Regen Ledger has begun the process of its first two network governance proposals. The first proposal concerns REGEN transfers (transfers within Regen Ledger). The second proposal concerns IBC transfers (transfers between Cosmos-based chains). At this inflection point in network maturity, it is worth reflecting on the culture and process whereby the Foundation should and might engage. In our Treasury Management Policy, we’ve established different approaches for voting for the two pools we steward. For our 5mm REGEN endowment, we’ve stated in section 1(d)(i):
“Regen Foundation will vote in alignment with its charitable cause, at its discretion.”
For the 30mm REGEN Community Staking pool we steward, we’ve stated in section 2(d)(i):
“Regen Foundation will not actively vote with these tokens.”
Now to turn to the issue at hand. The Foundation won’t vote with its 30mm REGEN pool, as this would exert undue influence. For our 5mm endowment, we’ve decided to refrain from voting. We are doing this for two reasons:
Firstly, through our delegation policy, and by the nature of the delegated Proof-of-Stake architecture, we’re relying on validators to meaningfully engage in these issues.
Secondly, these votes are about the fundamentals of the system architecture, and are not particularly controversial. They also don’t have a lot to do with the Foundation’s domains. The Foundation will serve as a voice for underrepresented stakeholders when needed. Staying aligned with this, the Foundation does intend to weigh in on some governance issues, but we feel it is more appropriate to abstain when the Foundation’s mission and competencies don’t directly relate to the issue at hand.
In conclusion, as a founding member of the Regen Network community attending to a specific facet of the broader ecosystem, the Foundation would like to be discerning in when we do and don’t vote our tokens.