Sensemaking · Custom → Product
4 participant mentions · Addresses 3 governance problems
AI-synthesized from participant responses. Data points are faithful to source material; narrative descriptions may contain elaborations beyond what participants stated. See Methodology. Original responses available on request.
Collaborative design processes where proposals are developed iteratively with community input before reaching a vote. Co-creation cycles transform governance from ratification of top-down proposals into genuine collaborative design, addressing the root cause of governance theater: communities voting on proposals they had no hand in shaping.
How It Works
A co-creation cycle replaces the linear propose-discuss-vote pipeline with an iterative loop: draft → community feedback → revision → more feedback → refined proposal → vote. The key difference from traditional “request for comments” periods is structure and commitment. In a co-creation cycle, the iteration process has defined stages, clear feedback mechanisms, and explicit commitments from proposal authors to incorporate community input.
Typically, a cycle begins with a problem statement rather than a solution. The community first aligns on what problem needs solving, then collectively explores solution space before a formal proposal is drafted. This prevents the common failure mode where a core team designs a solution in isolation and then asks the community to rubber-stamp it.
Each iteration narrows the design space based on community input. Early rounds explore broadly — what are the constraints, who is affected, what are the tradeoffs? Later rounds focus on specifics — implementation details, parameter choices, risk mitigations. By the time a proposal reaches a formal vote, it has already been shaped by community intelligence and reflects genuine collaborative design.
Some implementations include “temperature checks” between iterations — informal polls that gauge whether the proposal is converging toward something the community would support or whether fundamental disagreements remain that need to be addressed before proceeding.
Problems Addressed
- Governance Theater — Directly counters rubber-stamp governance by ensuring communities shape proposals before voting on them, making participation meaningful rather than performative
- Lack of Clear Purpose — The initial problem-definition phase helps organizations articulate what they’re actually trying to achieve before jumping to solutions
- Token Voting Failure — Reduces the stakes of any individual vote by ensuring proposals have been refined through community input, meaning the vote reflects genuine alignment rather than forced choice between flawed options
Key Actors
- Scroll DAO — Implementing co-creation cycles as a core part of their governance process, with structured feedback rounds and community design workshops
- NEAR — Using iterative community design processes for protocol governance decisions, with particular attention to including diverse stakeholder voices in the design phase
Maturity Assessment
At the Custom-to-Product boundary (ex 3), co-creation cycles are being actively used by several major governance organizations but haven’t fully standardized. The core challenge is time — iterative design is slower than top-down proposal creation, and organizations facing urgent decisions often shortcut the process. Successfully implemented co-creation cycles require facilitation expertise and process design skills that are still rare in the web3 governance space.
Participant Mentions
Referenced in 4 out of 52 interviews. Participants who mentioned co-creation cycles were typically experienced governance practitioners who had seen the failure mode firsthand: proposals designed by insiders that pass technically but lack community buy-in. They recognized that better governance outcomes require earlier community involvement, not just better voting mechanisms at the end.
See also: All Solutions · Phase 1 Results