[1RC] 1inch DAO Meta-Governance Delegation Programme

  • (Yes) In favor of this proposal. :white_check_mark:
  • (No) Against this proposal. :x:

0 voters

Stage 1 Post

:radio_button: Simple Summary

This initiative aims to improve governance engagement while including culture & values among the DAO as 1inch deems itself as DeFi Single Entry Point . With this program, Various dedicated organizations will be able to hold discussions, work on specific activities, propose new ideas, & participate in building the future of the 1inch protocol. This will welcome organizations interested in the topic of DAOs, contributing significantly to the growth of the 1inch ecosystem.

:white_large_square: Abstract

This Proposal addresses the new approach of meta-delegation by involving student groups & similar consortia in DAO governance. It provides insights into current practices & highlights potential pathways to implementation.

:white_large_square: Motivation

In DAOs, we rely on the governance contribution & decision-making activities of token holders. Ideation, proposal writing, voting, & strategy challenging from technical, legal, economic, & social perspectives are just some of the requirements. Thus, diversity & knowledgeability amongst the governance contributors become a competitive advantage of every DAO.
However, many DAOs struggle to fulfill these demands.
Data shows that in most DAOs only 1–3% of token holders become active, which can make it difficult to reach the minimum voter threshold (quorum)

With voter fatigue becoming more apparent & lobbying tendencies on the rise, the question of how to involve & activate stakeholders in decentralized governance processes is hotly debated. This is even more important as DAOs are rapidly growing in value & size.

Most protocols have a governance structure that requires their token holders to vote & pass proposals. In order for votes to move forward, they have to reach quorum. Reaching quorum can be hard to achieve since many token holders aren’t interested in voting (Kevin Owocki recently estimated that DAO voting participation typically hovers around 2%.) This can make it difficult for protocols to make the changes necessary to keep up with the ever-shifting DeFi environment.

:white_large_square: Rationale

Several DAOs have involved university organizations in their governance activities. Groups of students & researchers, motivated by their interest in decentralized organizations & Defi, delve into the activities of discussions, proposals, & storytelling of new ideas.
The rationale behind selecting university organizations & others for this phase of the program is that students are interested in applying practically what has so far been learned theoretically. They will live this experience as a unique entity, as a community.

:white_large_square: Specification

:green_circle: Organizations Onboarding Process & Criteria

⦁ Open Invitation to organizations that are interested in blockchain & willing to play a key role in Defi & DAOs.
⦁ 1inch PR Managers start Several Talks & collaborations to select the Right fit for this initiative.
⦁ AMA & Community calls with these Organisations to better understand their opinions.
⦁ Creation of Profile & Pitch Repository on 1inch GitHub or 1inch Discord Subsection [ Section To be made ] or Forum furbished with the following details:

Profile & Pitch Template

⦁ [ Delegate’s Name]
⦁ Key Info
⦁ Delegate’s address: [0x71C…]
⦁ Commonwealth name (if any): [@Delegate]
⦁ Discord ID (if any): [@Delegate]
⦁ Twitter h&le (if any): [@Delegate]
⦁ Email (optional): [Delegate@gmail.com]:
⦁ External website (optional): [1inch.io]
⦁ Introduction video link (optional): [YouTube]
⦁ Delegate’s voting power (includes voting power from 1inch /st1inch held & voting power received from delegation): [#]
⦁ Delegate’s proposing power (includes proposing power from 1inch /st1inch held & proposing power received from delegation): [#]

Delegate Assessment Score Card

The Delegate Assessment Score is self-reported & is intended to provide 1inch holders with deeper information about a Delegate.

⦁ Delegate Name
⦁ Alignment
⦁ Experience
⦁ Engagement
⦁ Diversity
⦁ Conflicts

Total Score = Out of 100

Assessment Score System

20 – High-level commitment to the 1inch protocol & governance. Delegate will benefit if the 1inch protocol grows.
10 – Some commitment to the 1inch protocol & governance. Delegate may indirectly benefit if the 1inch protocol grows.
0 – No commitment to the 1inch protocol & governance.


20– Delegate has a professional background in crypto governance, smart contract development, code auditing, financial risk modeling, DeFi protocols, or similar.
10 – Delegate has a personal interest in the criteria listed above.
0 – Delegate has an unrelated background.


20– Delegate has a strong history of participating in forums, voting &/or participating with other relevant communities.
10 – Delegate has a limited history of community engagement.
0 – Delegate has no history of community engagement.

Diversity of Perspective

20– Delegate has a unique perspective compared to other delegates.
10– Delegate represents a perspective that is underrepresented in governance.
0 – Delegate represents a perspective that is widely represented in governance.


20- Delegate has no existing conflicts with the 1inch protocol, & would not benefit in any way from the 1inch protocol’s failure.
10 - Delegate has no outright conflicts with the 1inch protocol, but may benefit in some unusual circumstances if the 1inch protocol fails.
0 - Delegate has an outright conflict with the 1inch protocol, or may benefit in typical circumstances if the protocol fails.

Delegates Code of Conduct

The reputation of the 1inch protocol, its governance & its community is essential to the growth of the 1inch protocol. Delegates must be honest & earn the trust of the community.

Best Interests

Delegates should vote in line with the best interests of the 1inch protocol.


Delegates should conduct themselves professionally & act in a respectful manner.

Responsiveness & Community Engagement

Delegates should use their best efforts to connect with the 1inch community & be accessible to answer questions & respond to comments.


Delegates should maintain a vote participation rate above 90%.


Delegates should provide their reasoning for any proposal, vote or decision that they make in connection with being a Delegate.

Conflicts of Interest

Delegates should avoid conflicts of interest & circumstances that reasonably present the appearance of a conflict.

End of Delegation

Delegates should communicate their intentions to stop being a Delegate at least one epoch in advance to give notice to the 1inch community & provide sufficient time for 1inch /st1inch holders to delegate their 1inch /st1inch to other potential delegates.


Why do you want to be a Delegate & why should 1inch /st1inch holders delegate to you?

[Motivation for becoming a Delegate & vision for the future of the 1inch protocol &/or its governance, such as improving an aspect of the 1inch protocol, raising viewpoints from an underrepresented group, etc.]

How will you connect with & contribute to the 1inch community & governance?

[What are you going to do to advance the 1inch community & governance? How will you communicate your views, how will you connect with community members, applicable background knowledge or skills, etc. ]

Delegates Declaration

⦁ I confirm that the information above is accurate & up to date as of the start of the current epoch & I will immediately update this Profile & Pitch in the event of a material change.
⦁ I have read & agree to abide by the Delegates Code of Conduct.
⦁ I have completed & scored /10 on the Delegate Self Assessment. Please find my Self Assessment linked here: [Insert link]

:green_circle: Delegates Duties -

The Choosen entity must meet Minimum requirements of :

  • Briefly explaining their rationale behind their votes.
    • EX: “I voted YES because…”
  • Expanding on their explanation whenever prompted by a Delegator.

:green_circle: DAO Treasury Allocation

Funds to Allocate to this Program from the DAO treasury to Distribute 1inch Delegation power among the participating parties in an equal fashion.

Process -

The Funds are in USDC in the Treasury & will be converted to buyback $1inch from Open Market
1inch team will then stake these 1inch tokens, thus getting st1inch in return. The st1inch Tokens HOLDs Voting Power these Blockchain Clubs can use for Snapshot Votes .

MultiSig will control the Funds but how the st1inch Delegation Power will be distributed among the Parties will be decided by the Amount of their Quality Engagement in the forum.

For the Start , a 1-Month period is Allocated in which Different Blockchain clubs can take part in DAO. In the end, 1inch Team will formalize a list of Worthy Blockchain clubs to which the Delegation power of ‘X’ Amount will be divided equally.

X = Amount of Staked 1inch [ st1inch ] . Eg.

  • Treasury = 10Million$
  • DAO chooses to allocate ‘No more than 10%’
  • BuyBack 1M 1inch tokens
  • Stake those Tokens & Distribute their Delegation power to these clubs equally
:red_circle: How Much Amount to Allocate from Treasury for this Program ?
  • No more than 5%
  • No more than 10%
  • No more than 15%
  • Other [ More than 15%]
  • Other [ Less than 5% ]
  • 0%

0 voters

Result - No More than 10%

:white_large_square: Benefits

To Students :man_student:t2:

I. Guided Preparation & execution of a voting delegation pitch (transfer of voting power from 1inch token holders to the student group)

II. Instant Media exposure by publishing content in 1inch Medium & Twitter | 1M followers

III. Exclusive Delegation Power Handed over by Treasury Allocation

IV. 1inch POAPs (NFTs certification) , Achievement-based NFTs for different engagement levels

V. Extra Revenue : if DAO proposal of this Type passes then Clubs can also earn a share of Treasury yields [50% or more w.r.t. st1inch . This can be changed later]

To 1inch community :speech_balloon:

⦁ While the trend of governance delegation to individuals had all the best intentions, it has fallen short of expectations. The combination of the time commitment & depth required for participation, misaligned incentives & accountability mechanisms, & legal complexity has made it impossible for governance delegation to fulfill its promise.

⦁ Because of this underperformance, the rising prevalence of meta governance committees is the next logical experiment to drive meaningful progress within DAOs. Meta governance committees are better positioned to create aligned incentives with stakeholders & have structures suited to provide a scaled governance impact.

⦁ The beauty of supporting Meta-Delegates is the internal checks & balances that need to be applied for a decision to be made. A DAO could not appoint itself as a delegate without considering the learnings of the community. By enabling the formation of Defi Political Parties, we may see more engagement both internally (within each respective meta-delegate) & externally throughout the protocol’s ecosystem.

:white_large_square: Considerations

  • This would be a 1st functional step towards greater delegation & decisions, especially if there are not enough governance discussions happening.

  • Clubs with 0 performance or little to no participation during Snapshot Voting or Forum Discussions will automatically be excluded from the program & delegation power will be Revoked.

  • Potential Burden Over Treasury ! Although No sell pressure over tokens but Important Step towards Governance.

  • Add Open Source KPI tools - showkarma for Background check & Gauge Voting activity of the organisation in other DAOs



That’s a Really Unique way to Utilize the Treasury Funds .

If this Passes I’d love to see how it can improve & enhance the governance indulgence of several parties & bring more intellectuals over here .

So far Governance is at a stage where it’s not encouraging or engaging & thus we must work toward the solutions to make it better


It seemed better than the Financial Incentives like @ScaleWeb3 said earlier & I hope this very 1st expirement goes successful so that we can work towards more better governance .

@BlockchainOau @UMichBlockchain @BlockchainatCU @voxchain @CalBlockchain @YaleBlockchain @blockchainatvt @pton_blockchain @BoilerChain @BlockchainAtSD @PennBlockchain @StanfordCrypto @blockchainucla @ubcblockchain_ @blockchain_ic @blockchainedu
1 Like

It’s an out of the box idea… i guess.

But frankly, it does not seem to be an appropriate way to improve governance, nor a good way to spend treasury funds !!

Going by data ( ~ 2% participation), which is too low to get anything done, is there a way to redefine quorum numbers ? At least, to an extent ?

Also, it helps to show the world about ‘how the 1inch DAO appreciates (& incentivises) the active and meaningful participation on forum/voting ?’. If that’s good, it tends to attract more , and serious people. I guess, that’s where we should concentrate to improve, to enable & amplify governance participation!


I still like this broad idea but also still have my original concerns regarding incentives for the Students.

With the current size of the treasury, I don’t think the yields from any investing will be enough to sustain a program of this scale.

Example: Let’s assume we used 50% of the treasury to obtain a yield of 10%, and we want to allot 10% of that yield to this program – that’s only ~$70k/yr. I don’t think that would be enough to fund multiple teams of highly knowledgeable students.

If there isn’t enough funding I fear that we will get the bare minimum out of them (like they just vote YES on everything without spending the time to weight the pros and cons).

On that note, to combat apathetic student delegates I think we should consider giving them minimum requirements:

  • Briefly explain their rationale behind their votes.
    • EX: “I voted YES because…”
  • Expand on their explanation when prompted by a Delegator.
1 Like

Actually , Let me clear this a bit . The incentives that i’ve proposed are not just any other incentives . It’s neither a Funding nor a type of Fix Salary . These are more like ‘Thanks for your Participation’

What these incentives are here for is only to encourage participation .

The Allocation

This Allocation is not for funding parties but to give them the Alternate source of Voting Power by using a part of Treasury Funds i.e. to generate Delegation power which these parties/clubs can use for snapshot Votings .

What these incentives are actually made up of ?

Well you see if DAO treasury generates extra revenue [separate from swap surplus] then stakers who stake 1inch will get the interest earned by DAO Treasury distributed to them from the Interest pool in accordance to their staked Value .This was the Idea .

Now if we allocate 10% of 10Million to gather a voting power of st1inch then not only we’re getting Delegation Power which we will divide & distribute to clubs but they also become eligible for rewards that are accured in interest pool of Treasury according to the delegation power stakes they are granted with .

In such cases , where the Clubs don’t connect with community efficiently & fail to express reasons on why they choose certain things during Votings .

We can actually put this in the Leaderboard UI & Show the amount Votings they participated into & on what terms & reasons they actually decided to choose the option they voted on .

So that All the DAO members can actually see what they think & how they think & Might help them getting more delegation power too .

This is a nice addition :memo: . Noted :writing_hand:t2:

Example - https://vote.makerdao.com/delegates

1 Like

Helpful Links to find the 1inch Proposals as currently 1inch Gov UI being worked on for such things


Well About the governance , Actually i’ve taken a reference from the upcoming Governance UI which is equipped with proper delegation page and proposal watch , tipping etc. This is in direct benefit to all the Organisation who if arrive to our DAO to get their proposals a viable Exposure .



As you can see above , The BLUEprint has already been finalised by 1inch Team & sent for UX IMPLEMENTATION . This is what even 1IP-11 also stands for but i think proposer of that 1IP wasn’t aware of this & I think most of the Members might not know about this Leak at all .

Well I also believe that Treasury funds shouldn’t be wasted but What i’ve proposed is not only beneficial to 1inch hodlers but also to the Student clubs in a way that treasury is buying voting power by buying back 1inch tokens in the bear market at its Lowest point of Horizon .

This not only allow us to expand treasury at the same time but also help us to draw attention to dao by giving out the power to the contributors too . Infact , the extra revenue stream which successful contributors can claim comes with 0 Burden on Treasury


I think even @Robert @3.1415r @jisalazar @ma70_supra @Bobbay @chicoproducion @Poker @dryec @ScaleWeb3 may not know about this Upcoming UI

Quick Update -

About to push this to Phase - 3 Temp Check under No further Objections .

To Phase - 3 ?
  • :white_check_mark:
  • Wait !

0 voters


@Roxan thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of this at all. Appreciate you keeping us in the loop. I didn’t know it had been voted on and implemented.


KPI (key performance indicator) Options may be considered… i guess that can make the clubs/student bodies more objective.


What we Want

  1. Reputation-based fund allotments : Incentives based on the reputation and experience of the proposer. For instance, if a proposer has had a history of bringing in great proposals . Need a solution for gauging reputation & ratings based on their impact, accountability, and transparency. Students can sign an Income Sharing Agreement (ISA) with DAO to ensure payouts

  2. KPIs will apply on students (attendance percentage, performance )

  3. DAO NFTs could be given based on contribution. These NFTs could represent the amount, type, or period of contribution.

  4. Background Checks

What we don’t Want -

Totally unrelated from the topic being discussed
Not connected to the discussion at all
Against the forum rules
Unbearable grammar mistakes
Individual must think 2wice before making an irrelevant posts/comments
Dealing properly with spams . The only thing we don’t want here is a Lazy Snapshot Voter & Spam
Has to be a collective effort instead of High competition

1 Like

Changelog :

Treasury Allocation Voting Concluded = Convert 10% of Treasury to st1INCH


Final Update -

1. Moving this proposal Temp check as per demand

2. Added @RoundElephant Suggestion under Compulsory Delegates Duties

3. Added @kravi Suggestion for KPI

Using open source tool

For Initital Trials this seems to be a Nice Fit to gauge reputation , relation & background check of the org. in other DAOs

Best Example would be how a blockchain club recently voted in favour of 1inch to be added as collateral in AAVE protocol snapshot

1 Like

Initiating Final Phase - 3 Temp Check if Passed will immediately Move to Snapshot

Thanks for your support

@Robert @3.1415r @jisalazar @ma70_supra @Bobbay @chicoproducion @Poker @dryec

Request to @RoundElephant @Belac to post the Temp check link to 1IP channel of Discord & TG



A Simple Example can be seen here Penn Blockchain Delegate Platform - General - Aave

Any Blockchain Club/Group/Org can Build a separate Thread to inform their Delegators about their voting decision in details …

1 Like

Temperature-check vote was a success. 6 votes in favor, 0 votes against

Requesting Mods/Forum Admins for Snapshot Initiation at the earliest .

Thankyou :clap:t2:

1 Like

I cannot support creating the proposal in its current form as I feel it is not well enough defined yet. This governance system is open, so anyone with 25k 1INCH can create the snapshot proposal, assuming they are adhering to the governance process, but I’d urge them to really consider the feasibility of a proposal before they do so (especially proposals that call for actions to be done by the 1inch core contributors).

Like initially said, I’m very much in favor of an incentivized delegate program, so, I agree with your Motivation and Rationale sections. However, the Specification section needs a lot more structure before it can be actually implemented. These are some things that I don’t think are sufficiently defined at the moment. I’ve broken it down by sub-section and tagged key items with critical_issue if they have no way of being implemented and break the proposal:


Organizations Onboarding Process & Criteria

  • It looks like the “1inch Team” is supposed to choose which Blockchain clubs will be given delegation power. Does that refer to the 1inch core contributors, the 1inch Foundation, or the 1inch DAO (the scope of each of their powers is defined here in the documentation site)?
  • The Profile & Pitch template seems like it is geared towards individual delegates, not a club with multiple people.
  • The Assessment Score System seems overly complex:
    • It mixes subjective qualities (like level of Alignment to 1inch protocol and governance) with objective numerical scores.
    • There are some things that should outright bar someone from being a sanctioned delegate imo. Like if they have an outright conflict with 1inch protocol, are a known bad-faith actor, etc… we should be not even considering them instead of just docking 20 points from their score.
  • I still think that there needs to be a direct incentive to secure quality delegates (probably a monthly stipend of 1INCH).

DAO Treasury Allocation

  • critical_issue The DAO needs to know exactly how much 1INCH is to be purchased with the treasury funds. This proposal does not give an exact figure.

  • critical_issue The DAO needs to know exactly how the 1INCH will be purchased:

    • Lump buy with 10% of treasury funds would incur over 25% slippage if done using 1inch Aggregator (50% slippage if done on Uniswap)
  • critical_issue Snapshot delegation is currently all or nothing. A single wallet cannot split its delegation across multiple different wallets so this part would need to be addressed in the proposal before it is even possible.

    • Possible solution is creating sub-multi-sigs that in turn delegate to a single delegate, but then we run into the issue of the DAO giving up direct control over those funds.

General comments

Hidden Text

The proposal is a little hard to follow due to the amount of nested drop-downs in the specification section. I think we should make a governance-meta change that disallows the use of hidden text in formal phase-2+ proposals.

Non-temperature check polls

Also, I think we should avoid non-temperature check polls as part of the phase-3+ proposals as that information is not static and will get lost when the snapshot vote is created. Good that you posted the results in the proposal, but then I think the poll should be removed to de-clutter it.

I really hope this comment didn’t come across as harsh because I believe you to be a valuable contributor to this DAO and I like the overall idea of this proposal. However, we should not push things into the final phase-4 vote if they literally cannot be implemented in their current form.


Also I had to edit off the phase-4 tag, and changed the prefix back to 1RC, as this proposal is not in phase-4 snapshot vote and labelling it as such would be confusing. This is discussed in this thread: Proposal Lifecycle -- Suggested Improvements

1 Like