Summary 

The previous blogpost explained how crypto systems can be viewed as ‘confidence machines’. We are confident that the protocol will function reliably and behave predictably according to its rules in part because we trust that the interests of the people and organisations who are responsible for deciding the protocol’s rules, align with our own. So how can this social layer be governed to ensure it remains trustworthy to maintain confidence in the protocol?

To answer this question, this blogpost begins by unpacking some of the key groups that constitute the social layer. 

We then explore how to apply principles of trustworthiness into the decision making processes of these groups, including some examples in Mina’s social layer. For example, proposals for upgrading the Mina Improvement Proposal (MIP) process and strengthening community participation in core development processes. While these principles can reveal fundamental interests, aligning them also requires shared values and visions.

Less trust in the social layer would undermine confidence in the protocol; the less likely that people would use or engage with it; and its community would eventually dissolve. Consequently, Mina could have a competitive advantage if it can demonstrate its trustworthiness.

Aligning interests in the social layer 

According to some researchers, the governance of the social layer could be polycentric, involving three, interrelated components: multiple decision making groups with overlapping areas of authority (‘groups’) interact through mutual coordination and negotiation (‘process’), resulting in a set of rules that they all follow (‘outcomes’). Considering all three decision making components- groups, processes and outcomes- can help to illuminate dynamics of trust in the social layer (see Table 1).

However, polycentricity may be limited if it reinforces hierarchies and does not sufficiently distribute power so that individual people can participate directly and accessibly. We proposed that Mina Protocol’s decentralised governance should be effective and aligned so that it delivers on decisions that need to be made while also meeting the wishes of the Mina community. We also proposed a set of attributes that define the achievement of these goals in ways that overcome these limitations (see Table 2).

Nonetheless, the social layer involves various groups and processes and a range of interests. How can these interests be trusted to result in acceptable outcomes that meet the wishes of the Mina community?

The previous blogpost proposed some principles for trustworthiness, including:

• transparency to provide evidence of reliability, honesty and competence;
• comprehensibility to ensure this evidence is accessible, intelligible and assessable;
• verifiability to check this evidence is truthful.

Principles of transparency and comprehensibility support the proposals that effective and aligned governance should be transparent and accessible (see Table 2).

Verifiability also supports Mina’s efforts to build the foundation for the private, provable web where users can create, share, and verify proofs of information without relying on any third parties.

While these principles can illuminate fundamental interests, aligning them on common interests and acceptable outcomes requires shared values and visions. Mina’s CORE values provide a starting point. 

The following sections provide examples of how these principles can be applied in Mina’s social layer.

Expert reviewers in the MIP process 

The current MIP upgrade proposes a structured process for small groups of experts to review the risks, benefits and tradeoffs of each MIP to benefit the deliberation of other community members. 

Transparency requires reviewers to publish summaries of their assessments that are comprehensible for non-experts. 

Verifiability requires publishing assessment criteria so that reviewers can justify their opinions while other community members can hold them to account. 

Alignment requires that these criteria are based on shared values and visions. What specific risks and benefits should these reviewers identify and assess? What principles should inform how to make trade-offs between them? 

Strengthening community participation in core development processes 

Increasing transparency about Mina’s core development process 

Mina Foundation has made efforts to support increasing communications with the community about the protocol’s development processes, including Road to Hard Fork updates; monthly upgrade community calls in Discord; weekly updates in Discord, X and Telegram; and other ad-hoc communications, such as blog posts. 

Nonetheless, there are further opportunities for transparency, including:

• regular developer calls to share technical progress and gather feedback;
• grants and support for active builders, staking pools, and other contributors;
• one-on-one communication with key community members.

Near-term tool development

The Mina Protocol thrives through collaboration between o1Labs,  the Mina Foundation and the wider community. With support from its community participants, Mina Protocol’s developing tools, including the Web Node and Rust Client, can make the protocol more accessible, efficient and scalable. 

The Mina Protocol is exploring a technological shift by introducing the Rust Client as an alternative to the existing OCaml Client. Rust is a widely adopted programming language that offers improved memory safety, performance and developer tools. Currently in the testing phase on Devnet, the Rust Client is planned for Mainnet deployment in 2025. Depending on community and o1Labs feedback, it could eventually replace the OCaml Client.

Openmina’s work on the Web Node provides a lightweight, user-friendly way to interact with the protocol directly in browsers. Future upgrades aim to enhance the Web Node with full-node capabilities, supporting even wider adoption.

Longer term ambitions 

As capacity increases, the Mina community envisions a more open protocol development process. Steps towards this vision could include:

• surveying the community about development needs;
• building a pool of suitable experts from o1Labs, Mina Foundation and the wider community;
• electing small groups of experts to prioritise development needs and oversee the implementation of projects once approved;
• linking to the MIP process where relevant if projects need approval from the community-wide via on-chain voting;
• publishing transparent reports on these decisions and progress.

Similarly, repository management could also involve broader participation. Transparent and comprehensible processes for managing contributions, reviews and approvals would ensure inclusivity and efficiency.

Mina as a leader in trust 

This is the second in a series of blogposts that have proposed ways to frame trust and build trustworthy and trusted communities. We are keen to stimulate debate so we welcome any responses to the suggestions in the blog post:

• What specific risks and benefits should be identified and assessed during expert reviews as proposed in the MIP upgrade, and what principles should inform how to make trade-offs between them? 
• What further opportunities would you welcome to increase transparency about Mina’s core development process?
• What do you think about the near term plans for strengthening community participation in core development processes?
• What do you think about longer term ambitions for strengthening community participation in core development processes?

Please connect with us on Discord at the following channels:

• #governance-discussion
• #governance-announcements

Alternatively, feel free to comment in Mina Research where an earlier draft was posted.