credibility as new members join the DAO

Addressing Non-compliant Proposals
The proposals bypassing the recommended process are still getting significant Yes votes. To me, this poses the question is there a disconnect between established guidelines and community engagement, and why is it getting some many votes with so little deliberation.

If the goal is to mitigate Non-Compliant Proposals, we may have to add efforts other then just us voting. We will need advocacy, active members to monitor and quickly respond to non-compliant proposals will help maintain governance integrity. This group can alert the community to such proposals and articulate the importance of following the prescribed process.

With such advocacy it will bring more eyes onto the Compliant Proposal Framework structure we intend to launch. If there is a lot of non-compliant proposals, there will be a lot of advocacy consistently bringing eyes on the proposal framework. This would create a consistent compliance loop to bring the community back towards good governance as the community continues to grow and roles change hands over time.

“It takes a village / semi-disorganized mob to create a stablecoin currency”

Setting out best practices now sets the precedent for years to come, when hopefully Reserve Protocol is much larger, and decisions hold much more responsibility (safety of baskets, billions of dollars held, “normies” money on the line).

Ann’s proposals misses out numbers (“must be at least 10 posts on a forum”), but that makes sense, you can’t make hard lines around these things.

Maybe there should be some rules around amplification of governance proposals. We know not every governor is going to vote, or “check in every 3 days to see if there is something to vote on”, but…

Maybe the “rules” (for now) should include:

  • Governance proposals must be posted in Discord every 24 hours once raised

  • Governance proposals should be posted in the Lodge at least once

  • Governance proposals should be posted on a bespoke Twitter account - “ReserveGovernance Proposals”

(+ Any future channels that pop up, e.g. Reddit etc get similar rules)

As much of this should be automated as possible, to avoid reliance on a centralized entity.

You can take a horse to water… But you can’t make it drink. But everything should be done, and be seen to be done, to signpost the way to the water.

In time, I’d like to see some possible delegation options highlighted, e.g. “I want to govern, but I’m not always going to vote, or even know which way to vote, but I trust this person or group to have my voting power”.

(For example, “I’m not the best person to give advice on collateral makeup, but I do trust Mallo’s opinion on these things”)


Very good points from everybody, thanks for that! Here are my thoughts on improving the governance process:

Transparent Communication: Ensure all changes or proposals are communicated clearly and understandably. Use platforms actively utilized by the community, such as Discord, Telegram, Twitter/X → specific RToken profiles?, or our specialized forum to disseminate information.

Advance Notice of Voting: Inform stakers in advance about upcoming votes. A pre-announcement gives members time to learn about the proposal, ask questions, and start discussions. This can be done through Discord , X and the Reserve forum etc.

Education and Resources: Provide resources to help stakers understand the implications of changes to the collateral. Educational materials, FAQs, and interactive Q&A sessions can help reduce the complexity of topics and promote informed decision-making.

Activation of the Discussion Process: Use this platform as our governance forum to enable detailed discussions. Moderated discussions can help foster constructive contributions and provide a framework for the exchange of ideas and concerns. We could even have 10 minutes of a Community Call on Discord for a quick discussion or presentation, and live discussions during the weekly Governors Hall (Gather Town) or in the Roundtable on Discord, etc.

Notification Systems: Implement an effective notification system through email, mobile apps, or web browsers to inform stakers about new proposals, votes, and important updates. We should consider a inscription into a governance messaging platform!?

Can holders/wallets of stRSR be messaged automatically in the future?

Simplified Voting Process: Make the voting process as simple and user-friendly as possible. Could there be a specific explanation of what is going to be implemented on

Feedback and Follow-Up: Collect feedback after each vote or discussion to continuously improve the process. Publish summaries of discussions and voting results to ensure transparency and strengthen trust in the governance process.

For the future:

Incentive Systems: Consider introducing incentives for active participation in the governance process. Rewards for staking, participating in discussions, or voting can increase community involvement and engagement. This is something that could be helpful in the future… looking to the RSR community treasury, for example.

Ok, those were my thoughts… hope they’re helpful. :grinning: :+1:


The occurrence of those two proposals going on chain without any previous discussion on the forums is completely my fault. I was still digesting the situation, so my apologies for not contributing to the discussion earlier.

Ann’s proposed flow is spot on, and should be adopted as the standard going forward.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the commotion I have caused in jumping to on chain proposals. The silver lining is that we can use this as an example of what not to do in the future.

This also brings to mind the need of a program that relays dependable notifications for governance events. If these proposals were made in good faith, what would occur if someone made proposals in bad faith and had sufficient RSR staked to reach quorum on a given proposal? Would stakers be able to coordinate a response if they aren’t made aware of it, especially around holidays, when attention is elsewhere?


Excellent, and something we discussed during the last Open Mic session on Tuesday.
We’re currently researching some alternatives for a notification service.

What would your personal preference be?

  • Telegram Bot
  • Discord Bot
  • Forum (Tag or keyword, plus addition to a thread or post)

A Telegram bot for the unofficial channels of Reserve would be essential, as would similar bots for Discord and the forum. Additionally, creating a dedicated Twitter or X channel for each RToken Governance would be advisable to ensure comprehensive notifications across all possible channels… Thanks for the work :heart: :+1: