Governance & DAO Model

InfraMind is governed through a progressive decentralization model, evolving from a core-protocol steward (the InfraMind Foundation) to a fully autonomous, token-governed entity (InfraDAO). This roadmap ensures the protocol begins with technical and operational stability, but ultimately transitions into a system where protocol rules, incentives, and upgrade paths are controlled by $IFM holders.

Governance isn’t a side feature of InfraMind — it’s embedded into how infrastructure decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and how trust is established among participants who may never know or rely on one another.

Governance Phases

Phase 0 – InfraMind Foundation (Initial Launch)

  • The Foundation is responsible for launching the protocol, seeding early node infrastructure, managing treasury allocation, and enforcing protocol invariants (e.g., slashing conditions, model listing rules).

  • Decisions are made internally, with community proposals welcomed through the Foundation’s GitHub and governance forum.

  • Emergency upgradability is retained to fix bugs, adjust parameters, and stabilize reward mechanics.

Phase 1 – Delegated Voting Hybrid

  • Token voting is introduced for select decisions: registry approvals, pricing multipliers, and validator onboarding.

  • The Foundation retains veto and emergency control powers but begins transitioning routine governance to token-based signaling.

  • Snapshot-based off-chain voting is used to bootstrap on-chain legitimacy.

Phase 2 – InfraDAO Activation (Full Governance Transfer)

  • Control of protocol contracts, registry, slashing logic, and treasury multisig is handed to InfraDAO.

  • All $IFM holders can submit proposals, vote, and fund public infrastructure or tooling.

  • Governance expands to cover job pricing policy, zkML quorum rules, TEE node criteria, and incentive program design.

What $IFM Holders Can Vote On

Protocol Upgrades

  • Node runtime versions and minimum specs

  • Container runtime support (e.g., WASM, CUDA kernels)

  • New zkML verification circuits

  • Scheduler routing algorithms

  • On-chain/off-chain execution bridges

Upgrade flow:

  1. Proposal submitted via governance portal

  2. Audited upgrade script published (if smart contract-related)

  3. Community vote: $IFM holders vote with wallet balance or staked weight

  4. Upgrade delay enforced (e.g., 72h)

  5. Code change executed by multisig or upgrade DAO module

Model Registry Updates

  • Approve/ban model publishers

  • Allowlist or deny deployment of models that violate licensing, safety, or community norms

  • Introduce model categories (e.g., commercial, experimental, agent-based)

  • Decide which models are pinned and subsidized by the treasury

Models that meet usage or quality thresholds may be pinned via vote, reducing user load times and incentivizing node storage contributions.

Reward Policy

Token holders vote on:

  • Base reward multipliers per job type (CPU, GPU, zkML)

  • Regional incentive curves (to rebalance global node distribution)

  • Node staking thresholds and bonus tiers

  • Delegation APR and revenue split between operator/delegator

  • Penalty decay curve and dispute resolution windows

Example proposal:

{
  "title": "Increase GPU base multiplier from 3.5x to 4.0x",
  "rationale": "To reflect the rising cost of GPU spot instances and scarcity in Asia-Pacific regions",
  "parameters": {
    "gpu_multiplier": 4.0
  }
}

Proposals are submitted in JSON format and rendered on the governance dashboard for token-weighted voting.

Dispute Resolution

The DAO also serves as an arbitration court:

  • Nodes accused of fraudulent proofs may appeal slashing

  • Delegators may challenge operators for misreporting

  • Model publishers may dispute bans or removals

  • Data poisoning reports (in future federated training) are handled via quorum

Resolution involves:

  • Submission of on-chain evidence

  • Snapshot-based vote to overturn/confirm slashing

  • If overturned, slashed stake is refunded and reputation score adjusted

  • Repeat offenders can be permanently banned by supermajority vote

Governance Mechanics

Component
Details

Voting Token

$IFM

Voting Power

1 IFM = 1 vote (with future modifiers)

Proposal Quorum

2–10% of circulating supply

Voting Delay

12–48h (configurable)

Voting Period

5–7 days

Execution Delay

72h (safety buffer)

Delegation

Supported

Proposal Threshold

10,000 IFM (or delegated equivalent)

Tooling:

  • vote.inframind.host – governance portal

  • Snapshot + on-chain hybrid voting (Phase 1)

  • DAO treasury explorer and grant tracker

  • GitHub proposal drafts + temperature checks

Smart contracts will transition to upgradable proxies managed by DAO-controlled multisig and timelock contracts.

Future Governance Concepts

  • Quadratic Voting: Prevent whales from dominating sensitive proposals

  • Reputation-weighted Voting: Combine execution history with token balance

  • Model-Specific DAOs: Sub-groups govern specific deployed models or agents

  • Slashing Juries: Elected reputation-weighted nodes oversee evidence-based slashing cases

  • Agent Registry Governance: Approve long-running agents that operate semi-autonomously

Summary

InfraMind governance is the mechanism by which infrastructure becomes collective. It ensures that runtime logic isn’t hardcoded forever—it’s negotiated, voted on, and enforced by those who rely on it. Through the DAO, $IFM holders don’t just vote on ideas. They vote on incentives, execution guarantees, and ultimately, the future logic of distributed intelligence. The transition from InfraMind Foundation to InfraDAO is not a handoff — it is a proof-of-trust, one epoch at a time.

PreviousReputation SystemNextModel Marketplace & Curation

Last updated