As part of the Season 7 Reflection Period, I want to open a thread on how we define membership in the Collective.
IMO, the Season 8 theme (purpose-built governance) reminds us that decentralization is not only about code, but about the relationships, accountability, and structures that help us move forward as a resilient ecosystem.
These elements are the social operating system of a Collective: they make it possible for trust, coordination, and feedback to flow.
One area where these foundational principles are being tested is the dimension of membership( a.k.a. who oficially is in the Collective and who is not).
This is not only a symbolic distinction; it defines access to resources, the ability to make decisions, and the legitimacy of representation. And yet, there are currently gaps in how we define, recognize, and communicate this status.
Are you a member of the collective if you have any wannabe-roles in discord? Or do you need to be a citizen for that? How about participating in a mission request? Or receiving Retro Funding?
The Membership Gap
Membership is blurry across some areas of the Collective. The recently introduced eligibility to gain Citizenship provides some clarity, with measurable and transparent criteria.
However, the tension remains:
- Some active contributors are not citizens.
- Some citizens are not active contributors.
Do we want these two to become one?
Could we envision a model where:
- Contributors are expected to become citizens?
- Citizens periodically declare their contributions to retain membership?
Alternatively, if we want to keep both categories distinct, we might at least define and track who the contributors are.
Creating a Contributor Impact Scorecard.
I am imagining a summary table of contributors (similar to the one in Atlas recipients) where the information of the collective members is displayed.
This would not be a performance evaluation (nor a witch hunt), but a shared, transparent record of contribution (at least in terms of roles/accountabilities and corresponding rewards) that encourages co-responsibility. A contributor mapping system where each member outlines their current scope, visible to others.
The scorecard could include:
- Roles held during the Season (Mission Leads, Council members, Token House and/or Citizens’ House participants, experiment participants, etc.).
- Experience across past Seasons.
- Reputation or feedback obtained from peers.
This structure could:
- Clarify who counts as a member of the contributor base.
- Ground retro funding decisions in observable contribution.
- Inform new delegation and resourcing strategies.
- Allow for experimentation with a ‘base stipend model’, similar to the Protocol Guild, where holding a recognized contributor role implies some compensation.
Even if no compensation model is adopted, a read-only contributor map would already help.
We could also look at Morning Star’s approach, where compensation changes are proposed by contributors and reviewed for consent by peers. Morning Star’s model of self-management uses a structure called the Colleague Letter of Understanding (CLOU), where each member defines their mission, roles, commitments, and metrics in collaboration with their peers. This dynamic, peer-coordinated tool fosters transparency, shared responsibility, and real-time accountability across a growing network.
Key takeaways that could inform our approach:
- A commitment between peers is often stronger than a top-down job description.
- Visibility into who is responsible for what builds a culture of mutual accountability.
- A dynamic, living system of commitments encourages agility and trust, especially as the network scales.
The Role of the OP Foundation:
The OP Foundation plays a critical role in shaping the Collective. It sets strategic direction, manages significant funds, hires full-time contributors, and often steers the implementation of governance initiatives. And yet, it is largely absent from the public-facing structures and documentation that define the rest of the Collective.
I want to be clear that I know there are many reports, reflections, and a high degree of openness already. I also understand that some data cannot be public for reasons of security, legal obligations, or competitive strategy. I share these reflections with humility and full openness to being corrected.
Still, I do wonder:
- Does an org chart for the Foundation exist? If not, why? And if yes, why isn’t it published?
- What is the ratio of growth between the OP Foundation, OP Labs and the OP DAO?
- (It seems to me, based on Getro job postings, that the Foundation + Labs are growing while DAO programs shrink.)
- What is the total amount allocated for compensation within the Foundation team? Even if individual salaries are private, could a total budget line be shared?
This absence of visibility weakens the ability of the Collective to build a shared understanding of power dynamics and accountability. If we are serious about decentralization, we must also be serious about distributing legitimacy, and that begins with transparency.
Creating visibility about the Foundation’s structure, budget, and roles would allow us to better assess alignment with the Collective’s goals, and possibly open a pathway for some roles to eventually migrate into DAO-based teams.
Closing Thoughts
Membership is not a binary; it’s a continuum. But that doesn’t mean we should leave it undefined.
These reflections are shared in the spirit of openness and trust.
I welcome any additions, counterpoints, or ideas to help deepen this conversation.
