On chain proposal

Hi all,

What are we trying to do with this platform? I’m new, so a sentence or two would help me understand.

Are we simply here to make money, or work collectively to build something with vision, more than which already exists, something worth being part of?

Decentralisation was a key factor in what attracted many here. That said, we’re only here first thanks to the Ava Labs team. So with regards to some peoples concerns around anonymity (which I can appreciate) … imagine if Ava Labs created this and completely stepped away? Then what. Somehow that would seem unnatural to me.

Right now, I hope they are here, doing useful things and planning something great.

But as mentioned, I do appreciate the concerns that some people have, if true decentralisation is what we/you are really trying to achieve.

As far as I can see, proposals need a majority vote before being enacted? Therefore even if Ava Labs members were to be involved here in a dominant fashion, they would only be performing actions we had all voted on first? This seems fair to me.

If Pangolin grows, the team should with it, and you should achieve further decentralisation in representation.

For me decentralisation is still always going to require some level of trust in people. Like we trust the Avalanche community and team to continue to use and improve Avalanche, and like I’m trusting you guys not to sell all of your PNG right now. :wink:

Ava Labs and their team are the root, Pangolin just one flower of many budding projects in the Avalanche ec(h)oystem. I don’t think there is a clear answer to satisfy everybody for now, that’s why voting exists.

I do think we need the team at Avalanche (and each other) to keep doing good things, so I would just say be human and remember all of the trust (or was it belief?) that you gave each other (and which enabled you) to come this far.

1 Like

I agree with you and will support you.
Actually having SEQ and Xavier in the multsig would be better, in my opinion.
I trust them even without knowing their real identities because of all the commitment they have done for the community.


What are we trying to do with this platform?

  • Assemble a core team of talented contributors to execute on the Roadmap
  • Empower and educate users to use Pangolin and DeFi
  • Build a robust community around the project
  • Attract new users, both from other chains and users who are using DeFi for the first time
  • Support DeFi projects on Avalanche and grow the ecosystem

I support these folks as multisig.

If there is a need for someone who has minimal bias, I would be more than happy to support. Seems ppl have an issue with anonymity. So would happy to be an additional identified persona. I have a broad skillset and would be more than happy to support Pangolin on the multisig without bias and for the benefit of Pangolin alone. Also, governance and crypto-economic systems are the focus on my consultant. Currently, majority of my focus has been on Snowball & Pangolin because of the adoption of on-chain governance.

I think it is vital we move forward and not let perfect be the enemy of what is necessary. Let’s get this thing done because it is vital to seize the opportunities in front of us.



My concern is not related to anonymous members, that’s completely fine and I vouch for it as I am anonymous myself, would be hypocrite to say anything else

What I’m not seeing addressed is the concern of THE TEAM being able to take decisions by themselves without any external approval or review.

5 team member - 5 approvals needed does not fit the external approval, community trusted individuals reviewed the proposal and approved.

Please, it is really important to review this, the team alone SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO APPROVE.

The project is not own by the team therefore, the team should not take decisions of how to spend money without external approval.

It all reads nicely, but we should put ourselves in the shoes of the DEX Pangolin users.

Before I go on with my thoughts on the design, I would like to make the following statement in advance:

  1. Pangolin is a DEX that belongs to the Avalanche ecosystem.
  2. Avalanche is a project launched by Avalabs.

If that’s wrong please correct me.

I have followed the Pangolin project from the start, since it has been live. I am also in the Telegram group from Pangolin and read what is written there, also Twitter etc.

Who is responsible for pangolin?
From my point of view, clearly Avalabs, even if from the beginning it was communicated in the media in such a way that it is community-led. The degree of success of DEX Pangolin will of course influence the Avalanche project and, of course, Avalabs.

If Pangolin fails because the user does not use it, i.e. does not trade on DEX, this will negatively affect the image of Avalanche, and if it is successful, it will also inspire Avalanche.

For the reason just described, of course, Avalabs and its influence on pangolin will not be given up. As a potential user, I don’t want that either. Avalabs must continue to support the project until it is finally consolidated.

Now we come to the actual post ‘On Chain Proposal’.

We shouldn’t think in terms of people, but rather look at the whole as a system.

It’s a DEX. This DEX whether you want it or not is an organization.
The Pangolin organization also needs people to maintain, control, etc. For this purpose there are developers, strategists, marketing experts, etc.

The goal is the sustainable success of DEX Pangolin.

The system must not be dependent on people. It has to be a system in which the processes are defined and the rules in the processes.

The person Xavier the admin, among others, in the telegram group Pangolin is, what if he fails, who is the replacement? What if he is permanently absent because he finds other tasks at another company, his interests change, etc. This also applies to the other people and their functions.

Of course, DEX needs people, but it shouldn’t be that you are looking for a job for people, but the right person has to be found for the job.

For this reason, the following is absolutely necessary:

  1. What processes are there?
  2. What are the tasks in the processes?
  3. Which people are required for the tasks in the processes?
  4. What powers do the people have and what are they responsible for?
  5. Who are the representatives of the people?

If the SUSTAINABILITY project is to be successful, answers must be given to these types of questions.

A note regarding admins in the Telegram group, there are others than Xavier who moderate in the Pangolin group, how do they feel now? how motivated are they? The same applies to the other Avalanche telegram groups.

Even if some people have the feeling that a lot is being written here and that it sounds too theoretical, it is not. This is real in the economy, also in the stock exchanges…

Another important point is the evaluation of the performance.

How do we rate the performance?

But I’m stopping here now, because it would go beyond the scope.

see also:

Roles, responsibilities, authorities


I think this is a very valid discussion point.

First of all we need to classify what processes are needed. Let’s talk abit about just some of them:

  • Development workflows. How do we manage external contributors? How do we manage access to trusted credentials?
  • Financial processes. How do we pay suppliers (bounties)? Are we beholden to the local tax laws of those suppliers?
  • Hiring processes
  • Treasury processes. Multisig. Delegations of Authority. Segregation of duties.
  • Legal structure
  • Marketing processes
  • Human Resources
  • Asset management and IP protection
    As you can see it’s a huge job. This isn’t something that on day 1 will be there. My preferred method to this is to have business process diagrams that are then publicly available and open to scrutiny, debate and improvement.

I have used BPMN extensively. Although it can be confusing to people not used to it. Infographics and other easily digestible media could also be used to easily and transparently show what these processes are.

Within those diagrams of processes, it should be clear what the tasks are and who should be performing them.

The delegration of authority and segregation of duties will help to determine what power who has within the structure.

In terms of the people’s representation. This for me is where we should actually be having the most robust discussion. What government do we want? Do we want a Democracy? Do we want a Plato inspired Republic with philospher kings? Do we want a meritocracy similar to what Singapore has done? This I think is the single most important discussion for Pangolin’s future. It’s a question that’s haunted mankind for centuries.

It’s also something I don’t think we’re going to get right from the outset. For this we need someone that has studied the works of Bukunin, Chomsky, Dewey, Hegel, Hume, Jefferson, Thoreau Kropotkin et al.

So I’d suggest we implement a temporary representative of the people structure, but long term we need to have robust debates. Debates that involve researching influential political philosophers that critique and examine their practicality for our DAO.

We get to choose the world we inhabit. Governance is going to be the single most important factor that determines our fate.


Hey Bari,

Hari’s proposal includes funding for bounties, which will be used to reward community members who contribute to the Pangolin codebase by fixing bugs, adding new features, helping maintain the codebase… The dev team has started working on an initial list of tasks, and new suggestions will be very welcome. Hari should give us more details soon, so stay tuned.


@hariseldon2 would it possible to consider adding @Jomari for the multisig if people on here are okay with it? that would allow us to use a 6 out of 9 majority and assuage concerns that the Pangolin team can approve transactions by themselves.

I’ve been in touch with @Jomari and he’s always been great. Also a lot of people I respect speak very highly of him. I’d be all for this, if the community agrees.

Let’s be clear here, even if I’m part of the team, that doesn’t mean that I will be influenced by the other team members, I am definitely going to be more “influenced” by SEQ opinions.

I didn’t know BPMN, thanks for the link, it saved me time. This is also called practicability, which simply leads the participants to their goal.

Let’s get to BPMN, it’s a method. This method has also been elevated to
ISO / IEC 19510:2013 as an international standard. The İSO has a wide variety of standards, one of which is particularly suitable for the subject at hand is the İSO on management systems. For example İSO 9001:2015 (quality management system), İSO 27000:2018 (information management system) etc.

In the management systems, the processes are in the foreground and these are mapped in a process landscape.

Actually exactly what is used for BPMN in business informatics, exactly the same is also used in other areas. The principle is the same, namely the processes, the responsibilities, etc. are mapped in an understandable way for everyone, thus also creating transparency. Documents, files, videos, etc. can be linked in the process landscape. Everyone can navigate in them independently.

@hariseldon2 The communication shows me that the selection with you as a multisig team member is good and correct from today’s perspective.

For my opinion the mapping of the process landscape should be started as soon as possible. It would also do a great job of communicating and conveying meaning together.

I support these folks as multisig :muscle:

I read the work of Seq since i know avalanche before mainnet and he do an enormous work of analys and technical communication with hight quality level.
Also he provides a Avalanche nodes with lowest fees and i always delegate my AVAX on his node.

I support the idea of use process landscape, is good tools for work and good for communicate process to the community with "simply’ representation.

The proccess approch of ISO 9001 is interesting, i work in quality department of my company and i use that.

Process landscape for first and after we can do one sheet by process with input, outpout, responsibility ect… (more exemple is disponible on google)

I don’t now BPMN software, personally i use LucidChart software to do my process in my company.

PNG to the moon with love :rocket:

@hariseldon2 Here is a constructive feedback, I believe there should be an auditor in the team that reveals numbers and insights about what happens in the management. Therefore, people will trust the coreteam, because they will know what’s going on inside. Additionally, the auditor(s) shouldn’t be effected by the conflict of interest by tokenomics. If this happens, there will be more new comers to pangolin in my opinion.

1 Like

That was my interest to imagine this role, but I decided against it because I did not want to do it alone. Because I do not know anyone here before Pangolin I’m almost in the Core team (as Advisor) without having known someone before, so I have no party I’m not dependent and no one depends on me. However, I am now also in the committee and did not want to additionally a further role, so that no conflict of interest matters.

My idea was to control between:
Avalanche → Core Team → Committee → Create community so that everything remains transparent. I think this role is needed.


So for the auditor we’d then need someone that isn’t interested in Tokenomics. So would they be able to hold PNG?

Interested in how this would work?

I like this, great job including everyone else into the project. :v:


Yes please, transparency is very important for trusting the project.


Great post, makes me excited.

It looks like you covered all the bases for png to pick up some speed.

I would also recommend adding some sort of estimated timeline to the roadmap. It would give a sense of moving forward to the whole community.

Best regards,

1 Like

Basiclly, what I would except from the auditor is to reveal requested data from management to community. This may be applied by sharing meeting notes. financial documents, detailed road map exposure, etc.for the people who wants to participate but do not understand the business and codes.

The biggest concern of the people is get dumped when a project is pumped. The auditor should be aware of these kinds of concerns.S/he should have the authority to deal with them. Because, when Ripple had the lawsuit from SEC, owners dumped their assets on their retail investors. It was legal what they had done but not ethical. I lost all of good faith in $XRP when I learnt and never invested my money back.

Maybe, auditors can also be elected from community regarles of the core team, like judges? Therefore, auditors income could be seperated from core team. Maybe, they can’t change anything in business plan but have authorisation to publish everything? Just a thought.

In short, core team care about business, auditors care about people.

I ment that core team and auiditors payment mechanisms should be seperate, saying by

Everybody is interested with tokenomics of $PNG in here :slight_smile: it is almost impossible to find ones who aren’t. Because everybody will earn $PNG at the end of the day, unless salaries are based on $USD. But, still treausery is $PNG.

If regardless of PNG tokenomics are desired there could be 3rd party auditors outrside of the community. But, I think 3rd party won’t care Pangolin people as much as community insider.

Looking forward to hear what do you think about.

1 Like