Cocoon Committee Proposal; Part One

I’d like to start off by saying I love watching this community sift through ideas, develop and really start to thrive. The Devs and Aadmins of Aavegotchi have been truly great, which is an obvious boon to any foundation looking to build more on top of itself. I know I would not be the only one in saying I have a lot of respect for their vision.

Along with the help of this budding community, the atmosphere outlined in the whitepaper and wiki is easily within our reach. I don’t think I have ever been more passionate about an investment, let alone Defi in general. Aavegotchi has me excited for the future. There are some noticeably big days ahead and with the start of Rarity Farming SZN 1 on April 20th, May will be a huge month for a lot of us. To help us continue in an organized, healthy fashion I would like to call on the community to spark up the discussion revolving around committees and their spot at the table. Ideas of the community taking over certain DAO functions have been a part of the discussion for some time, and the AavegotchiDAO, as it becomes more elaborate and functional will need structured leadership.

I propose an early upgrade to the Cocoon Roadmap that includes the structuring of the 1st committee, an Aavegotchi High Council Committee, a builder committee. I’ve created a rough draft example of a proposal geared towards bringing these committees into existence, minus plenty of details that I’d like to use this forum post to define.

Cocoon Committee Proposal; Part 1 {READ THIS} —>Cocoon Committee Proposal - Google Docs

Main Details to Discuss within Part 1
*Builder Committee Scope & Formation Ideas
*Self-Sufficiency & Organization
*Responsibilities & Requirements

Future Additions
Cocoon Committee Proposal; Part 2
*Additional Committees Needed – Treasury/Marketing, Minigames/Development, Snapshot/Proposal Committee, etc….
*High Council Application/Committee Formation Application Process

Cocoon Committee Proposal; Part 3
*Independent Structure Template
*Early Smart Contract & VRF Implementation Rough Drafts
*Committee Governance/Election Process

There are a number of things that need to be fully thought out and discussed among the community before we can move forward with a finished proposal, so I’m counting on everybody to take some time, and really think about their responses/thoughts on the matter. We have the potential to create something that becomes a model for Dapps across the entire Web3 space. Let’s mold something that compliments everything we want to see in this Gotchiverse!

Your friend,
Grip <3


I like this idea. I work for the UK largest employee owned business and am a part of the democratic body. We need a council for sure, else through human nature (self serving greed) we will box ourselves into a corner. A councils role could be to hold the exec (Pixelcraft Studios) to account, maybe on delivering on a set, wider purpose. Councillors would need to put themselves forward with a manifesto and the community vote to elect them. The councillors will represent their constituents, IMO council role needs to be no longer than 12 months, and the community can vote for them to be removed if they do not perform against a set criteria.

I also feel we need a constitution, a set of rules that we strive to live by within the community for the betterment, fairness of all, this set of rules could be placed in the Aavagotchi DAO section for all to see. Council can vote to change the rules as the community and landscape changes. Am happy to show examples of a constitution upon request, its essentially our purpose, our principles, our reason, our why. Further ‘Forums’ can be created that sit under council to represent different parts of the community.

Exciting to see a fusion of digital and real world democracy.


Nice, these are definitely some of the details we need to discuss.
I like the idea of a type of application process through this manifesto you mentioned. I’ve already started on a couple different rough drafts for applications.
In the beginning I think this may be the best approach when adding members.

The election process would have to be a transitioning model. The community becoming more involved, everybody getting an equal chance to show up and try out a leadership role is the ultimate goal. This is where it becomes interesting, I say we put our heads together and create an even more unique system of eligibility and selection. This would include Pools of community members that fit the requirements, being selected through a randomized Chainlink VRF event. In time we can host elections allowing the community to keep who they like in the pools, and push out who doesn’t have the communities interests at heart. (Pretty much what you’ve stated.)

But I believe that with the candor and aplomb these Devs and Aadmins have shown, they could help us mold the 1st High Council to create a Blueprint Model of what a healthy Committee looks like. VRF will become part of the long term election process, but the first one may need more of a hands on approach so we can hit the ground running. Not everybody eligible will be a great fit and I could see VRF creating a “weak” first team unintentionally. There are key members within the community already that have shown great promise in becoming solid leaders, this could also be a very cool thing to get them even more involved as well as motivate other people to step up within the DAO for when it opens up even more.

I think the term limits should be short. Imo 2-3 months may be a solid period of time, but who knows, maybe we’ll find that we need longer. The crypto space moves fast and we need to be just as flexible to accommodate.

I love the constitution idea! That would be a great addition. A set list of rules for the DAO and by extension it’s committee’s. I believe we have a lot of material within the whitepaper and wiki that could be converted into such a thing.
Forums underneath each Committee would be great as well.

DM me an example of your current constitution if you will!


I can tell you’ve put a lot of thought and effort into this proposal, and I think that’s awesome! I’ve been meaning to get around to responding to this thread, but haven’t really felt like I had much to add at this point. Right now it feels like there are a whole lot of details to be ironed out for Aavegotchi governance, and decision-making seems to be going rather slowly, probably because of the overwhelming breadth of issues that need to be addressed.

Specific to any sort of “initial” committee selection process, I prefer the more “hands-on” approach rather than trying to implement VRF right off the bat (and I’m not immediately seduced by the idea of using VRF in this application generally, but am open to seduction :slightly_smiling_face:).

I also think it’s important to establish in very clear terms what kind of decisions no committee will ever have power to make on behalf of the community. Huge decisions (like scheduling subsequent Haunts) should, in my opinion, always remain in the hands of the community as a whole, and I think many people will feel even more strongly about this once we’ve ironed out an acceptable solution for assigning voting power to gotchis/wearables.


Thank you for the response Jujy! I appreciate it.
Maybe you have way more to add than you think! I know most people are uncomfortable around politics of any kind, and these feelings are warranted. The examples we have throughout most countries are inadequate. Where I live in the U.S.A., we are constantly represented by foolish public figures that seem to keep doing more harm than good. There is a lot to be concerned about within any type of Governance.
But here, we can create our own type. A Decentralized Governance that represents exactly what this community wants, with a platform that allows the little guys, just as well as any large supporter, to make a legitimate impact.

I agree that a hands on approach in the beginning is the best choice.
If only just to provide an example to future committees what it is exactly that is expected of them.
This will clearly be defined before any committee becomes active, but we all know it’s one thing to “know” something and another to actually do it. Following in the steps of a solid committee is ideal.
Moving towards a VRF selection process is key though. Over time, the selection pools will adjust themselves accordingly. The community will vote to keep the members they like. Maybe we decide on voting to put these members into their own smaller selection pool for a higher chance at bringing them back as committee leaders.

Establishing clear terms is exactly why we are here, and right away I could abate your fears by stating that most decisions made by any committee would need to be followed by a core proposal to initiate the change. Nothing would be able to be enacted upon, until the community shows up and decides whether or not they’d like it. These committees are mostly for organization and to be delegated tasks from the Devs and the community. If anything, I see them as a potential intermediary to fine tune community interaction.


Great impulses and initial reaches. A few thoughts:

Gotch-titutional DeGov Council Requirements to Run For/Hold Office

  • must own at least 1 aavegotchi

  • must have joined the official Aavegotchi Discord server

  • must have at least X minimum XP (nothing so high that new users are excluded)

  • must have at least X minimum Kinship (see above)

  • must have voted at least X times on Snapshot (see above)

  • must have at least 1 (or X) wearable(s) equipped

  • must have at least X frens in their wallet at the time the election is held or VRF is executed (to encourage staking and GHST purchasing to enable staking)

This last item might be the most controversial, but give it a think before replying please:

  • must be able to receive a “passing score” (to be defined) on an online, interactive test confirming their understanding of things like DAO, NFT, DeFi, Blockchain, SmartContracts, Ethereum Mainnet vs. Matic as pertains to gas fees, different types of ERC tokens, the roadmap of aavegotchi, who the lead Devs are, etc

I include that last bit because I don’t want someone ignorant of the entire blockchain/NFT space, having a vote on things they don’t understand. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but people have a lot of time and resources invested in this gotchiverse and it seems unreasonable to allow just anyone with an aavegotchi to have a hand on the steering wheel, y’know?

More than settling the issue I hope this post will spawn new ideas I haven’t thought of in this batch of top-of-my-head-ideas pertaining to who should be involved in Gotchi Governance.


Hi lfry! I love the response. These are all very viable and imo acceptable to ask of any serious member.
Apart from requiring Frens. I don’t see a need to require anybody to hold onto a minimum of something they could better utilize within raffles or other in game mechanics. I think it important that we keep requirements reasonable yet inclusive enough for our ever increasing member base to all have adequate chances to prove they are serious and ready for a leadership role!
Part of the beauty within a Committee structure is that there will be no sole person capable of making decisions based upon their own interest.
Each respective Committee would also need to pass further proposals to make any changes that they would like to spearhead. This is not something that only a handful of inexperienced people could manipulate.

I love the idea of a test portion. This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially used as a base knowledge requirement.
Great input fren!


Thanks for the feedback Grip.

I agree the frens requirement is unnecessary, just brainstorming everything I could think of related to the current gotchiverse.

I’m surprised you agree with the basic knowledge threshold being verified via a test, I was sure the first response was going to be outrage hahahaha.

I truly hope a test will be implemented for anyone seeking committee membership, just makes sense to me.


The commitee is a set of frens dedicated in accomplishing a certain goal. Be it a minigames or governing and developing a set of parcels. Committee for 8bit muusics. Would there be a need for a central comittee?

My personal opinion is that a central committee may be the most important one.
The last thing anyone working on this project needs, is to continually undertake more projects.
The Devs don’t have time to monitor everything, nor would they want to, yet tasks need to be delegated and certain functions will need to be taken care of in a self sufficient manner.
A High Council, “Builder” committee, would be able to build, regulate and monitor new committees as the community sees fit.
They will be able to step in to help with any hiccups or issues that arise internally within the different committees that develop.
They would be a very important, integral piece.

I like the input fren! Keep it coming.

I love the test portion idea!
We need ways to screen serious members that also allow for anyone in the community to work their way into a committee seat.
Knowledge is something that is within everyone’s grasp if they so choose to reach out for it. Serious members would want to know the test items, not so serious members will probably lack the adequate knowledge.
I think it a great requirement.


I think this post was swallowed up by the rest of the forum for a bit.
I’d love more community voicing and feedback guys! This is an important initiative.

1 Like

This is an important subject, and I would approach it via a new , fresh thread.
With less words, more bullet points, and def polls!

This way we give much less to digest for people, and cut straight to the point: Do we and how do we make a high council?

Just a suggestion here… thanks for bringing up this important topic fren!


I like it. I will do what you say ser. <3