Debate: Defining a ‘Harmony Project’ for the purpose of CDAO Campaign Rule


The following polls have been added to reflect the conversation in the comments below. Please read the polls completely before selecting an option. You will not be able to change your vote once submitted. After a week of polling, the rule will move to a snapshot vote for eradication and addition to the Campaign Rules annex of the charter.

1.A candidate for Community DAO election MUST use an account run by a single individual.
Do you agree with this rule?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

  1. Do you believe an account with a native token should be allowed to run for a position on the CDAO council (i.e. Defi Kingdom/JEWEL, Tranquil Finance/TRANQ, etc)?
  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

  1. Do you think a name/account using the same name as a validator name should be allowed to run or should a separate account be setup and used?
  • YES
  • NO. A separate account should be used.

0 voters

  1. If a validator account is allowed to run, should the term ‘validator’ be excluded from use in the election announcement post and ballot name?
  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

  1. Should terms like ‘gaming, dex, lending, nft, etc’ be excluded from use in a candidacy post and ballot name? (i.e. "Monster Gaming’ or Monster NFTs’ would have to run as, simply, ‘Monster’, assuming the account is run by one individual.
  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

ORIGINAL POST: With the recent passage of HCIP-04 regarding Campaign Rules and Guidelines (Snapshot), the debate now must center around setting the parameters for rule #7 within the proposal: “A candidate CANNOT run for a governor position with an account/name used for an existing Harmony project (i.e. should Defi Kingdoms be allowed to run as a candidate? This means a personal account should be used). If this annex is approved for addition to the charter, there will need to be an additional community discussion on to define the parameters of which accounts fall under this category. Upon completion of that discussion, there will be another snapshot vote to approve those parameters. This rule will be excluded from this annex, if approved, until the completion of that process.”

We will discuss this topic for 7 days. Following the discussion, we will set the parameters by way of polls in a corresponding forum post to follow the HCIP process to officially decide what constitutes a ‘Harmony Project’ thereby clarifying which accounts would be prohibited from running to fill a position on the Community DAO Council. Please comment below what you feel should constitute definition as a ‘Harmony Project’ and any reasoning behind your stance.

1 Like

Personally, I feel that the definition of a ‘Harmony Project’ should be fairly basic and not overarching. It can always be refined in the future by another HCIP vote. My suggestion would be to add the following as the guidelines:

-Any project/account name that has a native token should be excluded (i.e. Defi Kingdoms → $JEWEL, Tranquil Finance → $TRANQ, etc.)

-Any project/account name with social accounts run by more than one person should be excluded.

-Independent validators should not be excluded from filling council positions

I confess that the last bullet point may come off as self-serving since I am a validator, but these are just my personal suggestions and will ultimately be left to community decision. There are many validators that serve on DAOs and contribute greatly to the success of the Harmony community. Excluding them as a whole would be a great disservice IMO.


Validators can be more than 1 person. I think the definition of “a harmony project” should be simply “must be an individual, 1 person, no groups”…

With the current wording, technically defi kingdoms could run as dfk on bsc :laughing: :rofl:.


I like that. Simple. Not excluding anyone, but setting a standard

1 Like

I believe all of your suggestions are appropriate and acceptable. Eliminating account names w/ native tokens removes possible conflicts of interest, which I believe was the focus of guideline #7.

I join a lot of the community spaces to learn about different projects in the works. Talking about those projects occasionally or when inquired, I believe, should be welcomed, but the account associated with their governor position shouldn’t come off as an advertisement in my opinion.

Independent validators SHOULD be allowed to fill a position if elected. A lot validators are an integral piece of the information supply chain. Without some of you, delegators and newcomers to the harmony ecosystem wouldn’t be where we are today.

1 Like

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid :slight_smile:


Validators shouldn’t be able to run using their validator name

If you name is Arthur and you operate Hubba Hubba Validator, you shouldn’t be able to campaign as “Hubba Hubba”, “Hubba Hubba Arthur”, or similar derivations

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. We will include that in the polling. I would add that 2 of the 3 commentors on here are validators by the same name, including myself and VDAO governor Maffaz, but I am here to serve the will of the community and if a validator cannot be allowed to run, then so be it.

Validators wouldn’t be excluded from running. They’d be excluded from running under their validator name. Same as any other candidate from any other “project”

1 Like

Ok, so in this scenario I suppose I would need to setup an alternate identity and have to essentially run a campaign to bring awareness that if they wish to vote for me as they know me, they need to vote for my alternative id? Not saying your thought process is wrong, just trying to figure out how this would work Or could I run as, say, ‘the dude?’

1 Like

The reasoning here behind this discussion point seems to be conflict of interest when a name is associated with a project.

A project could be defined as an enterprise in which a token, coin or nft is made available which can be tradable ( bought or sold ) and the value is dependant of the success or not of that project.

If you agree with the definition of project above (for the purposes of this discussion) Validators would not be classed as a project as they have no ability to influence the underlying value of the asset (in this case the value of ONE)

Correct me if i am wrong but, it is also my understanding that most Validators do not provide a site in which users can directly make financial transactions and stake ONE with them via this site directly which is another difference too a project.

Validators should also be excluded from restrictions on name use for a number of reasons:

Staking One with Validators is essential for the Harmony Blockchain. It is a benefit to see Validators actively involved in daos such as the Community Dao.
There are many Validators available to choose from so a validator is far from unique. (There are some differentiating factors but only 4 that i can see and a Govenor role would not influence these factors)
Validators should be encouraged to engage with the community.
I could go on.

A name that has a link to a project does not itself represent a conflict imo whereas a name that is the name of a project would. Eg: Monster could be associated with serveral projects including but not limited to the project named Monster Gaming. Monster could run as a Govenor but Monster Gaming could not if it meets the criteria set out above that would define it as a project.

People could feel that Monster reflects the project Monster Gaming however, there is no direct link and in my opinion Monster has a right to his her or their identity and branding within the space. Monster should not shill projects they are involved in (see definition above) whilst serving in their capacity as a govenor or in public spaces hosted by the Dao unless it is explicitly stated that other projects are available.

None Native Token projects that are not projects, as defined above, could be, but not limited too: Charity Organisations or Daos and lending platforms in which a coin or token such as One is borrowed and used for the repayment. (Non Native token)

Charity Organisations or Daos would require a site to be provided to recieve funds or direct to another site to do so. Using the previous example Monster Chairty Dao (or variations on it) would be excluded but Monster would not. This is so that members of the Dao or the public do not feel obligated to donate because of the Charity being a Govenor.

Lending Platforms also would require a site to be provided, even though the lending may be done in ONE and repayment in ONE there could be a perceived connection to being a govenor and this name should not be accepted, even though there is no influence on the underlying value of the token or coin there is an influence on interest rates set by the platform which they can directly control. Continuing with the previous examples, Monster Lending would be excluded but Monster would not.

Examples given are for illustrative purposes only and bear no resemblance or reference to actual projects, in reality a lending project may not be able to lend and repay in ONE but this was used to cover a point regarding non native tokens.

I provided these thoughts today as a member of the Community. Be kind if you reply please.

As the Community Dao is set out currently - the votes will decide on this is my understanding.

1 Like

Thanks for the insightful feedback @Megalodon !

You are spot on. There is a section in the charter already addressing acting governors engaging in self-dealing, but it is prudent to include it in campaigning rules to set the standard from the outset. There are currently 5 of the 9 governors running validator nodes and it is always a priority to discourage any self promotion when speaking in an official DAO capacity. We do answer questions related to the staking process when brought up by community members or when something is of great importance to the community, like the approaching sunsetting of the Chrome extension wallet, but try to do so from an informative position and not as a validator. The only other purpose, really, of this discussion is to prevent an account with multiple people handling it to disallow a single governors actions to be controlled by multiple sources and enable them to avoid any conflicts that might arise in such a scenario.

You are correct in your understanding and, personally, I would have to agree with your opinions.

I really like your input to this point and as a potential compromise to @TrickLuhDaKidz , I would suggest that a validator candidate could not include ‘validator’ in their candidacy post header or ballot name. For example, in this circumstance I could run as Harmonious Dude, but not Harmonious Dude Validator.

Again, thanks for the responses and I hope the community continues to weigh in. Polling for this topic should begin tomorrow (saturday the 5th).

1 Like

One other point I just thought of that differentiates a validator from other projects is that a validator does not have the ability to rug the community. At no point is a delegator entrusting their coins to the validator’s stewardship. At the very worst, a validator can shut down and the delegator ceases to earn staking rewards.

I see both sides to the issue but mostly lean towards the fact that validators are also community members. It is agreed we should minimize conflicts of interest but at the same time, validators should not be unduly restricted simply because they are signing blocks on the network. Requiring them to take on a pseudonymous name seems uneccessary and borderline unfair.

I think Harmonious’ suggestion to prohibit the use of validator in the name is reasonable.


Maybe “the dude” would be acceptable to the Community. Maybe not. Idk. It’s obviously still part of your validator name, but “dude” is also a pretty generic/common term

It might be simpler to just say no portion of the validator name can be used as a candidate name, just to avoid gray areas

But Mr lebowski or rug lover would be fine, of course

Also, this would apply to if a governor is elected and later spins up a validator. If they use the same name for their governor position and validator, and they want to rerun for dao governor, they would need to use a different governor name

My stance is no

No validator name and no project name. For me it’s more of an “influencer” issue. It’s the same reason i was against allowing governors to publicly support candidates. I like impartiality

As to monster (candidate) and monster gaming (project), i think that’s clearly more differentiated than harmonious dude (candidate) and harmonious dude (validator). Only using “monster” would be more comparable to you using “the dude” like you suggested in an earlier comment

But again, i think it’s simpler (and better) to avoid using any part of a project or validator name for candidates. They’d still be able to list their project affiliation in their candidacy announcement. But it would (hopefully) make the substance of what each candidate brings to the table more valuable than just their name recognition. If we’re lucky, maybe more candidates would come forward, too, knowing that DFK Bob and Validator Sandra wouldn’t automatically start with more support solely based on their name. Idk

Polling has begun and has been added to the original post Up top. Please make your voice heard

Anything >50% passes? Or does it need to be 60%, 2/3, etc?