The Future of the Anticapture Commission

[alexsotodigital]

GM ACC!

Thank you for opening this conversation and inviting contributions or ideas.

I’m encouraged to share one, hoping it will spark inspiration.

Understanding the context

@system

the Foundation’s recommendation is that the ACC, as an official structure that receives delegation, not be renewed for future Seasons.

Considering the Foundation’s recommendation, we’re presented with a valuable opportunity to rethink how we can continue supporting ACC core mission (preventing capture in the Token House or across the Collective) more agile design with less overhead.

But first, I want to highlight two tensions that seem important to me:

1. the relatively static design of the ACC’s membership, which may make it difficult for new delegates to meaningfully participate in its functions (requiring to be top 100 delegates).

@0xDonPepe

Alternatively, you could simply acquire enough tokens to place yourself among the top 100 delegates; after all, this system fundamentally operates as a plutocracy.

2. The real ability of the ACC to prevent capture by having delegated voting power (10M OP from the Governance Fund).

@ACC

In other words, as large amounts of OP tokens are added to the hands of new stakeholders (which may include, but are not limited to, institutions, core developers, OP Chains, etc.), the voting power of figures like the ACC tends to lose influence.

@ACC

By today, the ACC doesn’t have a formalised framework for capture prevention, rather than informal detection through demands, for example, that might arise during a voting cycle and are nearly purely situational.

However, since the likelihood of capture is dependent on the OP distribution, the last becomes an important subject.

Which makes me wonder:

What if, instead of just voting like another delegate seat, the ACC evolved toward structured objection review and deeper listening before voting?

@ACC

Anti-Capture Commission may have a place in a future decentralized governance holding a special role to cancel proposals directly or in aggregation with other types of stakeholders

---

ACC as a jury for valid objections

Rather than maintaining or expanding the ACC’s voting power and structure, I propose a different approach: a group that helps pause and surface legitimate tensions before proposals move forward, offering clarity and oversight.

This new structure could function like a rotating Objection Review Panel. When a proposal is flagged, the group would determine whether the objection is valid based on some criteria.

Taking inspiration from the integrative decision-making process in Holacracy-governance models, an objection is valid if all of the following criteria are met:

1. The proposal limits the ability of a representative body (and/or other working groups) to fulfill its purpose.
2. The proposal introduces a new tension/area-of-​​opportunity that would not exist if the proposal were rejected.
3. The objection is grounded in currently available and verifiable data.
4. The proposal contradicts (one or some of) the Collective’s governing docs.

If these conditions are met, the ACC would formally reach out to the proposer with a request to adapt the proposal before it proceeds to a vote.

The goal is not to block or delay governance arbitrarily, but to create a space for productive friction where important concerns can be addressed with care.

---

Draft Structure

• Rotating Panel of Stakeholders
  Two randomly selected representatives from up to seven stakeholder groups (e.g. Token House, Citizens House, Foundation, etc.) capped at 14 members or so. This ensures fresh perspectives and shared responsibility (+ a scale for making deep feedback loops).
• Voluntary, Unpaid Membership
  Like jury duty, participants would serve short terms (whether each season or even per case) without compensation. This helps preserve neutrality and civic spirit.
• Minimal Paid Roles: Facilitator + Scribe
  These support roles could be covered through a Mission Request or assigned to govNERDs. Their job is to coordinate the process and document outcomes.
  If there is no flagged objection, the ACC is not activated.

---

Why It Matters (IMO)

Anti-capture doesn’t always require hard power.

Sometimes it just means slowing down, asking good questions, and giving space for thoughtful revision.

By raising objections early and inviting revisions, we reduce the risk of proposals disguised as “short-term wins” that result in long-term harm.

The ACC can cease to be a static institution and become a rotating, shared space for attention and accountability.

---

Anyway, I hope this is useful in some way.
I appreciate and welcome any comments or suggestions for further refinement.