🧠 Any interest in a DGov Score Framework? #orgxp

Similar to Consensyss’ new DeFi Score, “a framework for assessing risk in permissionless lending platforms.”

Github Repository: https://github.com/consensys/defi-score.

Whitepaper: https://github.com/ConsenSys/defi-score/blob/master/whitepaper.md

Would anyone be interested in working with me on such a framework?

1 Like

Hi I am interested for collaboration


1 Like

I’ll support that! Was thinking about the OrgXP score, meaning how comfortable is to work in the network. E.g. onboarding, transparency, participative governance etc. So count me in =)

Hi guys! Thank you for your interest.

Here are some further musings I have on the DGov Score components based on some old work from Project Historia.

DGov Score possible components:

    1. voting percentage / total voting body;
    1. number of proposals passed;
    1. community size;
    1. number of whales;
    1. voting mechanics (e.g., amount of tokens held, 1-1 person to vote);
    1. membership types;
    1. how does someone become a member;
    1. ease of joining and leaving community;
    1. hard forks caused by [community disputes vs. software upgrades];
    1. number of forked projects;
    1. how do third parties contribute to the community and what do they get in return;
    1. decision-making protocols in use;
    1. transparency over proposals passed, failed and created;
    1. type of consensus and mining algorithm;
    1. are there enabling documents, e.g., manifesto

DGov Score based on 6 categories (the components can be categorized based on these 6 categories):

    1. membership;
    1. decision-making;
    1. governing bodies;
    1. governance metrics;
    1. third party interaction/ external affairs;
    1. significant governance events

Additional formalization:

I am reformalizing the DGov Score into 8 categories, with components:

  • membership (internal actors);
  • decision-making protocols;
  • governing bodies;
  • governance metrics;
  • binding documents, rules & regulations;
  • external actors;
  • organizational structure (e.g., hierarchial); and
  • history.

Under membership, I was thinking of the following components:

  • Joining and Leaving Process
  • Rights granted
  • Duties and Obligations
  • Costs associated
  • Membership Classes

Let me know your thoughts on adding organizational structure to the categories and the membership components.


I think you have the right idea for the components of membership, but I’m wondering if we should include something along the lines of Opportunities? I guess it might fall under rights granted, but I’m thinking of the opportunity to grow with the organization, the allocation of further responsibilities and perhaps even further voting power (something along the line of steem power, for instance). I might be off the mark here and it’s a bit abstract, but it was inspired by this interview with Nathan Schneider -> https://blog.autark.xyz/when-co-ops-meet-daos-interview-with-nathan-schneider/ (when he’s talking about leadership in institutions and coops). Does a member have the opportunity to take on more responsibility?

In saying that, I definitely believe that organizational structure needs to be included as it is something different than decision-making protocols (where the former is more technical and direct where the latter is more systematic). If there are different classes of membership (or perhaps governing bodies), for instance, how do the classes interact and can they be rated in terms of influence? Would this be an embedded hierarchy or something more fluid and susceptible to influence and change/are these structures permanent? I think it’s important to acknowledge these sorts of things.


Good points @Jackothy. I will add Opportunities to the components.

Opportunities exemplary sub-components:

  • Allocation of greater responsibilities
  • Allocation of greater voting power
  • Potential for growth within the organization

I was also considering adding homogeneity of organizations and membership as a component. Any thoughts on this addition?

Lastly, thank you for mentioning Opportunities as a component. I like the idea and I think it gives greater nuance to the internal operations (and who controls the power) of organizations.

1 Like

I wonder if homogeneity would be effectively covered within the sub-components of organizational structure, whatever they may be? As I saw it, organizational structure would be looking at things like classes of membership, hierarchy, etc. Might just sort homogeneity out ‘organically’.


Also, Max mentioned something that I’m thinking might best be included, perhaps as its own category: Transparency. I think there would be several sub-categories within that as well, accessibility (ease of access to relevant documents), access to officials, ability to see how/if people are voting, are all documents/decisions deliberated on, etc.


That is a good point. I was considering adding transparency to the governance metrics component since transparency is often considered a metric of participative governance. What are your thoughts on having transparency under governance metrics as opposed to having it as its own component?

1 Like

That is a good point. I was considering adding homogeneity originally because classes of membership and hierarchy do not capture the essence of homogeneity. For example, you may have lets say 7 classes of membership, but if all 7 classes are comprised of the same or substantially similar people, then is this truly heterogeneous? An additional example is if we have an organization with strict hierarchy but many of the members are diverse, and then compared to a non-hierarchical organization but many of the members are the same or are substantially similar, which would be considered heterogeneous?

These were my thoughts when I was considering adding homogeneity. Let me know your thoughts on this as well and if they match up with your view of homogeneity.

1 Like

Also, I made some major updates on the Github version of the DGov Score Framework. Make sure to check them out @Jackothy

Github link for reference: https://github.com/Ledgerback/Solidarity/blob/Ledgerback-patch-1/DGov_Score.md

1 Like

I definitely think it’s a good call to put transparency within governance. Also, I think you have made a really good case to add homogeneity as its own sub-component.

1 Like

Wow, those are some major updates. I’ll have to comb through it a little closer, but on first read it came pretty well exactly how I was envisioning it.

I’m going to take some notes and add some points and that over the next little bit and I’ll attach it as a collection, rather than one at a time.

1 Like

Gotch’ya. You can make a pull request on Github of the repository and make your edits there and then make a request to merge.

1 Like

Some further updates on the DGov Score Framework.

I am adding 4-5 dimensions from the organizational design/structure literature to the DGov Score Framework, in addition to the components discussed above.

Dimensions of organizational design I am adding to the Framework come from:

The dimensions are as follows:

  • decentralization
    • " the locus of authority in decision-making"
  • formalization
    • “relevance of codes and procedures for coordination”
  • integration/coordination
    • "describes the degree to which organizations coordinate activities between individuals and
      functions through formal coordination mechanisms "
  • specialization /complexity
    • “degree of functional professionalism and expertise in tasks”
  • departmentalization
    • “specialized units oriented towards specific markets, projects, and clients”

And an interesting discussion on organization effectiveness from Holotiuk et al. and Leah L. Fitchett (thoughts on adding this as well?):

  • Organizational Capacity (not necessarily effectiveness but is an interrelated concept)
    • Accounting measures (objective) (generally capital assets and resources)
    • Different types of capital (e.g., social capital and political capital)
  • Financial market measures (objective)
  • Strategic growth (subjective) (growth in comparison to competitors)
  • Client satisfaction (subjective) (whether clients are satisfied with Org’s offerings)
  • Goal-attainment (outcomes pursuant to self-proposed goals and/or its mission) (also types of outcomes)
  • Objectives and Strategies pursuant to the objectives
  • Reputation (public recognition and social trust)
  • Member engagement and leadership development (may not be needed here)

Fitchett, L.L. (2019). The Roles of Local Organizations in Collaborative Resource Governance: A Qualitative Case Study of Lake Associations. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/181f/05122f83102bac4cfb931b4fcfae15217c60.pdf

After including both organizational design and organizational effectiveness, we could redesign the framework so that the framework is applied in a 3 step manner:

  1. Determine where the organization falls under the organizational dimensions (use components as needed);
  2. Determine the (mission, capacity, objectives) of the organization (use components as needed); and
  3. Determine the effectiveness of the organization (use components as needed).

3-step process based on Fitchett, L.L. (2019). The Roles of Local Organizations in Collaborative Resource Governance: A Qualitative Case Study of Lake Associations. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/181f/05122f83102bac4cfb931b4fcfae15217c60.pdf

If you have any feedback, please post it here or on Github.

1 Like

I think these are really valuable resources, the dimensions are a perfect add. Regarding organization effectiveness, I think we’d have to be careful because - as you highlighted several times - we’re trudging into ‘subjective’ points; but yes, I think combining all of this turns it into an incredibly encompassing framework.

I guess this is the only part where I could use a bit more clarification, I kind of skimmed through the article pretty quickly and it looks really interesting, but I guess I’m wondering if your thought was to amalgamate the components and dimensions in the determination of effectiveness or to keep them as separates sorts of sections: ie, components would be more empiric and pragmatic (the meat and potatoes of the organization); dimensions would be be assessing in a more ‘meta’ type of way; and effectiveness would be more-so an analysis on our part which could lead to recommendations and so forth (I guess it would be subjective to what we consider to be desirable outcomes). Like I said, I didn’t really make it through the article in depth but this is kind of jumping out to me. Personally, I think the latter would be more effective, but that’s just an initial thought.

1 Like

Good question @Jackothy. I was initially thinking of using the components in conjunction with each step of the 3-step process. In other words, the components would help determine the score for each step. So, I was considering using them in the former.

I am interested in your take of using them in the latter, i.e., separately.

1 Like

Also @Jackothy and for everyone else, what do you think makes a DGov organization effective?

Curious to learn as well!