What if a truly decentralized blockchain launched today, without pre-existing core contributors, committees, token holders, or investors? Propose a governance model that can hold up over time.

Submissions open on April 13, 2026 and close on May 2, 2026. Voting will be held after the submission window.
For the latest on dates, voting, and any schedule changes, follow @AgoraGovernance on X.
Most governance conversations begin with inherited institutions, power centers, political baggage and even cap tables. This initiative intentionally starts earlier: design governance as if the protocol begins now and legitimacy has to be earned, not assumed.
The goal is to define a durable and competitve governance system for change across unknowable unknowns, evolving narratives, and necessary upgrades. This is about either removing the humans or ensuring rational behaviour if they are necessary. This is about aligning incentives, iteration off of what has been done before. Does a system exist to manage conflict resolution and survive real stress over time? What new primitives would be necessary to function? Where are the limits and risks, if any?
Your submission becomes an open source contribution, with optional attribution, which can influence and inspire the design of future protocols.
Use the following properties about the protocol at launch. Assume they work.
Sybil resistance is wired into how accounts work. Treat it as strong but imperfect: design for real-world abuse, not a perfect game.
The native asset issuance follows a curve that tapers slowly over time, then settles to long-term constant rate. There is no premine. No "early" investors. Should governance control this rate? You decide.
Protocol revenue feeds a simple treasury mechanism; the north-star use is supporting automated buy-and-burn of the native asset.
The chain's funding is bootstrapped by donation, sufficient to start. However, after launch funding is extinguished, the chain must sustain itself.
Core protocol changes are expected to route through governance, not blessed or ceremony-created multisigs.
The economics include a UBI-like tilt: ordinary use of the protocol generates income proportional to local economics
Validators are economic actors with incentives aligned to keeping the network running; governance should mesh with that reality.
Upgrades: Is there a credible path for protocol change that does not fall apart under stress?
Learning from history: Are there explicit guardrails against plutocracy, expert capture, and other well-known DAO failure modes?
On-chain vs social: Is it clear what rules live on-chain, where humans must interpret, and how non-technical stakeholders are included.
Longevity: Are incentives and processes defendably ready to survive decades, not only at genesis.
Compatibility: Is the design compatible with the constraints & properties related to sybil resistance, issuance, burn, funding, upgrades, participation and validators.
This is a space for community conversation about governance design. Submitting a proposal or voting is a way to take part in that discussion — not a paid contest or sweepstakes.
There is no cash prize, entry fee, or monetary component of any kind. Nothing here creates an obligation to pay any participant.
Full terms and participation requirements are available on our official rules page.
Review the rules, then submit using the submission page. Follow @AgoraGovernance for updates.
Submissions are closedSubmissions that are qualified become top-level posts in the forums. Use the forums to question and critique. Feedback is a gift. Be polite but harsh. This is the place to stress-test ideas together. Early feedback helps the gov/acc mission.
Forums →Submitters critique, judge, and vote on-chain on each other's designs. Timing details will be confirmed on X. Check @AgoraGovernance for updates.
Proposals / voting →