GUARDIAN IS FOR PURPOSE DRIVEN COMPANIES AND PROJECTS BUILDING AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE WEB3 ECONOMY

Purpose driven companies, organizations, foundations and individuals are standing at the threshold of transformation. Blockchain and Web3 technology have opened up doors and presented possibilities for bigger impact, faster and more secure data storage, new ways to share art, gaming, entertainment, events and much more.

We realize we cannot predict what’s going to happen or even what’s possible in this emerging new world. Guard is a token made to help facilitate growth, support creators and drive purpose-driven initiatives forward, bridging the gap between the real world and the forthcoming metaverse.

It will serve as a decentralized protocol layer for community-driven initiatives that drive real-world value forward into the Web3 world.

THE GUARD FOUNDATION

The GUARD Foundation is the steward of Guardian. It is not an overseer, but the base layer on which Guard holders in the GUARD DAO can build, vote and reinvent the possibilities.

The Foundation facilitates decentralized and community-led governance and is designed to become more decentralized over time. It is tasked with administering the decisions of the GUARD DAO, and is responsible for day-to-day administration, bookkeeping, project management, and other tasks that ensure the DAO community’s ideas have the support they need to become a reality.

The goal of the GUARD Foundation is to steward the growth and development of the GUARD ecosystem fairly and inclusively. It utilizes the Ecosystem Fund, which is controlled by a multi sig wallet, to pay its expenses as directed by the Guardian DAO and provides an infrastructure for $GUARD holders to collaborate through open and permissionless governance processes. Join the discussion here.

THE DAO

Guardian DAO exists because decentralized governance is critical to building and managing a globally dispersed community—and therefore critical to the success of the GUARD ecosystem. We believe that we are stronger, together.

The GUARD Improvement Proposal Process (GIPP) (See: Governance) will allow GUARD DAO members to make decisions regarding Ecosystem Fund allocations, governance rules, projects, partnerships, and beyond. Guardian DAO membership is open to all $GUARD holders.

THE BOARD

A special council on the GUARD Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”) provides, at the behest of the GUARD DAO members, oversight of the Foundation administrators. The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community.

It meets on proposals requiring administrative review under GUARD DAO rules. The initial Board serves a term of six months, after which DAO members will elect and vote annually on Board members.

The board responsibilities include but are not limited to:

  • Conducting detailed administrative reviews of GFPs according to the process outlined in the Governance Framework
  • Ensuring the implementation of the Guard DAO’s intentions and wishes as manifested through approved GFPs
  • Safeguarding and stewarding the Guard DAO treasury
  • Serving as primary community liaisons with the Guard Foundation and its service providers in Cayman Islands, facilitating open and effective communication channels
  • Overseeing the Guard Foundation administrators and other service providers, ensuring they execute their duties with efficiency and timeliness, aligned with the Guard DAO’s objectives and values.

Partners:

 

While there are many collaborations in a web3 world, the only official partners of the Guard Foundation are the ones approved through governance. Anyone is welcome to build alongside or on top of other projects – the more the merrier. Official partners listed are the projects that have been approved by the community through a proposal process.

GUARDIAN PROTOCOL

Guardian is a BEP-20 governance and utility token used within the GUARD ecosystem to empower a decentralized community building at the forefront of and bringing value to web3.

As the open-source protocol layer of the ecosystem, Guardian serves several purposes:

Governance Guardian is the ecosystem’s governance token, allowing $GUARD holders to participate in Guardian DAO.
Unification of Spend Guardian is the ecosystem’s utility token, giving all its participants a shared and open currency that can be used without centralized intermediaries.
Access Guardian provides access to certain parts of the ecosystem that are otherwise unavailable, such as exclusive games, merch, events, and services.
Incentivization Guardian is a tool for third-party developers to participate in the ecosystem by incorporating GUARD into services, games, and other projects.

© 2023 GUARDIAN FOUNDATION

GuardFDN DAO Governance

The Guardian community governs itself via the GuardFDN DAO, the decentralized governance framework that supports the Ecosystem Fund. The DAO follows a proposal process to vote on how the Ecosystem Fund will be distributed by the GuardFDN to promote a diverse and self-sustaining ecosystem.

This governance guide is an overview of the proposal process. It’s a living document that will evolve and improve with the DAO community’s input.

Membership

Participating in idea submission, commentary, proposal submission, and voting is restricted to Guard DAO members. Holding at least one Guard is the only requirement for membership in the DAO.

Guiding Values

Unconventionality: We don’t shy away from weird.

Equality: One GUARD Token equals one GUARD Token.

Transparency: Processes and decisions are shared openly with the Community (as defined below).

Collective Momentum: We share a collective vision.

Velocity: We move with purpose and direction.

Communication Channels

The GuardFDN website is the DAO hub, providing an interface to educate DAO members on the governance process and provide easy access to the channels below in order to streamline the DAO’s operation and enhance its utility.

Discourse is the first stop for all proposals. A GFP (Guard Foundation Proposal) Idea is submitted as a post in Discourse and must receive confirmation from a moderator that it complies with DAO-approved guidelines before it appears to the community. Guard holders will go through a wallet authentication process to post ideas or give feedback to ideas via comments.

Snapshot is used for voting. Proposal drafts that have passed their respective approval processes become available for voting on Snapshot. Guard holders must go through a wallet authentication process to vote.

Proposal Process

GuardFDN DAO is launching its community-led governance via a formal proposal process based on the one implemented and proven out over time by Ethereum’s EIP system.

Proposal Categories

There are three main categories a GFP (Guard Foundation Proposal) can fall under: Core, Process, or Informational. Core proposals have three subcategories, Brand Decision, Principles, and Ecosystem Fund Allocation. Proposals that are being resubmitted must be classified as such.

CORE: ECOSYSTEM FUND ALLOCATION

Proposals for how DAO funds should be utilized.

CORE: ECOSYSTEM FUND ALLOCATION (RESUBMISSION) 

Resubmitted proposals for how DAO funds should be utilized.

CORE: BRAND DECISION

Proposals for anything the DAO attaches its name to, including projects and collaborations.

CORE: BRAND DECISION (RESUBMISSION)

Resubmitted proposals for anything the DAO attaches its name to, including projects and collaborations.

CORE: PRINCIPLES

A proposal for establishing and/or updating the major principles behind the distribution of the GUARD Token and fees, including, but not limited to, staking, tokenomics and budget rules

CORE: PRINCIPLES (RESUBMISSION)

Resubmitted proposals for establishing and/or updating the major principles behind the distribution of the GUARD Token and fees, including, but not limited to, staking, tokenomics and budget rules

PROCESS

Proposals for making a change to a process or implementation. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment of the DAO or Foundation.

PROCESS (RESUBMISSION)

Resubmitted proposals for making a change to a process or implementation. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment of the DAO or Foundation.

INFORMATIONAL

Proposals for general guidelines or information for the community.

INFORMATIONAL (RESUBMISSION)

Resubmitted proposals for general guidelines or information for the community.

PROPOSAL TEMPLATE

A proposal typically includes:

Abstract – A brief summary outlining the proposal.

 

Team Description – A brief introduction to the author and the team (required if requesting funding).

 

Benefit to Guard Ecosystem – An explanation of how the proposal will benefit the Guard ecosystem, and how it aligns with the Guard Community’s core mission and values.

 

Key Terms (optional) – Definitions of any terms within the proposal that are unique to the proposal, new to the Guard Community, and/or industry-specific.

 

Platforms & Technologies – A detailed breakdown of the platforms and technologies that will be used.

 

Steps to Implement & Timeline – An outline of the steps to implement the proposal, including associated costs, key performance indicators, personnel requirements, any expectations of the Guard Foundation, and other resources needed for each step where applicable. This section also provides relevant timing details, including the project’s start date and key milestones.

 

Overall Cost – A summary of the total budget associated with implementing the proposal.

The author can add additional fields to any template if necessary to fully communicate the intentions, specifics, and implications of the GFP Draft.

Proposals that did not make it through the respective approval process and are being resubmitted should also include:

  • Link to original proposal
  • Reason it was not approved
  • Changes that have been made and why it should now be approved
  • The author can add additional fields to any template if necessary to fully communicate the changes made and the intentions, specifics, and implications of the resubmitted GFP Draft.

PROPOSAL PHASES

Phase 1: GFP idea

A GFP Idea is submitted as an idea via Discourse (forum.guardfdn.com) and must receive confirmation from the Council Members to ensure it complies with GUARD DAO-approved guidelines before it appears to the community. The person or people submitting the GFP Idea will be referred to as the “Author” or “Authors”. Multiple members can work together on a GFP Idea, but it should be submitted only once. The GFP Idea informally gathers upvotes and/or comments via Discourse interface over a seven (7) day period.

Phase 2: GFP Draft

Once the seven-day feedback cycle has concluded, the GFP Idea will be archived. Pursuant to approval, a moderator will provide the eligible GFP Author with the appropriate template to submit to the DAO Administrator as a formal Snapshot proposal. 

The author will fill out the template, incorporating any Discourse feedback that helps the idea better serve the DAO. The author can add additional fields to the template if necessary to fully communicate the intentions, specifics, and implications of the GFP Draft. The moderator may also inform the author of incorrect or missing information that needs to be changed or clarifications that need to be made.

If the Author does not respond to a moderator’s request to change, update, or make clarifications on the GFP Draft within seven (7) days, the GFP Draft will be automatically rejected as having failed to comply with the GUARD DAO-approved guidelines. When the Council Members confirm that a GFP Draft complies with the GUARD DAO-approved guidelines, they assign a number to the GFP for identification purposes throughout the rest of the process. From this point on, the GFP is referred to as “GFP-#: (Name) – (Category)”.

PHASE 3: GFP Moderation

The GFP is reviewed by the Council Members, and will either be approved or not approved based on whether it adheres to the DAO-approved guidelines. If a GFP is approved as complying with DAO-approved guidelines, it becomes a Pending GFP. If a GFP fails to comply with DAO-approved guidelines, it is eligible for resubmission unless in cases of violation of the law or reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information.

PHASE 4: Post-Moderation Tagging

Pending GFPs that have passed GFP Moderation will then either be tagged as “Approved to Vote” or “Needs Administrative Review”.

The “Approved to Vote” tag is given for any pending GFP whose costs, content, and implications are considered to be straightforward and of no risk to the well-being of the GUARD DAO.

The “Needs Administrative Review” tag is given for any pending GFP whose costs, content, or implications are considered to be complicated or a potential risk to the well-being of the GUARD DAO. Any Pending GFP that is tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” must go through Phase 5.

Phase 5: Administrative Review

This phase is only for Pending GFPs that have been tagged with “Needs Administrative Review.”. When this happens, the Council, serving in an administrative capacity, will determine whether further action is required prior to a Pending GFP proceeding to Phase 6.

Pending GFPs that the Council determines do not require additional action will be tagged as “Approved to Vote” and proceed to Phase 6.

If the Council decides to return a Pending GFP for further clarification or action, they must provide a clear explanation of why and tag it as either “Return for Reconstruction” or “Return for Clarification.”

Reasons to tag as “Return for Reconstruction” or “Return for Clarification” may include but are not limited to:

  • Cost to implement unclear/not able to be calculated (tagged as “Return for Clarification”)
  • Proposes to use more than 5% of the Ecosystem Fund (tagged as “Return for Clarification”)
  • Conflicts with another proposal (tagged as “Return for Clarification”)
  • Proposal is at odds with the mission/values of the GUARD DAO (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
  • Proposal is at odds with the well-being of the GUARD DAO (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
  • Violations of law, or against advice of counsel for the Foundation (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
  • Reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)

Phase 6: Live GFP

Drafts that have passed their respective approval processes will become a Live GFP on Snapshot during the next Weekly GFP Release, which is when new GFPs are released in batches every Thursday at 9PM ET.

All GFPs released to vote will undergo a 24hr delayed “warm-up phase,” in which the GFP is submitted to Snapshot for public view, but is not yet committed to the blockchain or eligible for voting. This affords the Author, Council and/or Admin a supervisory window to correct any errata before the proposal details are rendered immutable. The warm-up phase only provisions for typographical or numerical errors and not for significant changes to the GFP content itself.

Once live on Snapshot, Live GFPs are open to voting until Weekly Voting Close, which is when all Live GFPs from a given batch close for voting at 9PM ET on the Wednesday following their release.

Phase 7: Final GFP

If by the Vote Close Time the Live GFP has not received any votes or is tied, it will be tagged as “Stalled” and be eligible for Resubmission. In all other cases, after the Vote Close Time, Live GFPs are moved to Final GFPs. Rejected Final GFPs will have the chance to be resubmitted via the appropriate Resubmission Template if the Author contacts a moderator to initiate this process.

Phase 8: Implementation

For Accepted Final GFPs, implementation will begin based on the steps outlined in the GFP template. The project management team engaged by the Foundation is responsible for making sure this happens, but is not necessarily responsible for doing it themselves.

PROPOSAL CONFLICTS

  • If a suggested proposal directly conflicts with a proposal that is currently up for vote, the second proposal should not go for a vote until a decision is made on the first proposal to avoid approval of opposing requirements.
  • A suggested proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal cannot go to vote for 90 days after the original proposal has been implemented to avoid wasting community assets.

VOTING

GuardFDN DAO’s consensus mechanism aims to make placing votes fair, transparent, and low-cost, so that Guard holders can participate in the decision-making of the DAO.

VOTING MECHANISM

Snapshot was chosen as a voting tool that:

  • doesn’t require gas payment
  • ensures transparency
  • expands governance participation to all holders of Guard

VOTING PROCESS

DAO Administrators can post GFPs to Snapshot after ensuring that each one has gone through the correct approvals process. New GFPs are posted on the first and third Thursdays of each month at 9 PM ET. This is also when the 7 day voting window opens.

DAO members vote on Snapshot. One Guard is equal to one vote. As votes cannot be divided into fractions and the total number of votes shouldn’t ever exceed the number of tokens minted, the number of votes will be rounded down if a fractional number of tokens is owned by the voter (i.e., 100.1 tokens will result in 100 votes, and so will 100.9 tokens). The voting options for a Live GFP are “In favor,” “Against,” and “Abstain. Voting “In favor” means the voter is in favor of implementing the GFP exactly as-is. Voting “Against” means the vote is against implementing the GFP exactly as-is – you may vote “Against” to encourage the author to resubmit the GFP after making changes. Voting “Abstain” means a voter may participate in a proposal without voting “In favor” or “Against.” Abstentions do not affect the outcome of the vote.

The voting for each proposal will be open for 6 days, concluding on Wednesday at 9 PM ET.

Proposals that receive a majority “In favor” vote are moved into implementation. Proposals that are rejected will have the chance to be resubmitted via the appropriate Resubmission Template if the author contacts a moderator to initiate this process. If by the Vote Close Time the Live GFP has not gotten any votes or is tied, it will be tagged as “Stalled” and be eligible for Resubmission

REFERENCE

Guard DAO TERMINOLOGY

GFP (Guard Foundation Proposal) – a document proposing a new feature, project, activity, goal, piece of information, or change to any proposal that has already been implemented.

 

GFP Idea – the first step in the process of creating an official GFP, which will be presented to the community for gathering informal feedback for a period of seven days.

GFP Draft – the second step in the process of creating an official GFP, which can only be submitted after the original GFP Idea has gathered feedback from the community for seven days in the proper channel. A GFP Draft must be submitted directly to a moderator via predetermined GFP templates.

 

GFP Template – the preset format for a GFP Draft, which will vary slightly depending on the nature of the intended GFP.

 

GFP Author – the DAO member responsible for beginning the Guard Foundation Proposal, starting with presenting the idea to the community via the proper GFP Idea process. The GFP Author is responsible for incorporating relevant feedback, submitting the subsequent GFP Draft via the proper GFP Template to the moderator, and responding to questions or requests for clarifications from DAO members and moderators. Any Guard holder can be a GFP Author.

 

GFP Categories – the predetermined classification system for organizing GFPs by their nature or intent. They are: Core Proposal, Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposal (a subcategory of Core Proposal), Brand Decision Proposal (a subcategory of Core Proposal), Process Proposal, Principles Proposal, and Informational Proposal.

 

Core Proposal – a proposal that would be considered the main activities of the DAO, with subcategories that can be expanded on over time via proposal submission.

 

Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposal – a proposal about how the Ecosystem Fund should be spent. A subcategory of Core Proposals.

 

Brand Decision Proposal – a proposal about to whom the community wants to attach its name. This is different from an Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposal in that it can have associated costs to implement but is not at its core a proposal about Ecosystem Fund Allocation. A subcategory of Core Proposals.

 

Process Proposal – a proposal about making a change to a process or proposing an implementation. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment of the DAO or Foundation.

 

Principles Proposal – A proposal for establishing and/or updating the major principles behind the distribution of the GUARD Token and fees, including, but not limited to, staking, tokenomics and budget rules

 

Informational Proposal – a proposal that provides general guidelines or information to the community but does not propose a new feature.

 

Resubmission Proposal – a proposal that was previously submitted but did not pass either due to initial rejection by moderators or the Board, or by not passing a vote. All proposal categories have a special template for resubmission that the author must link to the original proposal, clearly state why it did not pass, and clearly explain how the resubmission is different.

 

GFP Moderation – the act of reviewing a GFP Draft to determine whether or not the GFP Draft meets the predetermined and DAO-approved guidelines and therefore is eligible to move to the next step in the process. If a GFP DAR Package passes GFP Moderation, it becomes a Pending GFP.

 

Pending GFP – the GFP status after GFP DAR, which is only reached if it passes GFP Moderation.

 

Post-Moderation Tagging – the process of tagging all Pending GFPs that have successfully been through the GFP Moderation phases. There are two tags given at this stage: 1) “Straight to Vote,” which is for any pending GFP where costs, content, and implications are considered to be straightforward and of no risk to the well-being of the DAO. 2) “Needs Administrative Review,” which is for any pending GFP with costs, content, or implications that are considered to be complicated or a potential risk to the well-being of the DAO and therefore must be reviewed by the Board of the DAO.

 

Administrative Review – the process of evaluating pending GFPs that have been tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” to determine whether they should be halted or sent to vote by the community.

 

Return for Clarification – a type of administrative classification that requires the GFP author to clarify certain information regarding the Pending GFP. This classification would be given in cases such as cost to implement being unclear, proposing to utilize a larger percentage of the Ecosystem Fund than is justified based on the value it would provide to the community, or being in direct conflict with an active GFP.

 

Return for Reconstruction – a type of administrative classification that requires the proposer to restart the proposal submission process because the Pending GFP violates DAO-approved requirements, or in cases of violation of the law, reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information, or the pending GFP being at odds with the mission, values, or well-being of the Foundation or DAO.

 

Weekly GFP Release – Weekly on Thursdays of each month at 9 PM ET, when all GFPs that are ready to go live are released together in a batch.

 

Bi-monthly Voting Close – when a Bi-monthly GFP Release batch closes for voting, which happens 6 days from the Release date on Wednesday at 9 PM ET.

 

Live GFP – and GFP that has passed all required approval stages and is launched for the community to vote on it. The voting options for a Live GFP are “In favor,” “Against,” and “Abstain.” Voting “In favor” means the voter is in favor of implementing the GFP exactly as-is. Voting “Against” means the voter is against implementing the GFP exactly as-is — voters may vote “Against” to encourage the author to resubmit the GFP after making changes.

 

Final GFP – and GFP that has completed the voting process. There are two subcategories here: Accepted and Not Accepted.

 

Implementation of Accepted GFP – the process of implementing an GFP that has been accepted by the community via a vote, based on the predetermined steps laid out in the Draft/Template and Analysis Report phases.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

  • Once per year, there is a DAO-wide vote to determine which DAO members will serve on a special council on the GuardFDN (the DAO’s “Board”). The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community. This initial Board will only serve six months.
  • A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term’s end pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.
  • The total cost of implementation must be clear in order for a proposal to go to vote.
  • DAO members must search past proposals to ensure any idea they intend to write a proposal for has not already been submitted.
  • If a suggested proposal directly conflicts with a proposal that is currently up for vote, the second proposal should not go for a vote until a decision is made on the first proposal to avoid approval of opposing requirements.
  • A suggested proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal cannot go to vote for 90 days after the original proposal has been implemented to avoid wasting community assets.
  • Proposals will not be put up for a vote if they involve illegal activity, hate speech, pornographic material, or are at odds with the mission or values of the GuardFDN.

WHO/WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND NAMES, AND HOW DO THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER?

Wolf Den Labs – Wolf Den Labs is a Web3 company best known for the creation of the Wolf Den. It will be a community member in the GUARD DAO and will adopt $GUARD as the primary token across new projects and partnerships

WDWP – The Wolf Den Wolf Pups is a collection of digital art crafted into NFTs where the token itself doubles as a membership to a mountain retreat for wolf pack members.

GUARD Foundation – The GUARD Foundation is the steward of Guardian, a legal entity that exists to administer the decisions of the GUARD DAO.

Guardian DAO – A decentralized governance organization that will make decisions regarding Ecosystem Fund allocations, governance rules, projects, partnerships, and more. GUARD DAO membership is open to all $GUARD holders.

$GUARD The symbol for Guardian token.