Axynom
  • Introduction
    • What is Axynom?
    • Vision & Mission
  • Why Now
  • Founder's Note
  • The Problem
    • Centralized growth traps
  • Token reward inflation and failure
  • Lack of contributor alignment
  • Gatekeeping in Web3
  • Axynom Solution Overview
    • Proof of Growth (PoG)
    • Contributor as a Stakeholder
    • Transparent Rewards and Governance
  • Modular Ecosystem Architecture
  • PoG: Proof of Growth System
    • What is PoG
    • How Contributions Work
    • Voting and Governance Flow
  • GP: Growth Points
  • Role of Admins, Moderators, and Community
  • Examples of Valid Contributions
  • Axynom Token (AXY)
    • Token Utility
    • Tokenomics
  • Transfer Tax Logic
  • Governance Eligibility
  • Vesting and Distribution
  • Staking Mechanics
    • Lock Periods and APY
    • Early Exit Penalties
    • Sustainability Model
  • Treasury and Ecosystem Pools
    • Overview of Pools
    • Role of the Treasury
    • POL Strategy (Protocol-Owned Liquidity)
  • CaaS (Contributions-as-a-Service)
    • What is CaaS
    • Exporting the PoG System
    • Integration Possibilities
    • Revenue Model for Axynom
  • Governance & Voting
    • Governance Phases
    • Voting Power (AXY + GP)
    • Quorum & Approval Logic
    • No ‘Adjust GP’ Rule
  • Gas Economics
    • Why Arbitrum One
    • Axynom L3 Chain with AXY as Gas
  • Product Roadmap
    • Phase 1: MVP Launch (Staking, PoG, Treasury)
    • Phase 2: CaaS, L3 Chain, Scaled Contributor Base
    • Key Milestones
    • TGE Timeline (After Product-Market Fit)
  • Security & Audits
    • Upgradability Practices
    • Modular Contract Architecture
    • Audit Strategy Post-TGE
    • Role of Community Peer Review
  • KPI Forecast & Growth Goals
    • Contributors, GP Points, Stakers, TVL
    • Expected PoG Submissions
    • Treasury Size & Rewards Flow
    • Marketing & KOL Activation Plans
  • Conclusion
    • Axynom Is Not a Product. It’s a Protocol.
    • Call to Builders, Shillers, Designers, Thinkers
    • How to Get Involved
Powered by GitBook
On this page

Gatekeeping in Web3

Web3 promises openness. But most projects still operate like closed startups.

Access is limited. Decisions are private. Contributors are welcome to help, but not to lead, propose, or share ownership.

Gatekeeping shows up in subtle ways:

  • Contribution systems are informal or nonexistent

  • Core roles are filled through private chats, not open calls

  • Smart contracts are controlled by multisigs with no public input

  • Governance exists on paper, but not in practice

  • These patterns block the very people protocols are meant to serve.


Common forms of gatekeeping

Area
How Gatekeeping Happens

Access to work

No clear path to contribute or earn recognition

Decision-making

Closed groups control strategy and execution

Token allocation

Distribution favors insiders or private rounds

Governance

Voting is symbolic or limited to select holders


Gatekeeping limits innovation. It discourages new contributors and slows down growth.

Web3 should not copy the failures of Web2. It should do better, with systems that are open, fair, and built on transparent rules.

Axynom was built with this in mind. Anyone should be able to show up, contribute, and become part of the protocol, without needing permission.

PreviousLack of contributor alignmentNextProof of Growth (PoG)

Last updated 1 month ago