Ethereum: Federated by design

Ethereum's modular roadmap is federated by design, dozens of rollups today, hundreds of L3s tomorrow. It is simultaneously beautiful and overwhelming. dApps now span Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync, and more. However each additional layer makes the UX worse for users who just want to explore what Ethereum has to offer kneecapping discovery.

Enter Mini Apps

This complexity has led to L2s and Platforms (most notably WorldCoin and Farcaster) to lean on a long-standing platform distribution pattern called Mini Programs or Mini Apps (thin modular applications tightly coupled to their host platform) popularised by:

• WeChat, Over 1 million mini apps; payments, shopping, gov.

• Alipay, Competes with WeChat; finance-focused mini apps

• Baidu, Search-centric mini apps

Services we see expressed as mini-apps (non-exhaustive) include: Didi Chuxing (ride-hailing), JD (e-commerce), Meituan (food delivery), Pinduoduo (social shopping), Utility payments, Financial services, Subway ticketing apps, Hotel bookings, travel guides, train tickets, Group buying, Payments and personal banking.

In comparison, crypto native mini-app platforms are nascent in their lifecycle but are slowly building traction. While most top apps currently are lotteries, utility and trading apps, when compared to their service oriented counterparts in the real world, it is clear there is still much work to be done.

Mini-apps work because they abstract much of the complexity away. They expedite discovery by deferring risk to the curators of each respective platform. Similar to native mobile app stores prior to distribution there is a review process.

Users don't think about being on the wrong website, chains or layers. They just open their wallet, click, and everything works. No bridging, no rollup selectors, no app-chain menus. It's all hidden behind a unified UX surface. That's why it feels like a step forward due to its reduction in a user's cognitive load.

A Trap in Disguise?

The pitch for Mini-apps sounds great: easy to deploy, greater distribution, convenient for developers. But there's a hidden cost: Mini Apps still serve the underlying platform, not the user.

• Worldcoin builds World Chain-specific apps. 

• Farcaster builds FID-specific flows. 

Each is tightly coupled to its home ecosystem. That's great for growing the platform—terrible for users who live across many chains.

Federation: Ethereum's biggest challenge

As Mini Apps gain traction in Ethereum, we should consider what we're trading away. 

Ethereum's most powerful promise has always been self-sovereignty — your account belongs to you, whether an EOA or Smart Account. But as the ecosystem matures, we increasingly trade sovereignty for convenience, rebuilding the same closed structures we originally sought to escape.

Today, most users sign into dApps through providers like Privy which often issue embedded wallets by default. While embedded wallets offer increased convenience for now, they present the risk of increasing platform lock-in.

A solution for this would be ensuring the embedded wallet is recoverable/linked via an EOA, but that again presents a user experience challenge that needs to be overcome.

The Cross-Chain Dilemma

Cross-chain builders face an impossible choice. Each major platform is aligned with its home ecosystem:

• Farcaster → Optimism (requires annual FID fees)

• Coinbase Wallet → Base (optimized for KYC-friendly flows)

• Worldcoin → World Chain (demands biometric verification)

If you wanted to build a mini-app for Ethereum users, which platform would you choose? Each choice requires a tribute of fees, privacy, or identity control. 

Are there any mini-app platforms that just work with a pure Ethereum account? What is the roadmap to get to that point? 

The best way I can frame this dilemma right now is by asking myself, am I building for the good of Ethereum, or am I building for the benefit of a specific platform? 

Portability Matters

I believe we need to build consumer apps that respect Ethereum's federated, modular nature otherwise, we're just recreating walled gardens.

Consumer dApps should ideally work horizontally across chains: DeFi interfaces that work with any protocol on any rollup, social apps untethered from single ecosystems, NFT marketplaces spanning multiple networks.

Users wouldn't need to know where apps are deployed. Everything could flow through a unified interface that abstracts complexity away.

What's at Stake

If we don't abstract away the complexity of L2s, L3s, and app-chains, users will flock to simpler ecosystems, consumer dApps will fragment into platform silos, and Ethereum's "federation of chains" will become a UX nightmare.

By respecting Ethereum's federated nature, we unlock the real potential: consumer dApps remain composable across chains, users gain seamless simplicity, and Ethereum can scale infinitely while still feeling unified.

Final thoughts.

Convenience comes at a cost. As the ecosystem matures, developers and users must ask themselves: are we comfortable with our assets and identities fragmented across platform-controlled smart accounts, loosely tethered to our root wallets?

The choice is clear: we can either build vertically, trapping users in platform silos, or build horizontally, honouring Ethereum's federated nature while giving users freedom to flow across chains.

Ethereum’s federated infrastructure isn’t a negative, it’s an opportunity for application builders to harness and innovate on.

Introduction

Signals is an on-chain protocol that converts latent community sentiment into a real-time, ranked idea board of DAO initiatives. Inspired by Conviction voting, Commitment voting and veToken Systems like Curve, Aragon and Velodrome, it lets members lock their existing governance tokens for a period of time to signal their support for what they think is most important. This token-time locking, coupled with configurable decay curves and acceptance thresholds, equips decentralized organizations with a transparent, mathematically-grounded mechanism for continuous sensemaking.

We envision this protocol becoming an invaluable tool for on-chain organizations to gain clarity on structural changes and where to allocate capital. Whilst also unlocking a new set of utility for their underlying governance token.

Motivation

After a decade of experimenting with on-chain governance, most DAOs still struggle to turn community intent into timely, accountable action. Token-based voting commonly employed by DAOs can capture a binary "yes or no" on formalized proposals, but it does little to surface preference intensity of community participants. This makes it a poor tool for uncovering what should be worked on next or how strongly members care about different initiatives.

Many DAOs have tried to solve these shortcomings through structure and process, but this has resulted in many familiar frustrations:

• Endless Discord and forum threads with no clear next steps

• Committees that drift or concentrate power

• Fragmented knowledge bases that deter newcomers

• Social pressure that favors incumbents over fresh ideas

Although today’s largest DAOs commonly make use of Web3 tools for trustless voting and treasury management, for everything else they are relying on traditional systems which bring with them the bureaucracy of yesterday—and it is hindering their ability to run efficiently.

By leveraging community members’ preference intensity as expressed through time-lock commitments, Signals constructs a dynamic, real-time idea board where the most widely-held opinions rise naturally to the top.

Mechanism design

Initiatives, not Proposals

Instead of proposals, Signals deals with “Initiatives” — an idea, course of action, or other concept that is seeking support from the community. Participants submit Initiatives to a Signals space (called a “Board”) which has been configured by the DAO and usually revolves around a specific theme. A DAO can have multiple Boards, all configured differently and for different purposes. Board configurations are all on-chain, so they could be configured trustlessly as the result of a DAO vote or existing trust models.

Token-Locking

Users lock up their existing tokens in support of a specific Initiative and for a specified duration, which demonstrates a genuine commitment through opportunity cost. Voting against an Initiative is not possible. By eliminating low-conviction indicators, every signal becomes an important one.

Boards will typically be configured to use DAO governance tokens, though any asset (token or stablecoin) could be specified. Each lockup is minted as a transferrable NFT bond which allows the holder to redeem the underlying tokens once the lock expires, opening the door for secondary markets and other qualitative measurements.

Calculating Support

Signals handles time as “Epochs,” a configurable base unit of time that represents the level of urgency most appropriate for a particular Board. Users who choose to lock their tokens for more than one Epoch contribute additional support to their chosen Initiative. The formula for calculating support can be customized as needed, but a standard starting point could look like the following, which we feel would provide enough flexibility for the majority of use cases:

S=T×Dk

Where:S=The starting amount of support providedT=The number of tokens locked upD=The lock duration, denoted as a number of Epochsk=Exponential bonus for longer lockups

Calculating support in this manner, and displaying the details, provides several important properties:

1. Users with fewer tokens can compete with larger holders, who are less likely to  commit to a longer lock duration

2. Communities can compare the levels of conviction shown by small vs large holders

3. Support measurements become more resilient to manipulation

4. Time becomes a democratizing factor in governance

Decay

The amount of support provided by an individual lockup decays over time, to ensure that indicators of support remain current and relevant. Each Board can configure the decay curve formula that is used to calculate each Initiative’s support value at the current time. Decay curves could be linear, exponential, or something much more complicated.

Calculating the total amount of current support behind an Initiative is expressed as the sum of support provided by all lockups, given the current time:

CurrentSupporti(t)=∑ℓ∈LocksiWeight(ℓ,t)

Where:CurrentSupporti(t)=An Initiative’s support at time ti=The Initiative we are assessingLocksi=The set of locks supporting this Initiativel=One specific lock in that setWeight(ℓ,t)=Individual value of support a lockup provides at time t

Using decay introduces a powerful governance dynamic:

1. Initiatives must maintain ongoing support to remain relevant

2. Abandoned Initiatives naturally lose prominence

3. Early support provides a head start, but not permanent advantage

4. Decay creates a cost to waiting, which aligns contributors around timely action

5. Users are further dissuaded from supporting unpopular Initiatives

Actioning Initiatives (or Not)

Boards are configured with a target level of support, called the “acceptance threshold”. Any Initiative that currently has enough support to exceed this threshold can be “actioned,” in which case the Initiative is closed and all tokens locked up in support of that Initiative are immediately unlocked. This early unlock incentivizes users to only support Initiatives they think will be popular. It is up to DAOs to decide how to treat initiatives that have been actioned.

Actioning could be configured to happen automatically once the criteria is met, or it could require manual activation by a committee, DAO vote, or other mechanism.

Examples of Support and Acceptance Threshold

Below you will find some simulations of the manner in which support can decay over time, with each color representing a contribution from a different supporter.

Endorsements (Optional)

For DAOs that support delegating voting power, delegates would not be able to fully participate in Signals because they do not directly own the tokens that are entrusted to them. To account for this, a Board can be configured to make use of “Endorsements,” a binary signal of support that can be issued by a user based on their amount of delegated voting power.

The Board could require all Initiatives to receive a certain number of Endorsements in addition to locked up support before they can be actioned. There could also be a maximum limit to the number of Endorsements each Initiative can receive, which encourages delegates to act early, to avoid missing out on the reputation gained from publicly supporting a popular Initiative.

Related systems

Conviction Voting

Conviction Voting lets holders stake without fixed locks; conviction builds the longer tokens stay committed and can be re-allocated at any time (which resets the build-up) Proposals are automatically executed—often with treasury funds released—once time-weighted conviction crosses an adaptive threshold tied to the amount requested.   

Conviction Voting translates persistent, growing conviction directly into binding, resource-allocating decisions.

Commitment Voting

Commitment Voting is an aspect of proposal/election voting in which winners prove their dedication to their choice. A voter commits to locking up a number of tokens for a period of time, which determines the voting power added to the voter’s selected candidate. If the voter’s selection wins the election, their tokens continue to be locked up as committed; voters who supported the opposing side immediately have their committed tokens returned to them.

Commitment Voting channels intensity into a binding choice where victory comes with an opportunity cost and there are few downsides to supporting a losing candidate.

veToken Systems

Curve’s veCRV, Aragon OSx gauges, and Velodrome have users lock up tokens for a duration of time as a prerequisite for receiving voting power. Longer lockups provide more voting power, which can be used in all votes for the duration. These systems allow users to convey their intensity of preference for participating in voting in general, but does not convey intensity of preference on specific votes.

So what's next?

The Signals proof of concept was developed during the Arbitrum Collabtech Hackathon, where it won first place. We continued to work on our Bond Marketplace (a Signals sub-system) during the Uniswap Hooks Incubator which won prizes from Arbitrum and the Uniswap Foundation.

All smart contracts and web app dashboard code is open source and can be found at https://github.com/0xLighthouse/signals

We are now seeking the brightest minds to work with us on producing a whitepaper to formally prove the most interesting properties of the protocol:

• Capturing voter preference intensity

• Opportunity cost as sufficient risk

• Locking mechanisms improving sybil resistance

• Gamifying Endorsements to trustlessly reward and build reputation

• Empowering smaller voting blocks increases inclusivity

These collective properties are poised to solve some of Ethereum’s biggest challenges when it comes to on-chain sensemaking and capital allocation.

If you are interested in Signals please reach out.

References

Conviction voting, https://github.com/1Hive/conviction-voting-cadcad/blob/master/README.md

Curve Finance. 2025. Understanding veCRV. [online] Curve Resources. Available at: https://resources.curve.fi/reward-gauges/understanding-vecrv

DAOstar. 2025. DAO Delegate Incentive Programs: How to build for the future. [online] Available at: https://daostar.org/reports/delegate.pdf

Curve DAO (n.d.) ‘Locked CRV (veCRV) – Overview’, Curve Resources. Available at: https://resources.curve.fi/vecrv/overview/

Berg el al. (2020) Commitment Voting: A Mechanism for Intensity of Preference Revelation and Long-Term Commitment in Blockchain Governance . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3742435

Emmett, J. (2019) ‘Conviction Voting: A Novel Continuous Decision Making Alternative to Governance’, Medium (Giveth blog), 3 July. Available at: https://medium.com/giveth/conviction-voting-a-novel-continuous-decision-making-alternative-to-governance-aa746cfb9475

Khezr et al. (2024) ‘Voting with Time Commitment for Decentralized Governance: Bond Voting as a Sybil-Resistant Mechanism’, Management Science (forthcoming). SSRN pre-print, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4259599. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4259599

Aragon (2024) ‘Introducing Mode Governance’, Aragon Blog, 16 October. Available at: https://blog.aragon.org/introducing-mode-governance/

Velodrome (2022) ‘Velodrome: Launch. Part 1 – Overview’, Medium, 19 May. Available at: https://medium.com/@VelodromeFi/velodrome-launch-part-1-25b38120224a

— Arnold#1a35e1

https://mirror.xyz/lighthousegov.eth/9K3GCbkZqyndSvDkNon1ZRkA1UTZlCEKvhq1Rt5ufDs

The ships' limited lifeboats became a microcosm of societal inequality: officers and aristocrats claimed the seaworthy vessels, while the rest were abandoned to a makeshift raft of ad-hoc wood.

History echoes with the consequences of systems that prioritise status over safety. Nearly a century after the Medusa, the Titanic's tragedy would mirror the same fatal flaws: inadequate lifeboats, preferential treatment based on passenger class, and leadership decisions driven by prestige rather than prudence. In both disasters, artificial hierarchies and misaligned incentives laid bare deep structural chasms.

Today's decentralised communities stand at a crucial juncture especially those who wish to govern. These historical failures offer stark lessons about the danger of systems that concentrate power in the hands of a privileged few.

At Lighthouse, we've developed a framework through extensive experience: indexing EVM-based governance systems, participating in grant rounds, leading governance initiatives, and engaging with users across the governance spectrum. What began as an internal tool for product discussions has evolved into a comprehensive model for understanding governance challenges.

Our framework is loosely inspired by the OSI model. Here, we share our mental model of what we call the Governance Stack to help analysts, delegates, community members, and researchers pinpoint governance challenges.

From the spark of new ideas to their final execution, each layer of the stack addresses a crucial aspect of governance. Whether examining how quality proposals are generated (Ideation), how communities deliberate (Discourse), how decisions are made (Voting), how resources are deployed (Allocation), or how commitments are enforced (Accountability) - this framework helps identify weaknesses before they become failures.

The Governance Stack offers a systematic approach to thinking about resilient systems that distribute power effectively and the necessary checks and balances required at each layer.

💡 Ideation: Where new initiatives, proposals and policies originate.

At this layer, stakeholders generate creative solutions, identify issues, and lay out potential pathways for action. Ideation is akin to the application layer in the OSI model—it’s what the end participants interact with directly, shaping the future direction and agenda of the community or organisation.

💬 Discourse: Deliberation and refinement, where raw ideas are turned into clearly articulated proposals.

Here, participants debate, provide feedback, and negotiate. This layer encourages transparency, logical reasoning, and persuasion, ensuring that proposals are scrutinised, clarified, and improved before any formal decision-making. Much like how presentation and session layers in networking handle the preparation and management of communication, the discourse layer manages the flow of ideas and perspectives among stakeholders.

🗳 Voting: Formal decision-making, where validated proposals are put to a formal test of support.

At this layer, stakeholders cast votes, employ consensus mechanisms, or follow predefined rules to finalise which proposals move forward. This is analogous to the transport layer in networking, which ensures reliable, orderly interaction. The voting layer guarantees that outcomes reflect the collective will and that processes remain fair, authoritative, and decisive.

🌾 Allocation: Resource distribution and implementation, where decisions are transform into actions.

Once a proposal passes through the voting layer, the allocation layer determines how resources—funds, personnel, attention—are deployed. Like the network layer in OSI, it figures out “how” the result will be routed into real-world operations. It ensures that approved initiatives are properly funded, assigned owners, and set into motion.

🔍 Accountability: Oversight and enforcement layer, ensuring that executed actions meet their objectives.

This final layer monitors performance, audits results, and enforces consequences if agreements are not honoured. Similar to how the data link and physical layers in OSI ensure error-checking and signal integrity, the accountability layer validates that decisions lead to the intended outcomes and that participants remain responsible for their commitments.

-----

Thinking about Governance using this mental model has consistently helped our team align on product decisions. This coupled with our long term ideas on network economies shape our product roadmap.

It is important to note that unlike the OSI model where a user is typically only interfacing with the Application layer, here we would expect that users are interfacing voluntarily at each layer of the Governance stack.

We share this in good faith and welcome feedback; knowing that in any networked system, its topology is continuously evolving. 

[1] The Raft of the Medusa, 1818-19, Theodore Gericault., Musee du Louvre, Paris.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raft_of_the_Medusa

Dear Reader, Thank you for taking the time. If you care about governance and can help by connecting us to people who may be interested in our work, please don't hesitate to email us at hello@lighthouse.cx

"When the world we are trying to explain and improve…is not well described by a simple model, we must continue to improve our frameworks and theories so as to be able to understand complexity and not simply reject it." — Elinor Ostrom

Some years from now, blockchain-based network economies will develop a rich operating tapestry radically different from the business models we know today. 

When thinking about networks, systems, or protocols, I often think about the Kardashev Scale — which is used to measure a civilization's ability to harness and utilise energy. In a similar vein, we can assess a network by its ability to capture and distribute economic value effectively.

Value Capture is a network's ability to generate revenue from its operations and convert user interactions into economic benefits.

Value Distribution describes how effectively a network can allocate captured value among its stakeholders — which typically includes investors, labour contributions, end users, and perhaps the protocol itself.

When assessing various networks, we look at the following attributes:

• Adaptability: How does it evolve with project needs and market conditions?

• Transparency: Do changes to emissions and distributions follow clear and predictable mechanisms?

• Value-alignment: Do emissions correspond to demonstrable value creation?

• Inclusivity: Do distributions serve all stakeholder groups equitably?

While many blockchain networks currently prioritise financial efficiency, tokenized economies are evolving beyond pure profit motives. As these networks mature, we're witnessing the emergence of a parallel ecosystem focused on public goods and commons-based services. 

Keeping in line with the Kardashev Scale, I have used the above criteria to loosely define three types of network economies based on what we have seen so far in the evolution of blockchain technology.

First-generation blockchain networks and tokens operate on skeuomorphic principles: predetermined emission schedules mimic precious ore mining or the economics of scarce goods, while staking and voting mechanisms mirror traditional public voting systems or corporate governance.

Bitcoin exemplifies this with its absolute rules: a 21 million supply cap, known mining rewards, fixed halving schedules, and Nakamoto consensus — a system that works as intended as a store of value. 

Though groundbreaking, such systems face significant constraints – they are limited in their ability to adapt to changing market conditions and face issues such as economic capture.

This is most clearly illustrated in Curve Finance's veLocking and other early ERC-20 tokens built on the store-of-value narrative. Curve's emission schedule effectively hindered price discovery and paved the way for Convex to "exploit" the protocol, demonstrating how a system's behaviour can be exposed to external actors optimising the rules. [1]

Type II networks are distinguished by adjustable parameter values. These on-chain systems can respond to oracles (Chainlink, UMA's Optimistic Oracle) or algorithmic information (AMM/s). These properties create reflexive systems that can adapt to changing market conditions through governance protocols.

The economic design of these networks often relies on layering game theory to align stakeholder incentives. The battleground of stablecoins and lending protocols provides great insight into how these products use updatable parameters to hedge risk and ensure protocol operation.

Aave, one of Ethereum's earliest on-chain lending protocols, demonstrated this effectiveness by securing $21B of customer funds through periods of extreme volatility. In order to do so, the underlying protocol had to be constantly monitored and refined. [2]

In contrast, systems that rely on off-chain components while claiming to be protocols have often fallen prey to the Principal Agent problem, in which there is conflict in priorities between a group and the representative authorised to act on their behalf. One example is Celsius, which was presented as a protocol and yet owed $4.7 billion to users listed as unsecured creditors when filing their Chapter 11 bankruptcy. [3]

The key takeaway is that genuine on-chain systems provided actual protection through algorithmic controls and distributed governance and were less susceptible to social dynamics and failures caused by a concentration of power.

Type III networks represent the theoretical evolution towards fully autonomous systems that operate with minimal human intervention, are highly contextual, and have a large baud rate in terms of symbols transmitted across systems.

While real-world examples have not yet been realised, these systems would likely be characterised by:

Autonomous Parameter Optimization: Multiple AI agents would continuously optimise protocols, and with access to near-instant data aggregation, evolutionary algorithms would learn from the market and adapt accordingly.

Algorithmic Value Orchestration: Informed by predictive modelling and reward optimization, dynamic fee structures would self-adjust based on network utilisation, maximising long-term protocol sustainability.

Network economies are deeply complex and require flexibility to respond to existential threats while maintaining operational equilibrium. Governance plays a crucial role at each stage of a network's ability to operate.

The innate ability to govern a system provides evolutionary advantages needed to survive in the Dark Forest. The tension between governance flexibility and security manifests most clearly in how networks respond to their environment.

While Type I networks like Bitcoin prioritise security through rigid immutability, and Type II protocols like Aave demonstrate adaptability through parameter adjustments, neither fully resolve the flexibility-stability paradox.

While attempting to distil best practices, I discovered Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom's incredible work on the commons. Though distinct from token economics, her empirical research effectively provides a roadmap to realising a Type III system.

A polycentric system is a form of governance where multiple independent decision-making centres operate with some degree of autonomy while still functioning as part of a coherent system.

Polycentric systems feature:

• Multiple centres of authority and decision-making that are formally independent

• Centres that interact and overlap in jurisdictions and responsibilities

• Significant autonomy within an overarching framework

• Coordination through various formal and informal mechanisms

Based on research of over 800 cases worldwide, Ostrom's principles for managing commons are highly relevant to blockchain and cryptocurrency governance:

1. Clearly Defined Boundaries

2. Rules Adapted to Local Context

3. Participatory Decision-Making

4. Effective Monitoring

5. Graduated Sanctions

6. Accessible Conflict Resolution

7. Right to Organise

8. Nested Enterprises

If we are to believe that tokenized economies are the future, we must also recognise that governance technology is a critical component in these emerging systems.

The evolution of network economies from Type I to Type III systems represent more than just technological advancement — it reflects our growing understanding of how to create more resilient, adaptive, and equitable digital ecosystems. Bitcoin's fixed mechanics, Aave's parametric governance, and the theoretical potential of autonomous networks each contribute valuable lessons to this evolutionary story.

While there's significant investment in tokenomics and cryptocurrency infrastructure, we're underinvesting in what truly matters: governance systems. The fundamental challenge isn't creating new tokens – it's developing robust frameworks for collective decision-making and oversight. Venture capital's disproportionate focus on tokens over governance technology reflects a misalignment between short-term profit incentives and the long-term sustainability of decentralised systems. Without sophisticated governance mechanisms, even the most elegant token designs may ultimately fail to create lasting value.

Ostrom's work on polycentric systems and commons management provides a crucial bridge between traditional governance wisdom and the future of digital networks. Her principles, validated across hundreds of real-world cases, offer practical guidelines for addressing the core challenges in network governance: balancing security with flexibility, ensuring equitable value distribution, and maintaining system integrity while enabling evolution.

As we move toward more sophisticated network economies, success will likely come from synthesising these different approaches:

• The security-first mindset of Type I networks

• The adaptive capabilities of Type II systems

• The autonomous potential of Type III networks

• The empirical wisdom of polycentric governance

The future of network economies won't be determined by technological capabilities or memes, but by our ability to implement these systems in ways that serve all stakeholders while maintaining operational resilience. As networks continue to evolve, the integration of artificial intelligence, dynamic parameter optimization, and new governance structures will likely create forms of economic organisation that we're only beginning to imagine.

What's clear is that the path forward requires us to embrace complexity rather than shy away from it. Just as Ostrom suggested, our task is not to simplify these systems, but to develop better frameworks for understanding and managing them. The next generation of network economies will need to be as sophisticated as the challenges they aim to solve, while remaining accessible and beneficial to all participants.

References

• [1] Harrigan et al (2023) Emergent Outcomes of the veToken Model

• [2] https://www.tally.xyz/gov/aave/proposal/315 

• [3] Biswas, Soma; Huang, Vicky Ge (July 15, 2022). "Celsius Owes Users More Than $4.7 Billion". Wall Street Journal. 

• Cover image: Spiral Galaxy M33 (1980). https://area-books.com/en/heat

• https://www.paradigm.xyz/2020/08/ethereum-is-a-dark-forest

• https://nounsfarcaster.com/

• https://prop.house/0x767a3bdf2aa3b3201b794927a997fcf4e50d4702/3

We acknowledge that our proposal for the Nouns x Farcaster round is a component of our broader https://lighthouse.cx/ strategy. But we believe that the integration of Nouns and Farcaster into the Lighthouse roadmap sends a strong signal for the importance of governance technology in the broader ecosystem.

While the Nouns are few (263 unique holders at the time of writing), the impact of their governance is by far outsized with a broad impact across the industry.

Our proposal is very narrow in scope, as we believe in building strong governance foundations (accessibility and participation) before exploring the governance meta (trends, social, etc).

For example, @dwr recently stated that 80% of users on FC are on mobile. This is a strong signal that we should be focusing on native clients and experiences over web.

We see governance tooling as a way continue to push the envelope on what is possible with on-chain communities.

The Nounish model of governance (candidates, proposals, rounds, props, signals) has been proven successful as evidenced by the success of the Nouns builder program. From our perspective it is hard to ignore these relationships.

We believe that porting the Nouns model of governance to be natively supported is a stepwise improvement when it comes to Nounish governance. Building a cross-platform native mobile app that is performant and user friendly is non-trivial.

This is further evidenced in our research to date, where interviews we have conducted have indicated that most people struggle to keep up with governance activity and many are indeed part of many DAOs; Nouns, Nounish or otherwise.

TL;DR

- Nouns governance is a proven method of social coordination

- We value:

- Client diversity

- Native mobile experiences

- Aggregating governance meta

- Social integrations

We use the word "community" to describe a group of people who share similar interests, and who are connected via ownership of one or more tokens (DAO governance tokens, NTFs, or even community-based meme tokens). As the on-chain ecosystem develops, new primitives are emerging which change how these groups coordinate. Tokens are no longer limited to representing ownership, they can also enable their holders to perform actions in a privacy-preserving manner.

Web2 gave us the "Like" and "Share". Web3 has given us "Vote", "Mint", "Collect", "Tip" (so far) We are only beginning to scratch the surface of what is possible.

Having participated for several years in various communities, and having led a community myself for over a year, I've experienced firsthand the challenges on-chain communities face. In my experience, being able to ensure that the information being transmitted reaches it's intended recipient, has not been tampered with, and originates from the person/people claiming to be the author is one of the biggest issues facing the core participants of these groups. I would call this a "communications challenge".

This stems from channel fragmentation and poor personal security protocols, the largest risks of which include:

• Phishing links

  • Users impersonating fake accounts on Twitter/Discord/Telegram

  • Compromised accounts due to poor password management

• False information / Misuse of Community Power

  • Leadership conflicts bleeding into the community creating unsafe spaces

  • False information posted to large communities resulting in loss of digital assets

• Compromised anonymity/pseudo-anonymity

  • Joining collaboration sessions using Web2 tooling that requires the divulging of email addresses, phone numbers, or other Personal Identifiable Information (PII)

• Accountability

  • Fraudulent projects setup accounts, raise money, make promises, and then delete records of past communications with the community

With the acceleration of AI such as GTP-4 and deepfakes, malicious actors preying on both novices and advanced users will only increase. Thus, the ability to verify that the information you are consuming is displayed as intended and agreed upon by the rules of the community becomes essential for establishing greater trust and making collaborative decisions by the community.

Our answer to these problems is Lighthouse. Our platform empowers community leaders to effectively engage with their members, in a verifiable and trustless way, and deliver actionable content to those who've opted in.

We started as a protocol, and even open sourced a PoC at ETHGlobal Lisbon 2023. However, in talking to everyday users since then, we soon came to the realisation that most people who want to get started are still extremely scared of performing on-chain actions. This led us to the decision to launch a product which can slowly chip away at that fear, and show people that creating and managing a Web3 native community doesn't need to be intimidating.

Unlike traditional consumer social apps focused on transactional Web3 events, Lighthouse serves as a dedicated space for community-centric actions. Our native mobile app presents a streamlined view to minimise voter fatigue [3] allowing for focused participation and serving as an easier entry point to on-chain participation.

For community leaders, Lighthouse makes it simple to configure the who and how of participation in your community.

• Should announcements be written to the blockchain so you can build trust with your holders?

• Should proposal discussions be public, or limited to token holders only? Or perhaps only open to people who have held their tokens for a certain number of days?

• How do you identify who actively participates and reward them?

• We even solve logistical challenges; perhaps there is a Town Hall scheduled and you need to remind your holders you are about to go live in 5 minutes!

So how does this differ from other consumer-facing social apps? Where other Web3 Native social apps do a great job focusing on transactional events of Web3, Lighthouse aims to be a hub where you can focus on the actions you care about in specific communities. Think of it as your Discord or Telegram announcements channel, but with additional powers.

We deliver this in an easy to consume format that does not force users to sign up to a mailing list or remember to check for updates on whatever platform the community organizers have picked.

Our goal is to gently introduce new users to the web3 way of thinking, while still allowing power users the ability to verify and unpack the more complicated aspects of web3 interactions

By enabling more communication participation and discussion, we hope to foster stronger communities who are better informed, thus creating a positive feedback loop for even more innovation. As a completely bootstrapped project, we are excited and proud to share with you a glimpse of what the future could be and to begin our journey. We plan to work deeply across the ecosystem making composability and interoperability one of the founding principles of our product.

The platform is live and available to explore at https://testnet.lighthouse.cx. Please check it out, and we look forward to hearing from you!

[1] https://deepdao.io/organizations

[2] https://decrypt.co/118438/2022-versus-2021-nft-sales

[3] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization_Toolkit_2023.pdf