patent cloud
Meetings
Each Council is required to hold at least one (1) meeting per week.
If a weekly meeting is missed or canceled, the responsible Council must inform the community of the reason.
Meeting Attendance
If an individual misses five (5) meetings without an excused absence within one epoch, an immediate Vote of No Confidence (VONC) will be triggered by the Council (IMC or ICC).
Voting
If a Council Member fails to vote, they must provide an explanation to the community.
A Council Member has the right to abstain from voting, and this will not count as a missed vote.
If a member misses three (3) votes within one epoch, an immediate VONC will be triggered by the Council (IMC or ICC).
Voting Rationale
Rationales must be posted within seven (7) days of the voting initiation (as soon as it goes live for Snapshot voting).
If a rationale is posted after this period, it will be considered a missed rationale.
After five (5) missed rationales, an immediate VONC will be triggered by the Council (IMC or ICC).
Task Tracking
ICC and IMC members are required to track and document their completed tasks and accomplishments to ensure transparency and accountability.
Each individual Council Member is responsible for maintaining a standardized private log, using a predefined template to ensure consistency across all records. This log allows them to be held accountable by the Governance Council Manager (GCM).
At the end of the epoch, a sanitized version of the log will be released to the public after the GCM removes any NDA-protected data.
I wrote this about a month ago, not in light of the recent controversy. I believe one of the biggest oversights last epoch was failing to upgrade and push governance to v3.1 or even v4. The current requirements in Gov v3 are far too minimal, and we’ve seen individuals exploiting this by doing the bare minimum—or even less—since the threat of a VONC is practically nonexistent.
Reworking the VONC process remains a key priority for the Council for the rest of this epoch.
One of our main tasks in the ICC this epoch has been refining governance processes. I believe it is the Council's core responsibility to continuously improve its structure for future epochs.
I understand that this may not make it into a proposal on its own, or it may become part of a larger proposal that includes other Council-related changes. That said, I’d like to start the conversation on how we can increase the Council’s value and ensure accountability.
Personally, I have started keeping track of all my governance and Illuvium-related work to defend myself against any allegations of slacking. I have a clear conscience about the value I provide to Illuvium and the time and effort I invest in the project to improve it.
Even if we stop Council pay for the next epoch, I still believe that the long-term goal—once Illuvium takes off—is to have a strong, continuously improving governance structure for the DAO. If Illuvium becomes a major success, we will want qualified individuals in Council positions.
Without pay—but with the constant risk of being sued—the Council position could attract malicious actors, as few well-intentioned people would want to take on the role.
This could lead to:
- Trolls
- People seeking bragging rights, fame, or power
- Competing games or large investors trying to insert their own people into positions of control
This is why we need to ensure a solid governance structure moving forward. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on how we can increase the value the Council provides and hold its members accountable.
hardy hearth
sacred furnace
prisma stag