# WP1 Governance Spec

**URL:** https://forum.hypercore.one/t/wp1-governance-spec/545
**Category:** HyperQube
**Created:** [November 5, 2024, 3:13pm UTC](https://forum.hypercore.one/t/wp1-governance-spec/545 "2024-11-05T15:13:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![georgezgeorgez](https://forum.hypercore.one/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@georgezgeorgez](https://forum.hypercore.one/u/georgezgeorgez)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2024, 5:13pm UTC](https://forum.hypercore.one/t/wp1-governance-spec/545/5 "2024-11-06T17:13:03Z")

</div>

Thank you @sumoshi21 for considering my feedback.

> [@Universal governance module proposal](https://forum.hypercore.one/t/universal-governance-module-proposal/544/9):
>
> I like the idea of type 1 and type 2. For now, type 1 is just creating and activating a spork. Others would be type2. Type1 should be at least the majority required for consensus which 66% + 1 for NoM. Type2 like adding networks to the bridge could remain 50% + 1. I don’t think we need to implement the logic in order to send ZNN or QSR, we just don’t need it now, there is no functionality for it, just create an accelerator proposal insead of a type1/2 that would transfer. Handling ZTS transfers…

I agree that adding value transfer is something we can likely rule out of scope. I did give an example of use case though with ZTS creation if we want a governance owned ZTS to call Mint etc. To create a ZTS directly, it would require a 1 ZNN burn. This is not possible through AZ as you suggest since it requires specific data as well.

And also this functionality may make more sense on extension chains or when interacting with extension chains.

The suggestion for dynamic quorum would be for robustness. It’s very likely that over the years pillars will stop functioning but not deconstruct (if people die without succession plans). Likely we will need a consistent mechanism to take them out of the pillar pool for both momentum creation and voting quorums, with a way to get back in (e.g. a signature of liveliness).

Consider the following:

Let’s say we get a bunch of pillars in China. 40%. But then China decides to completely cut off outside internet access. We can’t reach 66% + 1 for an upgrade. We can’t spork to lower the threshold since that would require the same threshold. Without a dynamic quorum, a hardfork would be required. And that could be acceptable given the circumstances. I am providing a possible solution for network survivability without hardforks.

Dynamic quorum also means people need to either vote NO for changes or get out of the way for progress. Someone who can’t be bothered to vote may be bothered to upgrade if they see everyone else is. Greater momentum. Enough time would need to be given however.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.hypercore.one/t/wp1-governance-spec/545)._