Proposal: Delegated Governance and Creation of Community Council

CLOUD CLOUD - Drafts
1

Sanctum Fam,

I’m proposing a key governance evolution for Sanctum that will strengthen participation, improve accountability, and let our builders stay focused on the protocol and products. This includes:

  • :white_check_mark: Introducing delegated governance so $CLOUD holders can assign their voting power to trusted, active community members
  • :people_hugging: Creating a Community & Engagement Council (CEC) to support proposal quality, education, and communication
  • :brick: Refocusing governance as a tool for supervision and long-term alignment, not micromanagement

:brain: Why This Matters

Sanctum has one of the most innovative governance structures in the ecosystem — but it’s time we scale it.

As an active participant and long-time observer of DAO mechanics, I’ve noticed three things:

  1. Voter fatigue is real— most holders can’t (and shouldn’t have to) engage on every proposal
  2. Builders are stretched— coordinating governance distracts from shipping
  3. We lack a feedback and accountability layer — there’s no structured group to guide, vet, or represent community input

We can fix this — and make Sanctum’s governance the strongest in Solana — by delegating where appropriate and structuring where it matters.

:ballot_box_with_ballot: The Proposal

  1. Enable Delegate-Based Voting

Allow $CLOUD holders to:

  • Delegate their staked sCLOUD to another wallet
  • Choose from publicly listed delegates who publish a governance statement and track record
  • Change their delegate at any time (non-custodial, reversible delegation)

Delegates would then vote in the futarchy market on behalf of others — with clear visibility and performance metrics.

Goal: Increase turnout, reduce noise, and make governance higher signal.

  1. Establish a Community & Engagement Council (CEC)

Elect a 5–7 member Council, elected by the community, to:

  • Host governance calls and proposal workshops
  • Curate and improve proposal drafts
  • Onboard new delegates and track participation
  • Act as a structured link between the community and protocol team

The CEC would not control protocol decisions, but it would steward participation and engagement. Funding would come via a future governance vote from the Community Reserve.

Goal: Take coordination off the plate of builders, and let the community lead its own growth.

:shield: My Philosophy: Supervise, Don’t Micromanage

Governance shouldn’t decide what to build.
Governance should ensure we build with alignment, integrity, and accountability.

This proposal is about giving Sanctum the structure to scale, without weighing down the people building.

Let the community govern. Let the builders ship. Let’s draw that line clearly — and make it work.

Next Steps

If this gains support, I’ll move to split this into two formal governance proposals:

  1. Enable Delegated Voting
  2. Ratify the Community & Engagement Council (CEC), including election process and basic budget

I welcome all feedback, edits, concerns, or endorsements below. Let’s co-create this model.

— Amensch

7 Likes
2

Seems way too much overhead and process for now. If we were seeing more proposals in the forum and more engagement then maybe there’s an argument for spending time and resources on governance structure. But we’re not and we need that basic momentum before you can justify this type of investment.

Most governance in crypto has been scammed by “professional” DAO members. That is people who are making a wage from participating in various DAOs. At best they’re doing no value admin like stuff. At worse it’s full on scams where one set will propose some project, get it funded, and then just not deliver.
You should never delegate power like this to community members. It never works.

Polkadot is a classic example of this, they’ve been scammed out of millions.

Jupiter has paused their DAO operations to launch an overhaul because they’ve started to be scammed too (the last art project the DAO funded has pretty much disappeared those funds from what I hear).

2 Likes
3

Maybe all that happened because of what what i identified. Noone cared about Governance and it was inly a way of getting engagement.

You do know shareholders in companies vote on different items. Its been working for a long time

2 Likes
4

your intention is good: More voting. Voting is engagement.

My personal opinion is we just need more small, focused, proposals that can reasonably see their way to a vote.

And a vote needs to be able to determine the price of CLOUD up or down so the proposal should be that way inclined.

3 Likes
5

I think there are some other matters and community concerns that need to take priority before we consider these type of improvements, IMO.

2 Likes
6

We seem to be making proposals on how to run the business and what products sanctum should makem lets be honest we arent founders nor are we business people, if we were we would be founders ourselves. We are investors and sometime use the products we invested in. Thsts why i suggest we stop trying to offer the dev team ideas on what exactly to make. And we concentrate on finding the people thst do know what needs to be done and how to do it. The founder and dev doubis good ebough. Let them work. And stop feeding them ideas for the day to day.

3 Likes
7

We are the users of the product. If you neglect the users the products will die. I mean look at MarginFi, it’s slowly fading into irrelevance. They took the approach that the dev team didn’t need any user feedback and to “just let them cook!” (one of the dumber things people in crypto say) and … look what happened.

Jupiter cops a lot of flack for opening the door and inviting in a lot of opinions and introspection… and they just go from strength to strength in term of products and market share. Turns out listening to your users and encouraging them to talk to you builds very popular and very successful products. The trade off is you need to work a bit harder at sort through the signal from the noise.

2 Likes
8

I guess we can agree on having different opinions.

Governance has a lot of poetiins and theories to it.

We will see hownit gors over the Years

1 Like