RFC: Radix Strategic Council

Governance
1

Proposal: Radix Strategic Council (name TBC)

The Proposal

Nobody currently owns the strategic direction of Radix. The Foundation is stepping back, and the RAC has focused on legal and technical infrastructure. That work matters, but it leaves critical gaps: product, marketing, partnerships, innovation, and community growth all lack accountable leadership.

This proposal establishes a new body (which may sit within a reformed RAC or alongside it) with six functional areas, each with an elected Lead. The community votes on who fills each role.

Candidates apply for specific Lead positions and may optionally propose a compensation package. Volunteer commitment is welcome, but the community should be willing to fund quality candidates who can dedicate real time and energy. We need people who are committed, not people who disappear.

Purpose

This body owns the strategic direction of Radix through the transition. It does not deliver everything directly, but it is accountable for ensuring a plan exists, progress is being made, and the community is informed.

Functional Areas

1. Legal

  • Remit: Establish the legal structure for decentralised governance. Manage IP transfer, regulatory compliance, and treasury custody.
  • Success Metrics: Legal entity established; IP transferred; treasury multi-sig operational; no regulatory actions.

2. Community

  • Remit: Grow, retain, and activate the Radix community. Own communication, onboarding, and contributor experience.
  • Success Metrics: Active members across Discord/Telegram/RadixTalk; contributor retention; community satisfaction (periodic survey).

3. Innovation

  • Remit: Deliver Xi’an and future protocol upgrades. Foster new dApps and ecosystem experimentation. Manage grants, hackathons, and builder programmes.
  • Success Metrics: Xi’an milestones delivered against plan; new dApps on mainnet; grant completions; TVL growth.

4. Marketing

  • Remit: Own Radix’s positioning, narrative, and visibility. Coordinate campaigns, content, and channel presence.
  • Success Metrics: Social reach and engagement growth; new wallet activations; share of voice vs comparable L1s.

5. Partnerships

  • Remit: Pursue and secure integrations, exchange listings, and ecosystem relationships that expand Radix’s reach and utility.
  • Success Metrics: New integrations live; trading volume across exchanges; active partnership agreements.

6. Product

  • Remit: Define and maintain the product roadmap for Xi’an and beyond. Prioritise development and coordinate delivery via community contributors and RFPs.
  • Success Metrics: Roadmap published and maintained; milestone delivery rate; developer adoption of new features.

Ways of Working

What a Lead Does

Each area has a single elected Lead. They are accountable for progress, but they are not the person doing all the work. Their role is to activate the community, rally contributors, and create the conditions for things to happen.

In practice:

  • Define the plan and priorities for their area

  • Rally community members and encourage people to proactively step up

  • Scope and issue RFPs where paid work is needed

  • Track progress against success metrics and be transparent about it

  • Escalate blockers and risks to the community

A Lead’s job is to make sure the right things are happening, not to do all of them personally. If a Lead is doing everything themselves, something has gone wrong.

Status Tracking

Each area maintains a public status at all times:

Status Meaning
On Track Plan exists, progress being made
At Risk Slower than planned or blockers exist
Off Track No meaningful progress or no plan
Not Started Not yet scoped or kicked off

Community Updates

Leads provide fortnightly written updates on RadixTalk covering progress, blockers, next steps, and consolidated status across all six areas. Ad hoc updates when significant decisions are made.

Election and Removal

  • Leads are elected via XRD-weighted consultation

  • Each Lead serves a 6-month term (proposed)

  • The community can call a vote of no confidence at any time, subject to a minimum participation threshold

  • If a Lead is removed or steps down, a replacement election is held within 14 days

  • Outgoing Leads provide a handover covering status, open items, and recommendations

Please input.

The areas aforementioned are suggestions, please revise accordingly.

1 Like
2

Hi Phil.
I spent quite an amount of time to include your requirements into the Suggested Governance framework. Also up against how other DAO’s are doing it. It is actually being covered pretty well with how Working Groups Framework is designed.

Please read the suggested Strategic Coordination Working Group Charter.

Each Working Group will operate within approved Mandate and budget given by public proposals. The coordination Workgroup does not rule above this but coordinate between the groups. The WG Framework sits currently in Phase 2 if not proposed activated as part of phase 1.

If no Strategic Coordination WG is activated as part of Phase1 the coordinating role sits within the current RAC mandate as part of the transition phase.

I am not saying that the suggested framework will be accepted. But I think it will be even more difficult to align the mandates between RAC and RSC.

Due to the corrdination challnge the recommendation were to consolidate the Working Groups to fewer in order to easy the sync and coordination between them.

If you think something is missing please reach out.

3

So you’r planning about having a Strategic Coordination WG that operates about the underlying specific WG Groups ?

that seems reasonable

4

btw I’d prefer a simple ‘Business Development’ WG instead of two separate Marketing + Partnership

That I wanna see is the Radix logo and brand alongside the other L1s given that crypto is also spreading within trad fi solutions and Radix appears nowhere

given some recent discussion I have read our proposal is competitive, I think about the Drift hack protocol or about the tokenized deposited solution some banks are starting now where they permissionless network

1 Like
5

Like your thinking.
Where does Strategy fit in. Where does Market Making fit in. There is no limits to be honest. We need to find a way. And if its natural to have a seperate Working Group, that’s fine.
The more Working Groups we have, the more need for a Coordination Group we will need.
Consolidation of Working Groups is a luxury in these days. :slight_smile:

6

I agree about not having too many.

Precisely for this reason, ‘marketing’ WG resembles ecosystem growth or partnership. the product WG for example is a very different thing, it is a technical WG and is obviously necessary. the same for the WG legal

btw this has not the preview enabled Working-Groups

  1. /WG-Governance-and-Legal
7

fixed. Filename issue.

8

This is great. I agree we need working groups — people can easily join and contribute where their interests and skills are.

I will build out from Daffy’s dao repo and start making the working groups operational draft mode.

My thinking: form the first Community Strategic Working Group as an ‘informal’ seed group. Its mandate is to stand up the next ‘formal’ working groups in an orderly way — charters, membership, accountability, funding.

I am guessing this is going to get disorderly quickly on the ground - with multiple groups forming, sub-groups, proposals and a lot of work trying to coordinate upstream. Can we borrow from systems that handle this well (IETF, Apache, MakerDAO core units) and adapt them for Radix?

I have started the coordination infrastructure — working group membership (badge-gated), task board with on-chain escrow, trust scoring and accountability tracking - live at radixguild.com + @rad_gov tg - [draft / beta mode]

Dream is for individuals or groups to move issues upstream - in 3-6 clicks - haha the dream!

Will be putting in a formal RFP asap.

For now can we get a hands up for “Community Strategic Working Group v1 — who’s in?”

9

this is the way, for a decentralized emergence and gathering around common community goals, small autonomous working groups without a RAC hard top down authority.

even the coordination layer part can be a working group by itself, we need to be sure to have some railguards regarding work duplications / confusion as this is a heavy source of frustration and disengagement when you realize the work you did was useless because of bad communication.

Nothing proper WG structure and set up, lead nomination, reporting and community sharing process could not mitigate.