DeCentra Steem - a proposal to develop a self-governed structure for foundation and Steem ecosystem

Steem is full of talks about decentralisation. Therefore, this post is an invitation to explore field-tested organisational paradigms for the foundation, which put decentralisation and self-governance in the first place.
Research on organisational performance shows, that incredibly effective structures may be set up following these lines. Just check the web for holacracy or teal-organisations in the culture model of Laloux.

If working on a proposal in this direction is of interest for you, please leave a note in the comments line or reach out on Discord to @traveller7761 [impactn]#9847. If nobody cares, it was worthwhile a try.

Starting point

Hierarchal structures are limited in their ability to adjust in fast-moving and complex surroundings. Crypto is one of the fastest moving surroundings one can imagine. Steem ecosystem is highly complex, being reshaped over and over again by the changing composition of stakeholders and participants. So, it seems reasonable to look beyond organisational forms applied within today’s companies or non-profits, because they all struggle in coping with complexity problems.

Credits

The image shows different organisational paradigms which have evolved over time, following the culture model of Laloux. Most of us are probably used to work in organisations following the orange paradigm, with a centralised management by objectives, or in the amber model, hierarchy applied within administrations and military services.

Newer developments – the green and teal organisations - give decentralisation and self-governance a lot more room. They are not necessarily the better ones, but they could fit very well to the Steem ecosystem. Here is a video explaining these different paradigms, which I’d highly recommend to watch before continuing to read.

What would a structure for Steem (foundation) look like following these newer paradigms?

Here are some ideas to answer this question. PLEASE – these are ideas and are meant to trigger the discussion in a working circle (hopefully) to come. To make them better accessible, they are set up in form of a management summary.

Decentra-Steem – a glance at the future!

Steem ecosystem is something like a living organism. Already the process leading to the point where it is now, has been a result of decentralised self-governance. Trust in Steemians has been part of an underlying set of beliefs. Why not take this to the next level?

Purpose of this proposal is strengthening the Steem ecosystem as a whole, through projects and also through structures, processes and practices to be established. Doing so, the large spectrum of ideas, knowledge and execution power in ecosystem will be released to make it grow and finally reach mainstream adoption.

What are key elements of such a system?

Key-element no. 1 are self-organised working circles. Every group of at least five Steemians with a minimum stake of all together x SP may create such a circle. Task of these circles is bringing forward project proposals and the obligation to execute them in a transparent manner as well.

Key-element no. 2 is the foundation. It acts as trustee and advisor. As a trustee it takes care that money is only distributed according to the rules of the ecosystem. Advisors, working within the foundation, assist the working circles, but don’t have any decision power at all. There is no need for a leader, a board or whatever bigger executive body, just a legal representative could be necessary.

How does this work?

Working circles may cover every task such as blockchain development, investment of foundation assets, marketing, developing of goals for the development of the ecosystem… Their setup has to follow specific consultation rules, e.g. they would have to publicly discuss their ideas with at least two other circles and x advisors. Their work is governed by behavioral rules, concerning interaction with the ecosystem and internal collaboration.

Consultation and behavioral rules ensure working ability of the circles, their integration into the Steem ecosystem and the interaction with the foundation. These would have to be set up as part of the proposal, using best practice from organisations already working with these principles.

If, despite the consultation process, the volume of proposals would exceed the foundation budget, strategical decisions would be made by the community. Already established management methods could be used to do so.

Working circle members, advisors and trustees are accountable to the community. Every group of x persons may step up and ask for the well-justified resignation of any of these persons, followed by a ruled-based set of consultations. Well-justified means, that the person doesn't work for the overall purpose anymore.

How to carry on?

This sounds like fantasy? Several very successful companies such as Patagonia are already run this way. It works, because it is based on trust, not on distrust. And it works because a whole set of rules and practices is applied. These already exist for companies - each of them having a different set of them. For an ecosystem like Steem, rules would have to be adjusted. Apart from examples form companies already working this way, governance of stakeholder networks could teach Steem community something on how to set up these rules.

I am putting this idea in front of the community because I think, proven ideas around decentralisation should definitely be considered at this stage of the discussion. If a group of people is interested in developing a proposal, based on this line of thought, I’ll be happy to engage further.