Ambassador Fellowship Governance: Pre-Implementation Risk Assessment - Executive Summary Only

ambassador-fellowship-governance.md

Ambassador Fellowship Governance: Pre-Implementation Risk Assessment

Executive Summary

I prepared a risk analysis that identifies significant governance, legal, and privacy concerns with the proposed on-chain implementation of the Ambassador Fellowship. This executive summary outlines these risks and highlights critical questions that should be addressed before implementation.

The purpose of this risk assessment is twofold: 1) Polkadot OpenGov Pull Request #736 implements only a simplified subset of the full Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto previously approved by OpenGov, potentially requiring new approval; and 2) the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Governance Extension Pallet I've developed implements critical manifesto components missing from PR #736, but requires proper governance foundations to be effective. Addressing these concerns before implementation would:

1. Increase Approval Likelihood: Demonstrate thorough risk assessment and mitigation planning, showing OpenGov voters that governance risks have been carefully considered and addressed (e.g., requesting rewards and recognition only once proper governance treasury controls have been established).

2. Enable Future Extensions: Create a governance foundation that would support future extensions (including the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Governance Extension Pallet's evidence handling patterns and committee formation mechanisms that were mentioned here PolkadotOpenSourceGrants/apply#37) without requiring disruptive changes later. Specifically, adding these governance mechanisms after initial deployment would require storage migrations that risk data corruption or loss (e.g., migrating from simple rank storage to committee-based structures), runtime upgrades requiring coordination across the entire network, integrating new governance mechanisms with existing processes that weren't designed with them in mind (e.g., retrofitting appeals processes onto existing disciplinary actions), convincing higher-ranked members with disproportionate voting power (due to the geometric 0-21 rather than linear vote distribution) to approve reforms that would reduce their influence, and maintaining backward compatibility with existing on-chain state and processes.

Note that while I've developed a separate Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Governance Extension Pallet that would specifically address potential centralization risks, rank transition safeguards, referendum manipulation, and cross-program integration through its committee formation patterns and evidence handling mechanisms, I may not proceed with publishing it until these foundational governance questions are resolved. The pallet's mechanisms could potentially amplify existing risks if implemented without proper safeguards (e.g., emergency response mechanisms could be misused without clear limitations and expiration periods).

3. Protect Member Interests: Implement proper legal and privacy protections before on-chain identity verification and governance actions create permanent records that could expose members to liability. The highest likelihood liability exposures in the current implementation include: (1) personal liability for in-person events organized without proper insurance or waivers (e.g., if an attendee is injured at a meetup), (2) joint and several liability for treasury actions if operating as an unincorporated association (e.g., if funds are misused or tax obligations aren't met), and (3) regulatory non-compliance across multiple jurisdictions for data handling without proper privacy policies (e.g., potential GDPR violations in the EU).

4. Address Governance Concentration Risks: The current geometric voting power distribution (0-21 votes) follows a similar rank-weighted approach as the Technical Fellowship, but its specific implementation creates a steeper power gradient that could concentrate decision-making in a small group (e.g., just 10 members at Rank IV with 10 votes each could outvote 100 members at Rank I with 1 vote each, and if Rank V positions are filled in the future, the concentration would be even more extreme with 15 votes per member). This is particularly concerning because the manifesto's rank promotion criteria are based solely on majority votes from higher-ranked members without any objective governance qualification requirements, creating a risk that individuals could be elevated to senior ranks based on social factors rather than demonstrated governance competence. Given the governance challenges experienced in the previous seeding process, any implementation should establish transparent, objective criteria for rank evaluation through a collaborative process where ambassadors themselves propose and refine the evaluation framework. Consideration should be given to proposing a manifesto addendum that would allow previously assigned ranks to be reconsidered using this community-defined framework, ensuring a balanced assessment of both governance qualifications and community contributions. In the interim, until this process is complete, a flat voting power distribution (one-member-one-vote) should be implemented to prevent governance concentration based on ranks assigned through the previous process.

The initial seeding process required applications that were evaluated behind closed doors by the Advisory Board that was established through the execution of Polkadot OpenGov Referendum #1287 https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1287 without publishing evaluation reports or transparent evaluation criteria. Applicants self-selected their desired ranks and provided justifications, but the final decisions were made by this board without publishing their evaluation methodology or comparative assessments. The process was repeatedly delayed with multiple missed deadlines, with one member who was tasked with overseeing the administration and technical processes admitting on 1st January 2025 that the board was still determining "what parameters they are going to use when looking at the self rankings" after applications had closed, indicating the evaluation criteria were not established before evaluations began. Despite collecting 150-160 applications, no public list of rankings or evaluation criteria was promptly released, with another member who was tasked with overseeing the administration and technical processes stating on 13th January 2025 when members questioned the process that "the full list will be released at some point", "the board was deliberately strict in order to make the ranks mean something.", and to "manage your expectations", and that any concerns about rankings would be addressed individually (rather than through transparent documentation). Governance problems continued after the seeding process, revealing a breakdown in governance accountability. After the initiative's conclusion, one Advisory Board member confessed on 10th May 2025 that they "had no real idea to what I agreed upfront and found it confusing all the time" https://forum.polkadot.network/t/official-statement-of-the-advisory-board-of-the-polkadot-ambassador-fellowship/12810/13 and that evaluating ranks for "people I did not knew" was "way too much what I could handle," directly confirming the lack of clear evaluation criteria and governance processes. Ultimately, the initiative was discontinued, with the Advisory Board disbanding and returning funds to the treasury, citing on 5th May 2025 "misalignment in governance" among the reasons. Given these governance challenges and lessons learned, any future implementation should not rely on these previously assigned ranks but should establish transparent, objective criteria for rank evaluation and conduct a fresh assessment. This governance experience demonstrates the importance of establishing proper foundations before implementing on-chain governance.

The manifesto explicitly states that the Ambassador Fellowship will "favour social consensus in its decision-making," further reinforcing this concern. For roles with significant on-chain voting power, logical prerequisites like prior OpenGov participation and demonstrated governance experience are notably absent from the seeding and promotion criteria, as are processes for considering documented evidence of past poor governance practices. While rank-weighted voting has precedent in the ecosystem, evaluating the specific implementation would help ensure broad participation and resistance to governance capture, aligning with Polkadot's principles of distributed authority.

5. Improve Implementation Quality: Addressing governance foundations before implementation would result in a more robust, balanced, and sustainable governance system that better serves the Ambassador Fellowship's long-term mission and reduces the risk of governance failures or capture (e.g., preventing scenarios where emergency powers lack mandatory expiration dates or where disciplinary actions proceed without fair hearing rights, appeals processes, or evidence requirements).

I believe the following critical governance questions should be properly considered and addressed before on-chain implementation to increase the likelihood of OpenGov approval, as the current design could entrench centralization and make governance reforms more difficult after deployment:

1. Privacy Policy: Does the Ambassador Fellowship have a comprehensive privacy policy that addresses the full lifecycle of data handling for both members and non-members?

2. Terms of Use: Has the Ambassador Fellowship established detailed Terms of Use that define acceptable behaviors, liability limitations, and dispute resolution?

3. Treasury Governance: What legal and financial controls will govern the Ambassador Fellowship treasury to ensure proper management and regulatory compliance?

4. Legal Structure Alignment: How will the Ambassador Fellowship's approach to legal liability align with the broader Polkadot DAO framework, while addressing the unique risks associated with Ambassador Fellowship activities like in-person events and public representation? What specific protections might be needed beyond those currently in place for the Polkadot DAO?

5. Centralization Mitigation: How will the implementation prevent power concentration through the geometric voting distribution (0-21 votes) and unilateral powers granted to higher ranks?

6. Rank Transition Safeguards: What objective criteria and transparent processes will govern rank transitions to prevent abuse or manipulation?

7. Emergency Response Protocols: What governance mechanisms will be established for handling Ambassador Fellowship-specific emergencies such as governance attacks, reputation threats, or coordination with the Technical Fellowship on technical issues that affect Ambassador operations?

8. Professional Services Framework: What standards and oversight will govern the registration and referral of professional service providers to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest?

9. Cross-Program Integration and Physical Safety: How will the Ambassador Fellowship manage interactions with ecosystem programs that operate with different governance standards, particularly for in-person events? For example, how will liability and member safety be managed when collaborating with the Meetups Bounty program, which lacks a code of conduct despite funding in-person events across multiple jurisdictions?

Note: These questions should be addressed through a collaborative process involving members from all ranks, with external expertise consulted for legal and regulatory matters. Each answer should specify both on-chain implementation details and off-chain supporting components, following the evidence handling pattern where on-chain actions are linked to off-chain evidence. This analysis is provided for consideration only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Professional counsel should be sought for definitive guidance on these matters.