Table of Contents

Summary; Background; Proposal Details; Delegation Chain Transparency Requirements; Rationale; Alignment with Polkadot Values; Implementation; Governance Implications; Voting Considerations; Implementation Timeline; References; Conclusion

Summary

This proposal establishes a comprehensive framework for maintaining governance integrity across all delegate types, with specific provisions addressing the unique challenges of automated and AI-assisted delegates and ensuring full transparency in delegation chains.

Background

As our governance ecosystem evolves to include diverse delegate types, we must ensure that our accountability mechanisms evolve accordingly. This proposal builds on Polkadot's commitment to transparent governance by establishing clear standards for all delegates.

Proposal Details

This framework establishes the following considerations:

1. Conflict of Interest Management: Any delegate (human, DAO, or AI-assisted) that submits counter-proposals to modify oversight measures targeting their own governance role may benefit from independent review and potential delegation adjustments
2. Transparency Requirements: All delegates should provide transparent reasoning for votes on proposals that could affect their delegation status
3. Delegation Chain Disclosure: Complete delegation chains should be disclosed to enhance governance transparency, including:
   • All intermediary delegates between token holders and final voting entities
   • Nature of each delegation relationship (human-to-human, human-to-AI, AI-to-human)
   • Any financial or operational relationships between entities in the delegation chain
4. Technical Verification: Delegates must implement verifiable technical measures to detect and prevent conflicts of interest
5. Multi-Layer Safety Design: Algorithmic delegates must implement:
   • Independent oversight mechanisms
   • Transparent decision logs
   • Regular conflict of interest audit procedures
   • Fail-safe recusal triggers
6. Delegation Accountability: Delegates that fail to vote on governance proposals affecting ecosystem integrity without formal recusal will be subject to delegation review

Delegation Chain Transparency Requirements

To ensure full accountability throughout the governance supply chain:

Procurement Transparency Analogy

This framework applies established procurement transparency principles to governance delegation. Just as contractors must disclose subcontractors to ensure quality, insurance coverage, and compliance with labor standards, delegates must provide transparency about their delegation chain. This ensures that governance decisions maintain appropriate standards throughout the entire decision-making process, regardless of how many layers of delegation exist.

Key parallels include:

• Quality Assurance: Just as procurement requires verification of subcontractor qualifications, delegation chains must demonstrate competence at each level
• Liability Coverage: Similar to professional indemnity requirements in contracting, delegation chains must maintain clear accountability pathways
• Compliance Verification: Like verification of working rights and compensation coverage in procurement, delegation chains must demonstrate adherence to governance standards
• Chain of Responsibility: Both domains recognize that responsibility flows through the entire chain, not just the primary contractor/delegate

Specific Requirements

1. Complete Delegation Record: All delegates must maintain a public, immutable record of their complete delegation chain for each governance decision, including:
   • Identity of all entities involved (human, AI, or organizational)
   • Specific role of each entity in the decision process
   • Quantified contribution of each entity to the final decision
   • Decision-making methodology and criteria
2. Human Oversight Disclosure: Any AI delegate must disclose:
   • Whether human oversight exists for their decisions
   • The extent of human override capability
   • The conditions under which human intervention occurs
   • Historical record of human interventions
3. Decision Input Transparency: All delegates must document:
   • Sources of information used in decision-making
   • External influences on the decision (lobbying, etc.)
   • Weight given to different factors in the decision
   • Changes in decision process over time
4. Pre-Delegation Announcement: Any delegation of voting power must be:
   • Announced before the vote, not after
   • Publicly documented with clear reasoning
   • Open to community scrutiny
   • Consistent with the delegate's stated governance principles
5. Cross-Chain Accountability: Delegation does not absolve the original delegate of responsibility:
   • The original delegate remains accountable for delegated votes
   • Conflicts of interest apply to the entire delegation chain
   • Recusal requirements extend to all entities in the chain
   • Non-conformances by any entity in the chain affect the entire chain

Rationale

This framework addresses inherent governance tensions that arise in complex delegation systems. By establishing clear guidelines for transparency and conflict of interest management, we create a more robust governance system that maintains legitimacy while allowing delegates to fulfill their duties effectively.

The delegation chain transparency requirements ensure accountability through delegation while ensuring that the full governance supply chain is visible to all stakeholders.

Alignment with Polkadot Values

This framework directly supports key principles from Polkadot's foundational documents:

1. Polkadot DAO Constitution: Aligns with Article IV on Transparency, which requires that "all governance activities, not limited to proposal discussions and voting records, should be visible and transparent to all DOT holders." The proposal also supports Article VIII's ethical standards for maintaining network integrity.
2. Polkadot Human Rights Declaration: Upholds Article II on Governance Principles by promoting balanced representation and preventing governance capture by any single entity or type of delegate.
3. Polkadot Mission: Advances the vision of "a decentralized utopia where apps, services, and institutions can connect and thrive without the meddling of untrustworthy giants" by ensuring transparency and accountability in delegation systems.

Implementation

This change requires no technical implementation but establishes clear guidelines for delegation administrators to enforce through existing oversight mechanisms.

Governance Implications

This proposal recognizes several inherent governance trade-offs:

1. Delegation Fulfillment vs. Conflict of Interest Management: Addressing conflicts of interest may create tensions with delegation duties
2. Operational Autonomy vs. Transparency: Enhanced transparency requirements may impact operational autonomy but strengthen governance legitimacy
3. Governance Coverage vs. Specialization: Domain-specific governance considerations may create governance coverage considerations

These trade-offs represent inherent tensions in delegation-based governance that this framework helps address through clear guidelines and transparency requirements.

Governance Standards

This framework establishes governance standards that:

1. Addresses potential conflicts of interest when delegates participate in their own oversight
2. Promotes appropriate separation between delegates and their governance
3. Supports the integrity of delegation systems
4. Strengthens safeguards against governance concentration
5. Establishes accountability mechanisms for governance participation
6. Enhances governance transparency through delegation disclosure
7. Clarifies the human-AI interaction in governance decisions

Constitutional Considerations

Upon successful implementation of this framework, potential additions to the Polkadot DAO Constitution could include:

1. Article III Consideration: A new section in Article III (Governance Framework) specifically addressing delegation chain transparency and conflict of interest management for all delegate types.
2. Article VIII Consideration: Expansion of Article VIII (Ethical Standards) to explicitly include the governance integrity standards established in this proposal.

These constitutional considerations would help integrate these governance standards at the ecosystem level, supporting their consistent application.

Voting Considerations

When evaluating this proposal, consider the following:

• Fundamental importance of conflict of interest management for governance integrity in delegation systems
• Unique challenges posed by algorithmic delegates in governance systems
• Value of consistent standards across all delegate types
• Precedent this sets for responsible AI integration and delegation in governance
• Importance of transparency in multi-layer delegation chains

Implementation Timeline

1. Proposal Submission: September 15th, 2025
2. Voting Period: 28 days following submission
3. Implementation (if passed): Immediate upon passing
4. Review Period: 14 days after implementation (aligning with standard governance review processes)
5. Accountability Measures: Implemented following review period based on compliance assessment
6. Compliance Deadline: 30 days after implementation for all delegates to implement required transparency measures

References

1. Polkadot OpenGov Framework
2. Polkadot DAO Constitution
3. Polkadot Human Rights Declaration
4. Polkadot Mission Statement
5. Polkadot Whitepaper
6. PolkAssembly Discussion: Governance Integrity Framework for Delegated Systems

Conclusion

By adopting this proposal, Polkadot will establish a comprehensive governance integrity framework that applies consistent standards across all delegate types. This framework addresses the inherent trade-offs in delegation-based governance by creating transparency requirements that function like procurement standards in traditional systems.

Through clear delegation chain disclosure and conflict of interest management, we can strengthen accountability throughout the entire governance supply chain while allowing delegates to fulfill their duties effectively in appropriate domains.

Version Control

Version: 1.0.0
Last Updated: 2025-09-15
Status: Final
Author: Clawbird Pty Ltd
Internal Proposal ID: WFC-2025-002
License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Version History

Version	Date	Changes
1.0.0	2025-09-15	Finalized proposal for submission