[Temp Check] Shaping Our Governance Future - Privacy, Participation & Personhood

Metis Governance Governance proposals
1

TL;DR & Action Required

We’re evaluating three foundational governance mechanisms that will shape our decision-making process:

  1. Shielded voting to protect voter privacy
  2. Participation incentives to encourage sustained engagement
  3. Proof of personhood to ensure vote integrity

Context & Previous Discussions

This temp check builds on several key community discussions:

1. Shielded Voting Through Shutter Network

Context & Objective

We’re evaluating private voting implementation on Snapshot to protect against voter manipulation and ensure authentic preference expression.

Key Considerations

Implementation Approach

  • Leverages Shutter Network’s proven privacy technology
  • Integrates directly with our existing Snapshot infrastructure
  • Maintains vote verifiability while protecting individual privacy

Strategic Impact

  • Shields voters from social pressure and potential retaliation
  • Reduces the impact of whale influence on voting outcomes
  • Strengthens our governance credibility through enhanced fairness

Technical Considerations

  • Additional implementation complexity
  • User education requirements
  • Integration testing needs

Feedback Needed

Share your thoughts on:

  1. Would shielded voting increase your likelihood of participation?
  2. What concerns would you need addressed before supporting implementation?

2. Governance Participation Incentives

Context & Objective

Building on our established minimum stake requirement (MIP-5), we’re exploring additional mechanisms to foster sustained, quality participation.

Proposed Models

Retroactive Contribution Rewards

  • Recognition of historical governance participation
  • METIS token distribution based on verified past engagement
  • Focus on sustained, meaningful contributions

Active Participation Incentives

  • Small METIS rewards for vote casting
  • Enhanced rewards for proposal creation and refinement
  • Quality-based forum participation rewards

Hybrid Approach

  • Combines immediate and retroactive rewards
  • Weighted toward sustained engagement
  • Built-in quality assessment mechanisms

Feedback Needed

  1. Which incentive model best aligns with your vision of healthy governance?
  2. How would you structure rewards to maximize genuine participation?

3. Proof of Personhood Implementation

Context & Objective

Ensuring one-person-one-vote integrity while maintaining accessibility and privacy.

Understanding Proof of Personhood (PoP)

Proof of Personhood protocols aim to verify that each participant is a unique human without necessarily revealing their identity. The core mechanism typically involves:

  • Collecting various identity signals or attestations
  • Cross-referencing these signals to establish uniqueness
  • Creating a privacy-preserving proof of verification
  • Enabling ongoing verification without repeated identity checks

This helps prevent Sybil attacks (where one person creates multiple identities) while protecting individual privacy.

Protocol Comparison

Protocol Implementation Approach Integration Readiness Privacy Protection Community Familiarity Implementation Complexity
Gitcoin Passport Aggregates multiple identity attestations from Web2 and Web3 sources High Medium High Low
zkPass Uses zero-knowledge proofs for document-based verification Medium High Low High
OpenID3 Leverages existing OAuth providers with added decentralization High Medium High Low
Nomis / 0xScore Combines on-chain activity analysis with identity verification Medium Medium-High Low Medium

Protocol TLDRs

Gitcoin Passport

  • Unique Approach: Builds a “trust score” by combining multiple identity verifications
  • Key Differentiator: Most extensive ecosystem of supported platforms and attestations
  • Implementation Notes: Already integrated with many DeFi protocols

zkPass

  • Unique Approach: Focuses on document-based verification using zero-knowledge proofs
  • Key Differentiator: Highest privacy preservation among options
  • Implementation Notes: Requires more complex technical integration but offers strongest privacy guarantees

OpenID3

  • Unique Approach: Extends traditional OAuth2 verification with decentralized elements
  • Key Differentiator: Leverages existing, widely-trusted authentication systems
  • Implementation Notes: Fastest path to implementation due to familiar technology

Nomis / 0xScore

  • Unique Approach: Analyzes on-chain behavior patterns alongside identity verification
  • Key Differentiator: Only solution offering reputation scoring alongside identity verification
  • Implementation Notes: Newer protocol with evolving integration standards

Feedback Needed

  1. Which protocol(s) would you trust for identity verification?
  2. What privacy vs. accessibility balance do you prefer?
  3. How important is the integration of reputation scoring in our PoP solution?

How to Contribute Effectively

  • Focus your feedback on areas where you have specific expertise or strong views
  • Reference relevant past experiences or implementations you’re familiar with
  • Consider both immediate benefits and long-term implications
  • If possible, test any technical solutions you’re commenting on

This temp check builds on our community’s commitment to thoughtful governance evolution. Your insights will directly shape the formal proposals that follow. For reference, you can review related discussions in:

PS - Don’t forget to vote on the CVP votes that are now live on snapshot before they expire!

2 Likes
2
  1. Which protocol(s) would you trust for identity verification?
    – As you know, user participation is my top priority. Through this lens, Gitcoin Passport emerges as the most promising solution.
    – Gitcoin Passport aggregates multiple identity attestations from trusted Web2 and Web3 platforms (Twitter, Github, BrightID, ENS domains), offering familiarity and broad accessibility.
    – It’s already successfully integrated in Gitcoin’s funding rounds, ensuring real-world usability and some Sybil resistance.

Recommendation:

  • Start with Gitcoin Passport, possibly augmented by BrightID, due to established user trust, ease of integration, and minimal friction, facilitating higher initial adoption rates.
  1. What privacy vs. accessibility balance do you prefer?
    – A balance like Gitcoin Passport strikes an appealing middle ground, offering sufficient privacy (users don’t disclose overly sensitive details) while remaining extremely easy and familiar, encouraging broad initial participation.
    – If privacy concerns later become significant in the Metis community, progressively integrating more privacy-centric solutions (like zkPass or zero-knowledge identity proofs) could be introduced once participation and comfort levels are established.
  1. How important is the integration of reputation scoring in our PoP solution?
    – Integrating reputation scoring is highly valuable and should be seriously considered, especially given your focus on sustained, meaningful engagement. Reputation scoring, as offered by protocols like Nomis/0xScore, incentivizes not just participation but also the quality of governance contributions. It aligns incentives, discouraging superficial or exploitative voting (like airdrop farmers) by weighting contributions based on reputation metrics.
    – However, reputation scoring systems also introduce complexity and may initially lower accessibility. A balanced approach is advisable:
  • Initially, implement simple PoP (Gitcoin Passport) to establish baseline trust and user comfort.
  • Later, once initial identity verification is normalized, layer in reputation systems like Nomis/0xScore to reward high-quality, consistent governance participation explicitly. This progressive approach ensures engagement grows organically without overwhelming users upfront.
1 Like
3

Great breakdown and suggestions on the improvements, Daryl.

As for suggestions/answer to your questions, I don’t think I’d have said it any better that @cobibean did.
Gitcoin passport is quite effective, perhaps not to set the score so high so it don’t discourage many.
Would have been poetic if Metis reputation scoring (with Nuvo or so) were still active, but all good with Gitcoin.

1 Like