Current State: Fixed Parameters In the current phase (Phase 1), Scape operates with fixed parameters :
Parameter Current Governance Index weights Fixed at launch Index components Fixed at launch Oracle provider Scape-selected (TBD) Fee structure HIP-3 standard (fixed) Market activation Implementation TBD
Why fixed? Early-stage protocol development requires agility and clear accountability. Premature decentralization can slow development and create governance overhead without sufficient participation.Future State: Progressive Decentralization Future governance is roadmap only. The mechanisms described below are intentions, not commitments. Implementation may differ based on development progress and community needs.
Governance Evolution Path
Phase 1: Centralized (Current)
Scape team makes all decisions. Fast iteration, clear accountability.
Phase 2: Consultation
Major decisions involve community consultation. Feedback shapes direction.
Phase 3: Governance Framework
Formal governance process. Proposals, voting, execution.
Phase 4: Full Decentralization
Community-controlled governance. Scape team becomes one participant among many.
Timeline (Indicative) Phase Target Status Phase 1 2024-2025 Current Phase 2 2025 Planned Phase 3 2026 Planned Phase 4 TBD Aspirational
Governable Parameters Different parameters have different governance sensitivities:
High-Sensitivity (Requires Strong Governance) Parameter Impact Current Future Index weights Affects market exposure Fixed Governance vote Component additions Expands index scope Manual Governance vote Component removals Narrows index scope Manual Governance vote Fee allocation Affects participant economics Fixed Governance vote
Parameter Impact Current Future Rebalancing frequency Market implications None Governance or programmatic Oracle provider Price feed dependency TBD selection Governance vote AP requirements Physical backing access N/A (roadmap) Governance framework
Low-Sensitivity (Operational) Parameter Impact Current Future Documentation updates Information only Scape team Scape team Interface improvements UX only Scape team Scape team Bug fixes Security/stability Scape team Scape team
Potential Governance Token No governance token exists today. This section describes potential future design, not current plans.
If a Governance Token Is Introduced Potential token utility:
Function Description Voting Vote on protocol parameters Proposal Submit governance proposals Delegation Delegate voting power Participation Engage in governance activities
Token Distribution Considerations Any future token distribution would need to balance:
Builders: Team and contributorsEarly Supporters: Contributors who helped activate marketsParticipants: Active market participantsCommunity: Broader ecosystem
If a governance token is planned, full details will be announced with clear terms. No token exists or is promised today.
Index Governance: Weights & Components Current: Fixed Weights Index weights are set at launch and do not change:
Index Weight Methodology sSEMIS Fixed: Cu 25%, Al 15%, Si 30%, Sn 15%, Ag 15% sDEFENSE Fixed: W 26.3%, NdPr 23.7%, U₃O₈ 19.7%, Ni 15.8%, Sb 14.5% sAERO Fixed: Ti 28%, Ni 24%, Al 20%, Cu 15%, Co 13% sENERGY Fixed: Brent 25%, Mars 20%, Naphtha 15%, NdPr 20%, Poly 20%
Future Options Governance-Voted Weights
Programmatic Rebalancing
Committee-Based
Token holders vote on weight changes: Process:
Proposal submitted with rationale
Discussion period
Voting period
If passed, implementation with notice period
Pros: Democratic, community-aligned
Cons: Slow, potential for political captureRules-based weight adjustments: Example rules:
Quarterly rebalancing to target weights
Cap individual component at 35%
Remove component if liquidity falls below threshold
Pros: Predictable, automatic
Cons: May not adapt to novel situationsExpert committee manages weights: Structure:
Elected or appointed committee members
Regular review cycles
Published methodology and rationale
Pros: Expert judgment, faster than full vote
Cons: Centralization, potential conflictsProtocol Upgrades Smart Contract Upgrades Options for contract upgradeability:
Approach Description Trade-off Immutable No upgrades possible Secure but inflexible Proxy pattern Upgradeable via proxy Flexible but upgrade risk Timelocked Upgrades require delay Balanced Governance-gated Upgrades require vote Democratic but slow
Current approach: (TBD — confirm)Emergency Actions Some situations require fast action:
Critical security vulnerabilities
Oracle failures
Market manipulation
Regulatory requirements
Emergency governance: (TBD — confirm mechanism for emergency actions)Transparency Commitments Regardless of governance model:
Commitment Description Public methodology All index calculations documented On-chain verifiability Key parameters verifiable on-chain Audit trail Changes recorded with timestamps Notice periods Material changes announced in advance Open discussion Community channels for feedback
Governance Risks Governance introduces its own risks.
Risk Description Capture Special interests dominate voting Apathy Low participation leads to unrepresentative outcomes Complexity Governance overhead slows progress Manipulation Vote buying or manipulation Fragmentation Community splits over contentious decisions
Feedback & Participation Current Channels Even without formal governance, community input is valued:
Channel Purpose Discord General discussion (if available) Twitter Announcements and engagement Docs feedback Improve documentation Direct contact [email protected]
Future Governance Participation When governance launches, participation may include:
Acquiring governance tokens (if applicable)
Delegating to representatives
Submitting proposals
Voting on proposals
Serving on committees
Roadmap Overview Full development roadmap.
