Action Intake
A one-page intake brief that establishes what a governance action actually asks DReps to decide, before any analysis begins.
- Workflow
- Understand a Governance Action
- Formats
- Markdown
Founding Phase · Private Beta. The Institute is in private beta. Any example content is labelled as such and is never presented as real.
Practical templates, checklists, workbooks and decision tools designed to help independent DReps research proposals, test claims, document reasoning and communicate decisions.
Featured standard
A shared format for explaining DRep decisions clearly and consistently. Standardize the explanation, not the vote.
Write a Quick Report in minutes, or expand it into a Full Report without starting over. Copy or export either one as Markdown or plain text.
Every tool sits in the stage of governance work it belongs to. Pick the task in front of you rather than the file format you expect.
A repeatable path for a new DRep. Each step names the tools that carry the work forward.
A one-page intake brief that establishes what a governance action actually asks DReps to decide, before any analysis begins.
A row-per-claim map that separates what a proposal asserts from the evidence actually supplied for it, with a citation log you can publish.
A structured walk through financial, professional, and personal interests that helps you reach a documented, defensible position on disclosure or recusal.
A complete, publishable record of how you reached a decision, with an optional standardised public summary and a permanent correction log.
A shared format for explaining DRep decisions clearly and consistently. Standardize the explanation, not the vote.
An operational security runbook for the specific responsibilities a DRep carries: key custody, backups, recovery planning, device hygiene, and incident documentation.
Secure your keys and accounts before you hold any voting power.
Run the ten-minute scan first, then go deeper only where the scan raises a flag.
Check every load-bearing claim against a source you can cite.
Rebuild the budget from the bottom up and probe the rates behind it.
Judge whether the team can ship what it promised, and at what technical cost.
Handle conflicts, then write down why the evidence points where it does.
Follow delivery after the vote and correct the record when facts change.
Judge whether a team can ship what it promised, and get expert input when it matters.
1 of 15 resources
A structured review for proposed protocol parameter changes: what the value is now, what it becomes, who it affects, what the downside looks like, and how it would be reversed.
Plain-language paraphrases. Canonical sources are linked where they exist.
Standards updates, new research, and training releases. No voting recommendations - ever.