-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
VOTING_SYSTEM.md
Document Type: Governance Voting Framework Project: CeloHT Status: Active / Evolving Last Updated: August 2026 Authors: Johnny Dubic & CeloHT Community
The CeloHT Voting System defines how eligible community participants may express their preferences on governance proposals.
The system is designed to support:
- Transparent decision-making
- Community participation
- Accountable governance
- Structured proposals
- Verifiable outcomes
- Responsible delegation of authority
Voting should support the CeloHT mission rather than become a mechanism for concentrating power.
CeloHT is community-oriented.
The voting system exists to help the community make important collective decisions while maintaining appropriate technical, legal, security, and operational safeguards.
Voting does not eliminate the need for expertise, evidence, or responsible review.
CeloHT voting follows these principles:
- Transparency
- Fair participation
- Clear eligibility
- Verifiable results
- Conflict-of-interest disclosure
- Security
- Accountability
- Respect for minority viewpoints
Depending on governance authority, proposals may concern:
- Strategic priorities
- Programs
- Community initiatives
- Working groups
- Treasury allocations
- Partnerships
- Governance rules
- Documentation policies
- Major project decisions
- Ecosystem development
Not every operational decision requires a community vote.
Some matters may require specialized authority or immediate action.
Examples include:
- Emergency security responses
- Private credentials
- Confidential personal information
- Active vulnerability details
- Routine technical maintenance
- Individual user support cases
Such decisions should follow the appropriate operational or security procedures.
Voting eligibility should be determined by the applicable governance rules.
Eligibility may depend on factors such as:
- Community participation
- Verified membership
- Governance role
- Contribution status
- Program participation
CeloHT should avoid creating arbitrary voting rights without a documented governance basis.
Where a governance process is designed around individual community participation, the default principle should be:
One eligible participant = one vote.
This reduces the risk that financial resources alone determine community governance.
Certain technical or specialized decisions may use other models when justified.
Possible models include:
- One-person-one-vote
- Delegated voting
- Weighted voting
- Multisignature approval
- Council voting
- Working-group approval
The applicable model should be explicitly stated in the proposal.
A governance proposal generally follows:
Idea
↓
Draft
↓
Discussion
↓
Review
↓
Formal Proposal
↓
Voting
↓
Result
↓
Execution
↓
Reporting
A formal proposal should include:
- Title
- Author
- Problem
- Proposed action
- Rationale
- Expected impact
- Risks
- Resources required
- Implementation plan
- Voting period
- Decision threshold
Before voting begins, participants should have an opportunity to review and discuss the proposal.
Discussion should focus on:
- Evidence
- Feasibility
- Risks
- Costs
- Benefits
- Alternatives
Personal attacks should not replace substantive discussion.
A proposal may be revised during the discussion period.
Material changes should be clearly identified.
If a change substantially alters the proposal, the voting period may need to restart.
A formal proposal should specify:
- Start date
- End date
- Eligible voters
- Voting method
- Required threshold
Participants should have sufficient time to understand the proposal.
Depending on the proposal, voting options may include:
- Yes
- No
- Abstain
Additional options may be used when appropriate.
An abstention indicates that an eligible participant chooses not to support either side.
Abstentions should be reported separately.
The effect of abstentions on the final result should be defined before voting begins.
Quorum is the minimum participation required for a vote to be considered valid.
A quorum may be defined as:
Number of Valid Votes
≥
Required Participation Threshold
The applicable quorum should be published with the proposal.
A proposal may require a defined percentage of valid votes to pass.
For example:
YES votes / (YES + NO votes) ≥ Required Threshold
The exact threshold should depend on the proposal category.
For appropriate ordinary proposals, approval may require more than 50% of valid votes.
Example:
YES: 60
NO: 40
Result: APPROVED
More important decisions may require a higher threshold.
Examples may include:
- Governance changes
- Major treasury commitments
- Fundamental policy changes
- Structural changes
A supermajority requirement should be specified before voting begins.
Some decisions may require additional safeguards.
Examples:
- Changing governance rules
- Changing treasury controls
- Changing security policies
- Changing the no-token policy
- Authorizing major strategic commitments
Such decisions should have clearly documented requirements.
Treasury proposals should include:
- Amount
- Asset
- Purpose
- Recipient
- Expected outcome
- Risk
- Funding source
See:
TREASURY.md
Participants should disclose material conflicts of interest.
A participant with a significant conflict may be required to abstain depending on the applicable governance rules.
The founder may participate in governance where eligible.
Founder status should not automatically mean that one person's vote overrides the established governance process.
If CeloHT maintains a Governance Council, its voting authority should be clearly defined.
The Council should not exercise powers that have not been granted through the applicable governance framework.
See:
GOVERNANCE.md
Working groups may use internal voting procedures for operational decisions.
Working-group votes should remain within the group's delegated authority.
See:
WORKING_GROUPS.md
If delegation is supported, an eligible participant may authorize another participant to vote on their behalf.
Delegation rules should specify:
- How delegation is created
- How it can be revoked
- Whether it is proposal-specific
- Whether delegated power expires
Depending on the voting system, votes may be:
- Public
- Privately recorded
- Cryptographically verifiable
- Anonymous
The system should balance transparency with protection against coercion or retaliation.
If CeloHT uses blockchain-based governance, votes may be recorded through smart contracts.
Benefits can include:
- Public verification
- Tamper resistance
- Automated counting
- Transparent execution
Blockchain voting also introduces technical and smart-contract risks.
Community votes may also occur through approved off-chain systems.
Examples include:
- Governance platforms
- Community forums
- Structured polling systems
The chosen system should provide an appropriate audit trail.
After voting ends, results should be independently verifiable where technically possible.
Verification may include:
- Total votes
- Vote distribution
- Eligibility
- Quorum
- Approval threshold
- Final result
The voting system should prevent unauthorized duplicate votes where possible.
Controls may include:
- Account-based identity
- Cryptographic signatures
- Verified membership
- Governance credentials
A governance system must consider the possibility of fake identities attempting to obtain disproportionate influence.
Potential safeguards include:
- Verified membership
- Contribution-based eligibility
- Identity mechanisms
- Community verification
No system provides perfect Sybil resistance.
The following are prohibited:
- Fake votes
- Account impersonation
- Vote buying
- Credential theft
- Unauthorized access
- Technical manipulation
- Deliberate misinformation
Suspected manipulation should be investigated.
Participants should not exchange money or unauthorized benefits for votes.
Any attempt to purchase governance influence should be treated as a serious governance-integrity issue.
Participants should be free to vote without threats or intimidation.
Where vote privacy is available, it should be used to reduce coercion risks.
Participants may advocate for proposals through legitimate discussion.
Campaigning should remain:
- Factual
- Respectful
- Transparent
False claims and impersonation are not acceptable.
Before voting, participants should have access to enough information to make an informed decision.
A proposal should not intentionally hide material risks or costs.
Voting should close at the published deadline.
Extensions should only occur under documented governance rules.
If a vote is extended, the reason should be communicated publicly where appropriate.
Votes may be invalidated when they result from:
- Ineligible participants
- Technical manipulation
- Duplicate unauthorized submissions
- Fraud
- Other violations of the applicable voting rules
Invalidation procedures should be documented.
If the validity of a vote is challenged:
- Record the dispute.
- Preserve relevant evidence.
- Review the applicable rules.
- Investigate objectively.
- Publish the outcome where appropriate.
A recount may be performed when:
- A technical error is identified.
- Results are disputed.
- The vote margin is affected by a verified issue.
The recount process should be reproducible.
A tie should not automatically result in approval.
Possible procedures include:
- Additional discussion
- Revote
- Mediation
- Proposal modification
- Escalation to an authorized governance body
The applicable procedure should be defined in advance where possible.
A failed proposal may be revised and resubmitted.
A new vote should clearly identify what has changed.
An approved proposal should move into an implementation phase.
The responsible party should communicate:
- Implementation status
- Major milestones
- Delays
- Completion
Passing a vote does not automatically mean that every implementation detail is authorized.
Execution must remain within the authority granted by the proposal and applicable policies.
Important voting records should be preserved.
Records may include:
- Proposal
- Discussion
- Voting period
- Results
- Implementation status
- Final outcome
Final results should normally communicate:
Proposal
Voting Period
Eligible Participants
Votes
Quorum
Approval Threshold
Result
Implementation Status
CeloHT may publish aggregate governance metrics such as:
- Number of proposals
- Participation rate
- Approval rate
- Average voting participation
- Proposal categories
- Implementation rate
Metrics should be clearly defined.
Voting infrastructure should be protected against:
- Account takeover
- Smart-contract vulnerabilities
- Database manipulation
- Authentication attacks
- Denial-of-service attacks
- Unauthorized administrative actions
See:
SECURITY.md
Some emergencies cannot wait for a standard voting cycle.
Emergency powers should be:
- Narrowly defined
- Time-limited
- Documented
- Reviewable
Emergency authority should not become a permanent substitute for normal governance.
No participant should use governance authority to:
- Steal treasury resources
- Suppress legitimate criticism
- Manipulate records
- Retaliate against voters
- Obtain unauthorized personal benefits
Voting systems should be reasonably accessible to eligible participants.
Where possible, CeloHT should consider:
- Mobile access
- Clear language
- Educational explanations
- Accessible documentation
- Reasonable voting periods
Participants should be encouraged to understand:
- What they are voting on
- What authority the proposal has
- What risks exist
- What resources are involved
- What happens if the proposal passes
Changes to the voting system itself should normally require a formal governance process.
A proposal to change voting rules should explain:
- Current rule
- Proposed rule
- Reason for change
- Expected effect
- Risks
This document should be read together with:
GOVERNANCE.mdWORKING_GROUPS.mdTREASURY.mdTRANSPARENCY.mdSECURITY.md
If another authoritative governance document establishes a specific requirement, the applicable hierarchy should be followed.
The voting system should evolve as CeloHT grows.
Future improvements may include:
- Better voter verification
- Improved accessibility
- On-chain governance
- Delegation
- Better analytics
- Stronger Sybil resistance
- Independent governance audits
Voting is a tool for collective decision-making, not a substitute for responsibility.
A healthy governance system requires informed participants, transparent rules, secure infrastructure, and respect for different viewpoints.
The guiding principle is:
Make governance understandable, make votes verifiable, protect participation, and ensure that decisions remain accountable to the community.
Document Status: Active / Evolving Maintained By: CeloHT Community Founder: Johnny Dubic Primary Principle: Transparent, secure, informed, and accountable community governance
© 2026 CeloHT - Open Source. Global Impact. Licensed under Apache.