Axynom’s PoG system uses a phased governance model. The structure evolves from admin-based decisions to a hybrid model where contributors and stakers share voting power. This design allows for practical early-stage management while building toward long-term decentralization.
The voting system exists to ensure that Growth Points are assigned fairly, and that contributors are rewarded based on collective input — not private decisions.
Phase 1: Admin-Controlled Approval
During the initial phase, a limited set of protocol admins and moderators have the exclusive right to approve or reject contributions.
Reasons for this structure:
Ensures consistency in early evaluations
Protects the protocol from spam and low-quality work
Allows fine-tuning of the reward system
Admins assign GP, approve contributions on-chain, and can override submissions if needed. Every action is logged and auditable.
Phase 2: Community Voting Layer
As the contributor base grows, Axynom introduces a soft-governance model. In this phase, voting is opened to:
Verified contributors (based on GP or whitelisting)
AXY stakers who meet the minimum threshold
Moderators
Each contribution marked for community review enters a voting period. Participants can cast one of two votes:
Approve
Not Approved
There is no “edit GP” option. If a submission is rejected, the contributor must revise and re-submit.
Votes are recorded off-chain, but tied to on-chain contributor profiles. Once the approval threshold is reached (e.g. 60% Approve), a manager or admin finalizes the submission and calls submitForUser() to record it permanently.
Future: DAO-Aligned Governance
In a later phase, Axynom may delegate contribution approvals to DAO smart contracts or community-governed bodies. This model depends on having:
A secure voting system
Stake-weighted logic with fraud prevention
On-chain quorum and proposal tracking
The PoG system is modular enough to evolve without rewriting core contracts. Governance logic can be upgraded independently.
Approval Criteria
Every contribution is judged against a common set of internal guidelines, including:
Clarity of submission
Value to the protocol (reach, quality, utility)
Originality (not copied or low-effort)
Proof of completion
These criteria are made public to avoid confusion or bias.
The governance process is designed to be simple but reliable. In early stages, it ensures consistent curation. Later, it gives power to those who have earned it.
The system rewards participation, but also protects against manipulation, by separating GP assignment from GP voting, and logging all decisions for future review.