This proposal aims to leverage Sanctum’s existing Profiles feature to create a more personalized and engaging governance voting experience. By integrating governance functionalities directly into user profiles, we can enhance community participation, informed decision-making, and overall platform engagement.
Objectives
Increase User Engagement: Personalize the governance process to make it more accessible and engaging.
Improve Informed Voting: Enable users to follow and learn from experienced community members.
Strengthen Community Involvement: Encourage broader participation in governance decisions.
Features
Follow Influential Profiles:
Allow users to follow influential community members and view their voting patterns and governance activity.
Provide notifications and updates on governance proposals that these profiles engage with.
Voting Transparency:
Display voting records and rationale for decisions made by influential profiles.
Allow users to comment on and discuss these decisions, promoting transparency and accountability.
Proposal Endorsements:
Enable profiles to endorse governance proposals, which will be highlighted to their followers.
Track the number of endorsements a proposal receives to gauge community support.
Governance Analytics:
Provide analytics tools to users, showing their voting history, impact, and alignment with other profiles.
Display trends and patterns in voting behaviour across the community.
Benefits
Enhanced Engagement: Users are more likely to participate in governance if the process is personalized and engaging.
Informed Decisions: Access to experienced members’ insights and voting patterns helps users make better-informed decisions.
Community Strength: Increased transparency and interaction incentivize a stronger, more cohesive community.
Risks and Mitigations
Echo Chambers: There is a risk of creating echo chambers where users only follow and mimic a few influential profiles. To mitigate this, promote a diverse range of profiles and encourage users to explore different viewpoints.
Manipulation: Influential profiles could sway votes disproportionately. Implement checks and balances, such as limiting the number of endorsements a single profile can make.
Since we are still exploring innovative idea, what if we see if that’s agreeable in the community? Tie it with S2 and how those staking CLOUD could reward earnest direct support of those staking.
This could help in its use for the Community Pool…
Some community members had issues with “The Whales will Win”.
Well, by rewarding the stake a multiplier factor with say…
Research.Sanctum.So activity (The higher the more trust)
Can even add Likes as a factor to further increase Earnestness Score
Previous Socials Activities:
Using the Discord, Twitter & Telegram activity count of users within Sanctum post-S1 End, as per previous Earnest Scoring.
This idea I can get behind if there’s the capacity for the team to integrate as to empower the Sanctum - Profiles IP and ability to grow MAU. This can pontentially increase TVL as adoption grows.
I think there are even more interesting cases of Utility for CLOUD propping up in the forums that we’d love the community to check out:
Quantitatively measuring earnest will lead to gamification.
A better way would be to have an elected body, that qualifies users’ acitivity through their linked socials. Of course, there would have to be guidelines and avenues for disputes if taking this approach.
Another approach would be to use AI to scan thr socials, but that’s additional dev cost if the tech doesnt already exist.
Earnest overall is quality based and needs an intelligent interpretation.
expensive to monitor social media. also expensive if sanctum profiles have a financial incentive to farm engagement (supposing scanctum posts will be a thing, ppl will cross post from social media)
I like the idea of sanctum becoming an alternative web3 social media platform, but think it could be better to iterate slowly on that at first
what if you linked a wallet to your profile HERE, and then voting was within the research forum, it’d herd people to the discussion place and to the proposals to directly vote on them.
So first off, linking wallets to profiles would make voting way easier—everything could happen right inside the research forums, which should push people to actually engage in discussions and proposals. It’s a natural step toward integrating CLOUD into governance stuff like voting and endorsements, giving the token real utility while making the whole process smoother.
Growth-wise, we’d roll this out gradually. Start small with basic governance features, then build up to things like weighted voting or tiered access based on how much CLOUD you’re holding. By going slow, we can avoid issues like echo chambers or a few whales controlling everything. It also gives us time to test things in the real world without crashing the system.
Down the road, we could tie CLOUD to cool perks like community rewards, exclusive content, or even paid features like posting within Sanctum profiles—giving people a reason to contribute more thoughtfully. AI for verifying social activity is something we might look into later, but the main goal is still solid, fair governance. We want to make sure whatever we build stays aligned with what CLOUD and Sanctum are all about.
