Hifi Guardians and Community

Guardians Summary

Doug Leonard has done a blog and a summary of what a guardian is and I believe most of it still stands to date here is the link Mainframe Guardians & Community Migration to Discord | by Doug Leonard | Hifi Finance | Official blog

Guardians is an exclusive group of the most active advocates within our community. These members will act as community ambassadors across our social channels, contributing to conversations that promote the HiFI Lending Protocol and Pawn Bots.

Guardians Responsibilities Must Include:

⦁ Act as a positive and welcoming member of the community, promoting inclusivity and friendliness.
⦁ Help to moderate the Discord channels, ensuring that they remain safe and respectful for all members.
⦁ Assist other community members with questions or concerns they may have.
⦁ Report any issues or concerns to the appropriate channels or team members.
⦁ Participate in community events and activities.
⦁ Stay up-to-date on community guidelines and policies.
⦁ Promote and enforce the use of proper language and communication in the Discord.
⦁ Help to identify and address any potential conflicts or issues within the community.
⦁ Contribute to the overall growth and success of the community.
⦁ Guardians should have the power to be able put people in time out if needed.
⦁ Guardians should be able to remove scam links across our social channels.

Here are requirements and rules for becoming a guardian in the HiFi community:

⦁ Must have a minimum number of Pawn Bots (2 or to be defined).
⦁ Must hold a minimum amount of HiFi tokens (5,000 or to be defined).
⦁ Must be at least 18 years old.
⦁ Must have a strong understanding of the community guidelines and policies.
⦁ Must have a history of being a positive and respectful member of the community.
⦁ Must be willing to actively participate in community events and activities.
⦁ Must be able to commit to being an active and engaged guardian.
⦁ Must be able to communicate effectively and professionally with other members of the community.
⦁ Must be able to handle moderation tasks and conflicts in a calm and fair manner.
⦁ Must pass the Hifi Quiz and Quiz Masters.
⦁ Guardians who have not been active for more than 3 months (or to be defined) will be automatically removed.
⦁ Maximum of 12 guardians (or to be defined) in the community.
⦁ Guardians are elected annually, but can bring the election forward with the agreement of at least 6 other guardians.
⦁ KingCliff and kellypr are being proposed as candidates for guardianship.

I have not added voting power delegated? So if x % delegated you’re automatically a guardian as this could be manipulated in a wrong way by money and should be discussed by the community in the forum on their opinion regarding this.

1 Like

So your looking to start a discussion around creating a formalization of the Guardian role? From what I read of what you wrote it implies that the Guardians when approved are to be added to both HIFI and Pawnbots? Is that right?

I think that this is a pretty strong starting point for discussion, but I think since the community voted to turn HIFI into a DAO, things like this are already being worked on by the team behind the curtain. If its not, we can revisit this.

Why can’t this not be discussed now is it not for the community to decide that?

it certainly can be discussed right now, and this is only my opinion on the matter… but I feel that we should focus our time and energy on this particular topic if the team has not. I feel its going to turn into the TokenSwap Ratio thread where everybody speculated for months… then the team produces the rationale for the number and we all collectively go “Oh ok that makes sense. We’ll back it.” and then discussion is over.

1 Like

Yeah I completely see your point of view regarding this but also did the team use the TokenSwap Ratio thread in helping them make the decision on the proposal if so then discussing it could bring more insight or even change points of view for the team and community thank you for your reply mate

Are there certain qualities or characteristics that are difficult to quantify and may still make a person a strong candidate for the Guardian role? Could relying on the intuition of existing Guardians, chosen based on trust, be helpful in these cases?

Does the community at large gather consensus through observations of a person’s historically consistent interactions with the community, behavior, and attitude? How do we measure if someone is the right fit for the role? Is it about putting the community first and maintaining a flat, non-hierarchal, respectful environment for dialogue? How does this evolve?

Could criteria for becoming a Guardian include a certain level of involvement and contribution to the community, demonstrated through activities such as participating in community discussions, and helping to moderate social channels? Could campaigning and receiving enough votes through activities like moderating social channels also be a factor?

Is the possession of certain digital assets, such as NFTs or ERC 20 tokens, a reliable indicator of a person’s suitability for the Guardian role or is it non-inclusive? Do other factors such as a person’s history of contributions and activity within the community weigh more on what could be taken into account?

Could the process for becoming a Guardian involve nominations from existing Guardians, who have firsthand experience working with potential candidates, and also involve the wider community through a voting system or discussions in a forum? How do we ensure anonymity in the voting process to prevent being judged? Should discussion and consensus within the community play a role through a vote, similar to running for office?


The proposal should define the role and responsibilities of guardians within the group. It should also include a plan for how the group should be managed, such as through annual elections or recommendations from guardians followed by community acceptance. Other factors to consider might include limiting the number of guardians, pruning less active members, or linking guardian status to voting power through a delegate system. These are just a few ideas that could be addressed in the proposal.
Could you please expand on that @Kingcliff82 to continue the discussion?

The questions you are asking are quite thought-provoking and deserving of discussion.

1 Like

Good topic as I suspect the Guardian role is one that has evolved over time & generally when this occurs, definitions change and/or erode. I note the link to the 2020 Blog and given the the time that has since passed, this is worthwhile to revisit for validity, transparency & acceptance.

I may be misinterpreting, however I feel there are two proposals rolled into one here. Firstly is the overall Guardian Role from a ‘What, Why & How’ perspective. The second is the nomination of @KingCliff & @KellyPR as candidates.

I will look at the second part first. In theory, this could occur very quickly via an addition of role by the Hifi Labs team. This would be consistent with how Guardians have been granted the role to date. Personally, I am content with this judgement, however I concede it does not support the recent transition towards a DAO. With this in mind, I feel it is timely to review.& discuss.

The first part of the proposal is quite extensive and requires consideration and formalization. Once fully defined, how is this then applied? Personally, I feel a classic ‘spill & fill’ is the option where all roles are declared vacant and a new nomination and election is conducted. This also ensures Guardians who are nominated are fully aware of what they are signing up for and it enables a clear process to move forward with from that point on.

So back to the portion relating to @KingCliff & @ KellyPR becoming Guardians. Currently as things sit right now, I feel this is purely at the discretion of the existing Hifi Labs team. If they deem this appropriate, they can add the two mentioned members, however is this really desirable long term? I think not and as such, once the Role is defined and formalized, I would welcome these nominations ( also for other community members) and the result of that election/selection period is where the new era of Guardians commences.


Would it be better to divide the topic to solve the two proposals?
How about discussing both and then presenting them separately?

I think with @jaydubb.eth’s suggestion of eliminating the current Guardians and then letting the community pick them, would fix the second part of the request, of being able to add new guardians. I think the current 8 or 10 Guardians is sufficient for this process and letting the community decide has merit.

1 Like

I appreciate you sharing your ideas on this topic. It’s important that we thoroughly examine all available options and alternatives before moving forward. I believe that further discussion on this topic will allow us to formulate the best proposal for everyone. Thank you for your input.

in hindsight, should set a length of say, 6 months from when the DAO becomes active and then at the end of the 6 month time frame, the guardians have to be re-elected. This ensure that only those who are active during their elected period and campaign will get the positions and allows the community to remove any bad apples and elect people they want to see like @Kingcliff82 and @KellyPR


To get your idea included in the strategy to get active and involved Guardians within the DAO and the community, @Kingcliff82 needs to update the proposal.

Thank you for the suggestion. I will add the time period that you are suggesting as part of the proposal on the final version and then check everyone is happy with it.

1 Like