In this final episode of Governance Futures Season 1, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Anke Liu, Governance Lead at the Stellar Development Foundation (SDF), about Neural Quorum Governance — a novel mechanism co-developed with BlockScience to make community funding more equitable, modular, and participatory.

Anke shares how Stellar’s governance evolved from simple community voting into a complex but flexible model balancing reputation, delegation, and trust. The discussion covers privacy vs. transparency, the cultural foundations of decentralization, and what it takes to sustain engagement across bear markets. Anke also reflects on the future of DAO incentives, identity, and the importance of effort and culture in keeping governance systems alive.

The episode closes with Anke’s one-word vision for governance: Plural.

1. Stellar: https://stellar.org/

00:00 – Cold Start

00:49 – Introduction: Hosts Jamilya and Eugene open the season finale

02:49 – Reflections on Season 1 and setting the stage for Anke’s episode

04:40 – Anke’s story: from COVID community organizing to blockchain governance

06:42 – Spotting red flags and burnout in community building

08:51 – Why genuine communities survive beyond hype cycles

09:47 – Origins of Neural Quorum Governance (NQG)

10:50 – How neural weighting and quorum delegation work

13:11 – Designing NQG with BlockScience and Stellar’s trust-based ethos

15:11 – Comparing governance models across ecosystems

17:06 – Inside the Stellar Community Fund: panels, reviews, and voting cycles

18:48 – The Pathfinder, Navigator, and Pilot system of roles

20:35 – Delegate selection, quarterly nominations, and accountability

22:44 – Delegation cycles, abstaining votes, and participation rules

24:18 – Voting rounds, timing, and flexibility in the SCF process

26:45 – Iteration over two years: evolution and $30M in grants

28:27 – Adding “neurons” and metrics for voting quality

30:20 – Measuring fairness: decentralization and Theil index

32:02 – Improving equity and access for newcomers

34:23 – Reputation, learning, and how new contributors gain voting power

36:15 – Decentralization challenges and trade-offs

38:27 – Privacy vs. transparency: the hardest governance problem

41:17 – Institutional adoption, privacy demands, and zero-knowledge tech

44:35 – Balancing delegate protection and verifiability

47:51 – Enterprise privacy vs. open decision-making

49:43 – Identity, Proof of Humanity, and reputation layers

51:54 – Culture as the heart of governance systems

55:51 – Rethinking decentralization and the end of the foundation era

58:02 – Open infrastructure, transparency, and credible neutrality

59:52 – Decentralization as global participation and collective trust

01:01:58 – Functional transparency: information vs. comprehension

01:03:55 – Simplicity, effort, and “AI slop” in governance systems

01:05:26 – Grant writing, human effort, and AI misuse

01:07:22 – Local communities, ambassadors, and human onboarding

01:08:32 – Future experiments: identity, reputation, and incentives

01:10:30 – Balancing intrinsic motivation with governance rewards

01:12:22 – Quiz: Access, Culture, Effort, Plural

01:17:06 – Closing credits and reflections on Season 1

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Isaac Patka about the evolving landscape of security in decentralized systems.

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Dr. Joachim Schwerin.

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Amber Case (Cyborg Anthropologist), technologist, author, and founder of the Calm Technology Institute.

- Design is governance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxm5qW3pao&t=1s

Timestamps:

00:00 – Cold Start

00:56 – Introduction: Jamilya and Eugene reflect on their conversation with Amber Case

02:23 – First impressions: cyborg anthropology and governance

04:15 – What is cyborg anthropology? Humans, tech, and adaptation

06:14 – The birth of wikis and the evolution of online collaboration

08:38 – Wiki culture, editing systems, and governance through software

11:06 – Invisible governance: how online communities self-organize

13:32 – Digital identity, hyper-sigils, and the self in online life

15:11 – Simulating governance: why Case built the DAO Game

17:34 – How DAO Game helps players experience governance dynamics

19:12 – Why every DAO should test its governance as a game

20:13 – Governance as a marathon: lessons from boardrooms to DAOs

22:41 – What really happens behind the scenes of board governance

25:02 – Rituals, trust, and the hidden rules of community participation

27:24 – Old wisdom in new systems: lessons from Ostrom and co-ops

29:49 – Origins of “DAO” and the automation of home systems

31:58 – Are DAOs just repeating human governance patterns?

33:55 – Design is governance: how architecture shapes participation

36:21 – Inclusive vs. exclusive design and the myth of openness

38:45 – Entropy, ecosystems, and why good governance reduces chaos

41:02 – Boundaries, belonging, and the emotional work of inclusion

42:55 – How to handle community tensions and exclusivity

44:54 – Measuring vibes: Case’s 60-point community scoring system

48:21 – Reducing entropy through shared rituals and space design

50:44 – Training community members and fostering stewardship

53:07 – Recognizing creativity, humility, and contribution

55:34 – Legos, learning, and what makes great collaborators

57:18 – The social awareness matrix: identifying healthy dynamics

59:36 – Group design, collaboration, and cultural literacy

01:02:26 – The politics of cleanliness, care, and invisible labor

01:05:39 – The Phoenix Project: bottlenecks, burnout, and learning loops

01:08:49 – Calm Technology and AI: using minimal tech for maximum care

01:10:56 – Why messy spaces produce creativity and innovation

01:13:14 – Final reflections and the rapid-fire governance quiz

01:14:18 – One-word quiz: Constraint, History, Sobriety, Past

01:15:30 – Closing thoughts and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Seth Frey, computational social scientist and researcher of governance, common pool resources, and online communities. Seth brings insights from years of studying how people self-organize — from Minecraft servers to DAOs — and explores what digital communities can learn from Ostrom’s theories of commons management.

Some of the materials we mention in the episode: Online communities as model systems for commons governance- https://enfascination.com/weblog/post/2907

Timestamps

00:00 – Cold start

01:00 – Introduction: Hosts reflect on their conversation with Seth

04:25 – Overview of Seth’s work on governance and common pool resources

05:57 – Parallels between traditional and digital commons

08:11 – Applying Ostrom’s framework to digital resources

10:11 – The Ostroms’ contribution: self-organization beyond market and state

12:34 – Eleanor Ostrom’s legacy and early research journey

14:35 – Defining common resources in Web3: attention and computational limits

15:42 – Lag, attention, and other finite digital resources

18:02 – What Minecraft communities teach us about self-governance

20:00 – Bureaucracy and creativity in online worlds

22:26 – Rules as history lessons vs. proactive governance

24:11 – From informal play to formal systems: emergent order in communities

26:20 – How users invented governance in Minecraft

28:34 – Human motivation in governance: enthusiasm vs. apathy

30:43 – When democracy is appropriate — earning participation

33:02 – The problem with solving problems you don’t yet have

34:53 – Benevolent dictatorships and transitions to community management

37:02 – Why communities resist picking up the ball of participation

39:21 – Learning from lived experience, not ideology

41:03 – Off-chain culture, vibes, and the role of community managers

43:11 – Building strong community culture as a governance project

45:12 – The science of vibes and sustaining good culture

47:15 – Redefining decentralization and polycentric governance

49:36 – Power, purity, and the myth of total decentralization

51:30 – Bureaucracy as fairness and human-centered governance

53:29 – Training people to govern: developing human capacity

55:30 – Technology vs. people — garbage in, garbage out

56:20 – Leadership’s paradox: top-down democracy building

58:37 – Standardizing culture without killing diversity

01:00:48 – Polycentric systems: designing top-down and bottom-up balance

01:03:02 – AI in governance: developmental, not managerial

01:05:26 – AI as a tool for training future human governors

01:07:24 – One-word quiz: Inspiration, Futility, Off-chain, Scaling Local

01:14:19 – Closing reflections and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Mike Cooper.

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Jen, DAO Comms Lead at Lido, about the launch of Lido’s dual governance model.

Jen shares her journey into governance, her perspective on decentralization, and how Lido is addressing value alignment between token holders and stETH users.

The conversation explores how dual governance gives stETH holders veto power, the role of delegate incentives, and the challenges of combining technical complexity with inclusive participation.

Jen also reflects on Vitalik’s call to “burn down” legitimacy, why governance should evolve instead, and how clarity matters more than total transparency.

The episode closes with a rapid-fire quiz, where Jen sums up the future of governance in one word: adaptability.

Some of the materials we mention in the episode:

Timestamps:

00:54 – Introduction and reflections on Lido governance

04:46 – Jen’s path into governance and joining Lido DAO

07:08 – Defining decentralization and Lido’s approach

10:11 – Times Square billboard and dual governance announcement

12:47 – Lido’s governance process before dual governance

14:34 – Delegate incentive program and oversight committee

18:18 – Governance as work: paying for delegate contributions

19:30 – Dual governance explained: stETH holders’ right to exit

23:27 – Safeguards, vetoes, and community alignment

25:08 – LDO vs. stETH holders: reactions to dual governance

29:12 – Governance expertise, DAO challenges, and delegate roles

31:53 – Why governance should serve the product, not dominate it

35:59 – Technical complexity and the need for education

40:24 – Committees, mandates, and decentralization trade-offs

43:39 – Balancing operations, transparency, and security

48:34 – The role of AI in governance clarity and summaries

52:12 – Legitimacy, Vitalik’s critique, and evolving governance

58:03 – Tokens, utility, and the uniqueness of DAOs

59:57 – Research priorities: defining the scope of DAO governance

01:05:46 – One-word quiz: decentralization, governance, adaptability

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Puja Ohlhaver about her latest paper on community currencies and the PCARE model. She explains how her work builds on earlier frameworks, critiques one-token-one-vote models, and offers new approaches for balancing money, votes, attention, and influence.

Timestamps

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene sit down with Mateusz Rzeszowski and Raam Chandrasekharan of the Arbitrum Foundation to discuss Arbitrum’s evolving governance model.

The conversation also explores delegate participation and incentives.

Throughout, they reflect on the balance between decentralization and efficiency, the importance of facilitation, and what DAOs can learn from political philosophy and even nature.

Some of the materials we mention in the episode:

Timestamps

00:00 – Episode introduction & host overview (Arbitrum’s governance context)

In this episode, we sit down with Vaughn McKenzie-Landell to explore how market-driven decision-making can transform DAO governance. Vaughn is CEO & co-founder of Butter, who are bringing Information Finance to Ethereum — starting with Futarchy. He started his career at Dow Jones but exited TradFi after a google search in 2009 delivered him into the BitcoinTalk forum.