Whānau Land Block DAO Simulation
Introduction
The Mātou Collective is embarking on a transformative initiative to empower whānau (families/communities) by developing self-sustaining digital infrastructure for governance and economic development.
This report presents a comprehensive analysis of a recent conversation involving Ian, Arama, and Ben, key stakeholders in this endeavour and leaders in the efforts of their tribe to create economically progressive, culturally appropriate governance. The discussion provided valuable insights into the current design of Mātou Collective's Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO), its proposed tokenomics, and its decision-making processes.
The primary objective of this analysis is to synthesise the observations from this critical exchange, identify areas requiring further refinement, and offer actionable recommendations.
Recommendations aim to enhance the practical applicability of the Mātou Collective's vision for whānau, ensuring its alignment with its core mission of fostering indigenous success through culturally appropriate digital tools.
1. Storytelling and Context Setting in the Meeting
1.1 Initial Framing of Matou Collective's Mission and Purpose
The meeting began with a foundational narrative that established the Mātou Collective's distinct identity and ambitious purpose. Mātou Collective was positioned as a "collective," explicitly differentiating it from traditional legal structures such as an LLC, charitable trust, or co-op. This framing underscored its non-traditional, community-centric nature, emphasising inherent communal structure over formal registration.
The core motivation, or "why," behind the Mātou Collective was articulated as a profound desire for "systems that are designed for indigenous success." This is in response to a technical landscape where existing systems are not often conceived by, with or for indigenous peoples, necessitating a fundamental shift. The direction — akin to "DIY governments and economies," where communities autonomously design their governance and economic frameworks — fundamentally orients the focus, prioritising the success of the participants’ community and implicitly suggesting that external participants would need to adapt to these new systems.
A pivotal aspect of Mātou Collective’s operational philosophy is a "community-led approach." The use-case participants enaged in the discussion exemplifiy a community in the Cooke Islands that would utilise these tools and potentially assume roles as "community leaders of the Mātou Collective." The aspiration extends to any community leveraging Mātou Collective’s tools, envisioning them as active participants in shaping decision-making, strategy, and financial stewardship. This approach is rooted in the belief that "what works for you is going to work better for us," fostering a symbiotic relationship between the Collective and its user communities.
The governance framework was introduced as a "two-house model," comprising a "community house" responsible for setting strategic direction and making "big decisions," and a "contributor house" tasked with determining "how it should be done." This structural design draws inspiration from historical proposals for treaty implementation, where different houses would make decisions based on their specific domains of relevance.
The research workshop included an introduction to the token models, conceptualized as enabling the Collective to forge its own economic systems. Three distinct tokens were outlined: a "community token" (CTR) earned by individual contributors, and a "utility token" (COM, $CTR), explicitly designed to prevent the acquisition of decision-making power through financial means and distribute descision making effectively and appropriately according to cultural norms.
1.2 Participants' Initial Understanding and Feedback on Context
Despite the comprehensive initial framing, participants encountered several challenges in fully grasping the abstract concepts presented, which led to valuable feedback.
A significant impediment was the absence of visual aids to illustrate the intricate ideas. Participants repeatedly requested visuals, highlighting the difficulty in conceptualising "pretty foundational features" without them, observing, "It's hard to hold these ideas without seeing something"
A central point of confusion revolved around the precise role of Mātou Collective within the broader ecosystem and its relationship with the communities it serves.
The sentiment that communities were less concerned with Mātou Collective’s internal operational details or resource allocation mechanisms. was expressed. A desire for Matou to focus on its primary stated purpose: "we've got a need that Matou is presented as going to build that for all the communities. It would be more like we don't care how you do it, but let us know how we can help, because we just want you to get on and build it." This conveyed a preference for direct tool development over internal governance discussions.
Importantly, recognising this dynamic places an explicit responsibility on Mātou as system designers: to not only invite participation but to actively scaffold it. It’s also important to acknowledge that what sounds like “just give us the tools” may stem from different root causes. For some, it reflects a deeper pattern of learned helplessness — a conditioned response shaped by long exclusion from governance spaces, where people have become used to systems arriving fully formed, with no expectation (or invitation) to shape them.
But for others, this sentiment may simply reflect short-term, pragmatic thinking: a focus on meeting immediate, tangible needs over investing time in abstract system design. This is especially understandable in contexts of economic precarity, where whānau are juggling multiple pressures and prioritising what will deliver direct, near-term value.
For Mātou, the challenge is to design in a way that respects both realities: addressing urgent needs through visible, useful tools, while gently creating openings and support for deeper participation over time. Without this deliberate scaffolding, there’s a risk that governance remains technically “open” but practically inaccessible — and the chance to shift from passive receipt to active stewardship is lost.
A participant suggestion for improving context setting involved framing the initiative as "Tribal DAO Version one." This suggestion aimed to immediately establish that certain design decisions had already been made for a baseline version, allowing the discussion to focus on iterating upon an existing, tangible system. He also recommended a "one pager visual of that interaction" to quickly convey the system's structure. This approach addresses a common challenge in co-designing complex, novel systems, particularly with diverse stakeholders. It is often more effective for users to critique and refine an existing prototype, even if imperfect, rather than contributing to a blank canvas. Establishing a "version 1.0" provides a concrete anchor for feedback, enabling more productive and focused collaborative design. For Mātou Collective, this implies a shift from abstract discussions to tangible demonstrations of their vision, regardless of how nascent these demonstrations might be.
2. Purpose of the Meeting and Broader Project Goals
2.1 Problems Matou Collective Aims to Solve for Whānau
The Mātou Collective's foundational purpose is deeply rooted in addressing systemic challenges faced by indigenous communities. A core problem identified is the pervasive lack of systems designed explicitly for or by indigenous communities, which historically impedes their success within existing colonial frameworks. The Collective aims to rectify this by providing the necessary tools for communities to autonomously design their own governance and economic systems.
Furthermore, the Collective seeks to alleviate the bottlenecks inherent in traditional funding and resource allocation models. Many communities are disproportionately reliant on external funding, which often creates inefficiencies and fails to fully leverage internal community resources. Mātou proposes an alternative model where communities cultivate their own resources and economies, demonstrating the viability of this approach through their own operational framework.
A significant issue highlighted is the prevailing lack of transparency and trust from external funders. These entities often hesitate to disburse funds directly to communities due to perceived deficiencies in ground-level processes, governance, and accountability. Mātou Collective intends to mitigate this by offering transparent, ledger-based governance tools that unequivocally demonstrate accountability, thereby enabling direct funding flows to communities.
The conversation also touched upon the critical need for effective information and data management, particularly concerning cultural archiving and genealogy research. The presence of conflicting information and the imperative for data consistency in sensitive areas like whakapapa underscore a pressing need for specialized tools.
Ultimately, the project is designed to foster capacity building and empowerment within communities. It aims to equip them with the means to manage their own affairs autonomously, reducing their reliance on external entities to resolve their intrinsic challenges.
2.2 Core Values Matou Collective Seeks to Embed
The Mātou Collective is committed to embedding several core values that underpin its operational philosophy and strategic direction. Foremost among these is Indigenous Success, serving as the foundational principle guiding the creation of systems that enable Indigenous communities to thrive.
Community-led development is central to their approach. The Collective emphasises that user communities will actively participate in and potentially direct decision-making and strategy. This ensures that the solutions developed are inherently beneficial to the communities they serve, aligning directly with Matou's overarching purpose.
The principle of Fairness and Balanced Contribution is integrated through mechanisms like quadratic voting. This aims to establish a system that is as equitable as possible, striking a balance between individual contributions and democratic principles. It seeks to recognise weighted voices without succumbing to plutocracy, where power is concentrated by wealth.
Transparency and Trust are highly valued within the Collective's operations. Openness in voting and other processes is believed to cultivate trust and facilitate effective communication within collaborative environments.
The tools developed are designed with Adaptability and Customization as a core tenet. They are intended to be 100% customizable, allowing communities to tailor governance and tokenomics models to their specific needs, ensuring relevance and utility.
Finally, the model incorporates Incentivization, aiming to encourage active participation in decision-making and contribution to various projects through a system of token rewards.
2.3 Challenges in Communicating the Project's Purpose
Communicating the nuanced purpose of the Mātou Collective presented several challenges during the discussion. The inherent complexity of the proposed model, particularly the three-token system (community, contributor, utility) and the two-house governance structure, was a significant hurdle. Participants found these distinctions intricate and confusing, and the separation between Matou Collective's internal operations and the tools being developed for external communities was not immediately intuitive.
A notable tension emerged between Matou's co-design philosophy and the participants' immediate desire for tangible solutions, encapsulated by the "just build it" sentiment. While Matou aims for collaborative development, there was an initial inclination from participants to prioritize the direct construction of DAO tools, given the pressing community needs. This highlights a fundamental tension between the urgency for immediate solutions and the long-term goal of collaborative, community-led development.
Despite the overarching goal of decentralization, the initial presentation of Matou Collective's predefined decisions (e.g., the three-token system) led to questions regarding whether Matou was operating more as a centralized administrator or a "dev shop" rather than a truly decentralized entity.
The Mātou Collective's stated purpose revolves around empowering communities to establish their own "DIY governments and economies." However, the feedback from participants, particularly the emphasis on the immediate need for practical solutions (such as managing conflicting genealogy information), revealed a gap between this grand vision and the perceived immediate, tangible benefits for communities. This highlights that the value proposition of participating in Matou's internal governance was not immediately clear or compelling enough to outweigh the perceived urgency of tool development.
The abstract nature of co-designing Matou's internal governance directly contributed to a disconnect with community members who were primarily focused on obtaining functional tools for their own whānau.
It is important to recognise that the community’s “just build it and tell us when it’s ready” sentiment, while understandable, reflects more than a practical desire for tools — it reveals a trained response shaped by historical patterns of exclusion. Many whānau have long been positioned as recipients of externally developed systems rather than as co-governors of the structures that shape their lives. This has fostered a form of learned helplessness: a conditioned expectation that decision-making happens elsewhere, beyond their sphere of influence.
For Mātou, acknowledging this dynamic is critical. Without recognising it, the project risks replicating the very systems it aims to transform — delivering tools to communities rather than empowering them to shape and steward the systems they use.
This makes the co-design process not just a matter of gathering input but an act of restoring governance capacity and confidence. It requires creating safe, supported opportunities for whānau to participate, demystifying governance pathways, and reinforcing the idea that their voice is not only valid but essential. By deliberately designing for governance participation as part of the community journey — and not merely as an optional extra — Mātou can help shift patterns of engagement from passive receipt to active stewardship.
This can lead to disengagement if immediate, tangible benefits are not readily apparent. For successful adoption and genuine community-led development, Matou must find ways to demonstrate how participation in its governance directly translates to better, more tailored, and more rapidly developed tools for the whānau. This might involve framing governance participation as a direct pathway to influencing tool features or resource allocation for specific community projects.
3. Detailed Analysis of Tokenomics and DAO Mechanics
3.1 The Three-Token Model: CTR, and $UTIL
The Mātou Collective's proposed framework is built upon a sophisticated three-token model, meticulously designed to disaggregate power from financial value, a critical aspect for culturally aligned governance. This structure aims to foster equitable participation and prevent the concentration of influence through wealth accumulation.
The **COM is its non-transferability, meaning it cannot be bought or sold. This design choice is deliberate, ensuring that governance power remains with the communities it impacts and cannot be consolidated through financial means. The primary routes for earning $COM are activity-based, directly linked to a community's usage of the tech products.
The **COM, CTR are based on contribution quality, assessed by a diverse group of reviewers including Technical Stewards, Ops Coordinators, Community Coordinators, and Elders/House Stewards.
The **UTIL to fund the implementation of approved proposals. A crucial distinction is that $UTIL is non-voting, explicitly separating utility from governance power to prevent plutocracy. Its earning routes are contribution-based (e.g., development, tech support) and engagement-based (e.g., governance participation, content creation). It also incorporates speculative elements, allowing for potential value appreciation.
3.2 Core Token Mechanics
The explicit separation of governance tokens (CTR) from the utility token ($UTIL), and the non-transferability of the former, represents a deliberate design choice to prevent plutocracy. This directly addresses the concern that financial wealth should not equate to decision-making power, aligning with Indigenous values where mana and contribution often hold greater weight than material accumulation. However, this also implies that the intrinsic value of governance tokens (reputation, decision-making rights) must be clearly understood and valued by participants, as they cannot be directly monetized. This model forms a strong theoretical foundation for culturally aligned governance, but its success depends on effectively communicating the non-financial value proposition of participation and ensuring that the utility token provides sufficient liquidity for real-world needs, a significant challenge identified during the conversation.
The following table provides a simple overview of the Mātou Collective's token structure:
| Type | Token | Transferable | Voting Rights | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance Token | $COM | No | ☑ Community House votes | Strategic, culture level decisions |
| Governance Token | $CTR | No | ☑ Contributor House votes | Operational and technical implementation decisions |
| Utility Token | $UTIL | ☑ Yes | No | Access to tools, resource contributions, transfer to ADA/$ |
The Mātou Collective's token mechanics are designed to ensure controlled supply, foster participation, and embed cultural rhythms.
A unique aspect is the emphasis on Seasonal or Time-Based Issuance. The Collective intends to ground token issuance in Indigenous temporalities, such as seasonal cycles (planting, harvesting, ceremonial periods), Matariki/new year cycles, and environmental events (e.g., water flows, fisheries management). This approach links the token system directly to the land and the life rhythms of whānau, moving beyond abstract financial calendars. This culturally resonant strategy is also intended to prevent endless inflation and maintain token value in alignment with natural cycles. The explicit decision to tie token issuance to "Indigenous temporalities" is a profound and innovative application of Te Ao Māori principles.
This goes beyond superficial cultural alignment and embeds the worldview directly into the economic mechanics of the DAO. This approach can significantly enhance the cultural resonance and legitimacy of the Mātou Collective within whānau communities. By mirroring natural and cultural rhythms, the token economy feels more organic and integrated into their way of life, potentially fostering deeper engagement and trust than purely financial incentives alone. This also serves as a strong differentiator for the Mātou Collective in the broader DAO landscape.
Distribution Mechanisms outline how tokens are initially and continuously allocated. The initial distribution plan allocates 40% to Community rewards, 30% to a Development fund, 20% to a Treasury reserve, and 10% for Initial allocation. Beyond initial distribution, tokens can be directly allocated to individuals for participation, contribution, or community service. Earned rewards are based on contributions tracked via platform mechanisms. Furthermore, grants can be provided to sub-DAOs, such as hapū, marae, or local clusters, for seasonal or purpose-specific allocations, thereby fostering a nested governance model.
3.3 Contribution Quality Assessment for $CTR
The system for assessing contribution quality for $CTR tokens is designed to ensure meritocratic participation and fair distribution based on value delivered.
The System Overview outlines a clear process: a contributor completes a task, its quality is assessed using predefined criteria, a review mechanism (involving Project stewards and automated signals) assigns a score or rating, and finally, Contributor Tokens are issued based on established thresholds or multipliers.
A Step-by-Step Breakdown details the process further:
- Define Contribution Types: The system categorizes contributions into different types, each with specific assessment methods and designated reviewers. These types include Technical (e.g., code, smart contracts, reviewed by Technical Stewards), Operational (e.g., project management, reviewed by Ops Coordinators), Community & Education (e.g., workshops, documentation, reviewed by Community Coordinators), and Governance Participation (e.g., voting, proposal drafting, reviewed by Elders/House Stewards).
- The following table illustrates the defined contribution types and their respective reviewers
| Type | Examples | Reviewer(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Code, smart contracts, tools | Technical Stewards |
| Operational | Project management, reporting | Ops Coordinators |
| Community & Education | Workshops, docs, outreach | Community Coordinators |
| Governance Participation | Voting, proposal drafting | Elders / House Stewards |
- Define Quality & Consistency Metrics: A 0-3 point scale is employed to define quality, with clear definitions for each score. A score of 0 signifies "Somewhat complete, low effort, late, over budget," while a score of 3 represents "High-impact, highly exceeds expectations, under budget." The formula for token issuance is straightforward: Contributor Tokens = Quality Score.
- The quality score definitions are as follows:
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | Somewhat complete, low effort, late, over budget |
| 1 | Basic task completion, meets criteria, completed on time, on budget |
| 2 | Complete, accurate, exceeds completion criteria, completed early |
| 3 | High-impact, highly exceeds expectations, under budget |
Scenarios were provided to illustrate how this system applies in practice, such as a "Consistent Developer" (Rangi, receiving 3 tokens for high-quality, timely work), an "Occasional Content Creator" (Talia, receiving 2 tokens for clear, useful but infrequent submissions), and a "Governance-Only Contributor" (Mere, receiving 2 tokens based on proposal quality).
3.4 Practicalities of Token Usage and Fiat Conversion Challenges
A central and frequently acknowledged tension in the conversation was the practical reality that "You can't buy groceries or pay the power bill with tokens". This highlights that despite the innovative tokenomics, real-world livelihoods for whānau still necessitate fiat currency (NZD, AUD, USD) for daily essentials.
The discussion also underscored a deep respect for non-financial motivations. It was emphasized that not all contributions are driven by financial yield; many individuals are motivated by mana, responsibility to whakapapa, and aroha. These intrinsic motivations are recognized as valuable ends in themselves and should not be solely monetized.
The "Bridge" question emerged as a critical challenge: how can contributors access real-world value without transforming the DAO into a speculative or extractive system? Several options were discussed to address this:
- Optional Fiat Conversion: Mechanisms could be implemented to allow, but not mandate, token-to-fiat conversion. For instance, $UTIL could be cashed out via an approved treasury or liquidity pool, with conversion rates collectively governed.
- Partnerships with On/Off-Ramps: Collaborating with trusted providers (e.g., Easy Crypto, Mesh, Eternl, Vespr, decentralized exchanges) could establish simple, compliant off-ramps, assisting whānau unfamiliar with crypto exchanges.
- Hybrid Reward Models: Mixed compensation models could be offered, combining tokens (for internal governance and long-term stake) with fiat (for immediate costs like kai, travel, childcare). This could be supported by grant funding, philanthropic backers, or social enterprise income streams.
- Local Acceptance Networks: A longer-term vision involves fostering local businesses and providers to directly accept tokens, although this was acknowledged as a future, not immediate, step.
However, these options are not without risks:
- Speculative Drain: Open conversion to fiat could attract speculators, potentially draining community value and shifting focus from collective governance to price speculation.
- Compliance & Tax: Converting tokens to fiat introduces taxable events and financial reporting obligations, a concern explicitly raised by participants.
- Exclusion of Vulnerable Members: Complex fiat pathways could inadvertently exclude individuals lacking financial literacy, digital devices, or bank accounts.
The core recommendation emphasized maintaining a relational and value-driven core system, with fiat bridges added only where necessary and safeguarded by governance and cultural protocols. This involves prioritizing non-financial recognition, designing opt-in collective-controlled pathways, educating whānau on the system, and considering external grant funding for fiat liquidity. The strong pushback from Ian regarding the practicality of $UTIL for daily expenses ("money is what people need. People don't need retail" ) directly challenges the viability of a purely tokenised economy for broad whānau adoption.
This highlights a fundamental friction point for any web3 project aiming for real-world impact: the disconnect between internal digital value and external fiat requirements. While the tokenomics model aims to be self-sustaining, the immediate economic precarity of many whānau means that a seamless, low-friction fiat on/off-ramp is not just a convenience, but a necessity. A proposed solution of the Treasury buying back $UTIL is a pragmatic, centralised bridge. The perceived difficulty and cost of converting tokens to fiat (due to volatility, fees, and tax implications) directly reduce the incentive for participation, particularly for those who need immediate financial compensation for their contributions. This undermines the "sustainable incentives" goal.
The Mātou Collective's success will heavily depend on its ability to build robust, user-friendly, and legally compliant fiat conversion pathways that minimise friction and complexity. This requires not only technical solutions but also clear communication, financial literacy education for whānau, and potentially strategic partnerships with financial service providers or philanthropic backers to absorb some of the conversion costs and tax burdens.
4. Proposal and Decision-Making Systems
4.1 Proposal Submission Process and Initial Feedback on Clarity
The proposal submission process is designed to be comprehensive, requiring specific information to ensure clarity and facilitate decision-making. Proposers are required to provide a title, a concise summary, and a detailed description that includes the rationale and intended impact of their proposal. A proposed implementation plan is also requested. Furthermore, proposers must identify the parties affected (communities, contributors, or both), indicate whether cultural or elder oversight is required, and classify the proposal as operational, cultural, strategic, or financial. Optional fields include a budget request, an implementation timeline, and the identification of collaborators.
Initial feedback on the clarity and usability of this process highlighted several areas for improvement. Participants expressed a desire for "I don't know yet" options or multiple-choice selections for certain fields, particularly for implementation plans or budget estimates. This suggests a need to reduce the burden of detailed upfront planning for proposers. A significant point of confusion was the contextualization of the proposer's role, or "hat"—whether they were submitting as a community member (e.g., Tairea Family Trust) or a Matou Collective director. This indicated a need for the user interface (UI) to clearly define the proposer's role.
Suggestions also included categorising budget requests (e.g., less than 10,000-100,000) to streamline the process and indicate the level of attention a proposal might require. The need for more context regarding Matou's treasury and how proposals align with it was also raised, reinforcing the earlier call for visuals to explain the overall system. The detailed requirements for proposals, while thorough, can act as a barrier. The request for "I don't know yet" options and clearer contextualization of the proposer's "hat" reveal that the system's design implicitly assumes a level of expertise or commitment from users that may not exist initially. The user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) of the proposal system are critical for lowering the barrier to entry for non-expert whānau members. An intuitive, adaptive proposal form that provides guidance and allows for partial information (with later assistance from stewards) can significantly increase participation and the quality of initial proposals. This means investing in design that abstracts complexity and guides users through the process.
4.2 Classification and Routing Process
Once a proposal is submitted, it undergoes a structured classification and routing process managed by a Governance Steward. The Governance Steward is a designated contributor role within the Matou Collective. This individual is responsible for reviewing proposals, assessing their alignment with existing strategies, rules, and incentive categories, and determining their readiness for voting. If a proposal is found to be misaligned or incomplete, the Governance Steward may return it to the proposer for clarification or revision.
To ensure commitment and efficiency in this critical role, Governance Stewards are incentivised for their work, for example, by receiving "50 utility tokens per hour of work". Following the alignment check, the steward is responsible for assigning the proposal to the appropriate house(s) for review and decision-making, either the Community House or the Contributor House. The established process dictates that proposals typically go to the community house first, followed by the contributor house.
Feedback from participants suggested that the necessity of the proposer knowing which house their proposal would go to added unnecessary complexity. He proposed that this routing decision should be handled internally by the steward, abstracting this detail from the proposer. The role of the Governance Steward in classifying and routing proposals introduces a centralised point of control within the DAO. While this is pragmatic for efficiency and maintaining alignment, especially in the early stages, it presents a potential contradiction to the decentralised ethos. The fact that stewards are incentivised helps ensure their commitment, but the power they wield in directing proposals is significant.
To mitigate risks of centralisation and maintain trust, Matou should establish clear, transparent guidelines for steward selection, performance, and decision-making. Mechanisms for community oversight, such as the ability to challenge a steward's routing decision or regular audits of steward activity, could be explored to reinforce decentralised principles as the DAO matures.
4.3 Roles of the Two-House Model and Elders Council
The governance model of the Mātou Collective is fundamentally structured around a two-house system, complemented by a crucial Elders Council, designed to incorporate checks and balances and culturally appropriate oversight.
The Community House is governed by $COM tokens. Its primary function is to make "Strategic, culture-level decisions" and to vote on matters that impact the broader community. This house is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the Collective and prioritising the allocation of its budget.
The Contributor House, on the other hand, is governed by $CTR tokens. Its focus is on "Operational and technical implementation decisions." This house oversees the practical implementation of approved proposals, ensuring that strategic directives are effectively translated into actionable plans.
The Elders Council plays a vital role in ensuring "Cultural Centring with Elder oversight and structured engagement." This council possesses a "veto" power, enabling them to "veto or flag misaligned contributions" to guarantee cultural alignment across all proposals and decisions. Elders are appointed by their respective communities, reinforcing the community-led nature of the Collective.
Feedback on the two-house model indicated that it added complexity and confusion. This was especially true if the proposer was expected to determine which house a proposal belonged to. He questioned its overall necessity, suggesting that a single governance token might simplify the system. The two-house model is designed to provide "Checks and Balances" and prevent plutocracy by separating strategic/cultural decisions from operational/technical ones. The Elders Council, with its veto power and community appointment, is a powerful and culturally appropriate mechanism for ensuring alignment with Te Ao Māori principles. However, the feedback highlights that this structural complexity can be a barrier for users, especially if the internal routing logic isn't transparent or automated. While the two-house model and Elders Council are fundamental to Matou's vision, their operational implementation needs to be streamlined from the user's perspective.
The UI should abstract away the internal routing decisions, making it clear to the proposer that their submission will be handled appropriately without them needing to choose a "house." Clear communication on the distinct roles and the Elders' cultural oversight will reinforce trust and understanding.
4.4 Voting Mechanisms: The Quadratic Voting Model
The Mātou Collective intends to implement a quadratic voting model, designed with specific benefits in mind. Its primary purpose is to balance contribution with democratic principles or population representation. This mechanism aims to diminish the power of plutocracy, ensuring that even individuals holding a significantly larger number of tokens do not disproportionately dominate decision-making. The increase in voting power diminishes as the number of tokens increases; for instance, while 50 tokens might yield approximately 7 votes, 1000 tokens would only yield a marginal increase in voting power, perhaps one or two additional votes.
A simulation of the voting process was conducted to demonstrate this. Participants were assigned community tokens (Ben: 50 tokens, Jo: 10, Ian: 20, Arama: 30 etc) and voted on Arama’s whakapapa research proposal. The quadratic voting mechanism was explained as costing the square of the number of votes (e.g., 1st vote costs 1 token, 2nd costs 4, 3rd costs 9). Participants then cast their votes, and their token amounts were converted into quadratic voting power (e.g., Ian's 20 tokens yielded 4.5 votes, Jo's 10 yielded 3, Adama's 29 yielded 5.3, and Ben's 30 yielded 5.51).
Feedback on the voting model revealed several important considerations:
- Complexity: Ian expressed concern that the two-house system added complexity, especially for proposers. Ben acknowledged that the user interface (UI) should ideally manage this complexity, allowing a community representative to simply know their voting power without needing to understand the intricacies of the house system.
- Transparency: The discussion touched upon whether voting should be openly public or confidential. Arama suggested that open transparency might "excite the situation more," while Ben argued that transparency generally fosters trust and communication, which are crucial for collaboration. The Collective's experience indicates that transparency builds trust.
- Concept of 'Spending' Votes: Ian raised a critical point about whether voting tokens are "spent" or "consumed" (i.e., deducted from the voter's balance) during the voting process. He favoured the idea that spending tokens based on conviction would reduce one's balance, potentially allowing others with fewer tokens to exert greater influence if they felt more strongly. This contrasts with a system that has fixed voting power. Its was noted that blending this "spending" concept with quadratic and cumulative voting introduces multiple complex dynamics that require further modelling.
- Need for Matou to "Make the Call": Ian suggested that Matou should proactively "make the call" on an initial voting mechanism as a starting point. This would provide a tangible system for communities to experience, allowing them to propose refinements based on practical use rather than abstract models.
Quadratic voting is theoretically robust for balancing power. However, the debate around "spending votes" introduces a complex game theory element. If votes are consumable, it adds a strategic layer for voters (e.g., saving "yes" votes, going "heavy on a no" to counter), which could be overwhelming for average users and lead to voter fatigue or unintended strategic behavior. This highlights a fundamental trade-off between designing a theoretically robust voting mechanism and ensuring its practical usability and accessibility for a broad community. Increased complexity in voting mechanisms directly causes a higher cognitive load for participants, potentially leading to lower engagement, frustration, or a reliance on a few highly engaged (or incentivized) individuals to drive decisions. Matou needs to carefully model the implications of a "spending votes" system (not previously included in the design) versus a fixed voting power system, prioritizing user simplicity and clear communication. Piloting different voting mechanisms in controlled environments and gathering iterative feedback will be crucial before widespread deployment.
5. Strategic Recommendations for Mātou Collective's DAO and Governance
5.1 Enhancing Co-Design Principles and Community Engagement
A strategic approach involves adopting a "Version 1.0" framing for the current DAO design, encompassing tokenomics, governance model, and initial tools. Presenting it as "Mātou Collective DAO Version 1.0" provides a concrete baseline for feedback and iteration, making the co-design process more tangible and less abstract for participants.
This addresses the core challenge observed in the meeting: the disconnect between Matou's abstract vision and the participants' need for concrete understanding. By adopting this framing, Matou can shift the co-design dynamic from foundational invention to iterative improvement, offering a more accessible and less overwhelming entry point for community members. This approach fosters a stronger sense of ownership and reduces cognitive load, leading to more productive and focused co-design cycles. It also enables Matou to demonstrate progress and deliver tangible value more quickly, thereby building momentum and trust.
Initially, co-design efforts should prioritise the need to organise governance for development of practical tools and features that address immediate whānau needs that are easily recognisable, such as cultural archiving or land management. Using these example use cases in Mātou Collective onboarding demonstrates where the value will be and builds trust, making subsequent discussions on underlying governance structures more relevant and compelling. Furthermore, developing comprehensive onboarding materials, such as an "onboarding pack" using these examples to reinforce the value of building a bank of CTR tokens, is crucial.
These materials should explicitly define roles (e.g., community representative, contributor, elder), their associated responsibilities, and how individual participation influences the collective, clarifying the relationship between individual whānau and the broader Matou DAO. Finally, consistently employing visuals, including Miro boards, one-pagers, and flow diagrams, is essential for explaining complex concepts like the two-house model, token flows, and decision-making processes, addressing the clear need for visual aids identified during the meeting.
5.2 Refining the Two-Layer Governance System
The proposed two-layer governance system, with a core Mātou Collective DAO and autonomous Community DAOs, represents a robust design for scalability and cultural relevance. This structure, where Mātou serves as the infrastructure and standards provider and hapū, land blocks, or marae clusters operate autonomously, allows for both centralised efficiency and local self-determination.
To enhance user experience and streamline operations, the process of assigning proposals to the appropriate governance house (Community vs. Contributor) should be automated and transparent from the proposer's perspective. While the two-house model provides valuable checks and balances, the Governance Steward should manage this routing internally, thereby alleviating the burden on the proposer. This ensures that the underlying complexity of the governance structure does not impede user participation. Clear communication about the purpose of the two houses, rather than the routing process, will be key.
To prevent ambiguity and potential conflicts in governance responsibilities, clear and detailed definitions and examples should be developed for the types of decisions handled by each house. The Community House should focus on strategic, cultural, and budget allocation decisions, while the Contributor House should concentrate on operational and technical implementation.
5.3 Explicit Application and Integration of Te Ao Māori Principles
The explicit commitment to Te Ao Māori principles is fundamental to the Mātou Collective's identity and value proposition. This includes explicitly applying values such as guardianship over ownership, prioritising the collective over the individual, and emphasising long-term intergenerational value over short-term gain. These principles should serve as guiding tenets for all decisions and developments within the Collective.
The role of the Elders Council is critical for cultural centring. Its composition, the community-led appointment process, and its decision-making authority, including its veto power and cultural alignment reviews, must be clearly defined and formalised. This ensures that the Elders' role is respected and effectively integrated into the proposal and voting workflows.
Furthermore, grounding token issuance and potentially other DAO activities in Indigenous temporalities, such as seasonal cycles, Matariki, and environmental events, will reinforce cultural alignment and create a system that feels organic and integrated into the whānau way of life. Exploring deeper integration of Te Reo Māori (Māori language) into the DAO's terminology, user interface, and communication materials can further foster an authentic and inclusive environment for Māori participants.
5.4 Piloting Non-Financial Experiments and Incentives
The observation that many whānau are driven by "responsibility, belonging, or mana" rather than solely financial yield is a critical insight. This suggests that traditional web3 financial incentives (e.g., yield farming, speculation) may not align with the community's core values and could even be counterproductive.
By prioritizing non-financial rewards and social capital, Matou can build a more intrinsically motivated and resilient community, less susceptible to market volatility and speculative behavior, and more aligned with the long-term, intergenerational goals of whānau.
Piloting non-financial reward mechanisms, tiered roles, or public recognition for valuable contributions (e.g., utilising the "soulbound" or reputation-linked nature of $CTR tokens ), can significantly enhance engagement. Encouraging and funding proposals for non-financial community-building activities, such as workshops, knowledge-sharing hui, or mentorship programs, can serve as pathways for earning governance tokens. It is also crucial to establish metrics that assess the impact of these non-financial incentives on community engagement, knowledge sharing, and overall collective well-being, moving beyond a sole focus on financial metrics.
5.5 Tokenomics Model Refinements for Practicality and Sustainability
To ensure the long-term integrity and functionality of the tokenomics model, several refinements are recommended. It is crucial to maintain and clearly communicate that COM (Community Token) remain non-transferable (soulbound or reputation-bound). This preserves their integrity and prevents plutocracy, ensuring that governance power is tied to contribution and community engagement, not wealth.
The usage of $UTIL should be strategic, avoiding unnecessary paywalls or friction points within the ecosystem. Its primary role should be to facilitate access and transactions, rather than creating barriers. Transparency in token supply and value is paramount; therefore, clear rules for controlled emission, fee-based token burns, and periodic treasury buybacks for all tokens must be established and communicated.
A robust fiat conversion strategy is essential, given the "deal breaker" feedback regarding the inability to pay for daily necessities with tokens. This underscores that the theoretical benefits of a tokenised economy are secondary to real-world economic needs. A robust, low-friction, and transparent fiat conversion mechanism is not merely a feature but a critical enabler for widespread adoption, especially for communities with economic precarity.
- Opt-in, Collective-Controlled Pathways: Mechanisms should be implemented to allow, but not require, token-to-fiat conversion, with conversion rates collectively governed to prevent abuse or extraction.
- Direct Treasury Buyback: The Matou Treasury must maintain sufficient liquidity to buy back $UTIL tokens directly from whānau members, making the conversion process as seamless as a bank transfer.
- Address Tax and Compliance: Clear guidance on tax implications for individuals converting tokens to fiat should be provided. Leveraging existing fiscal sponsorship models to help minimize the tax burden on the collective and individuals where possible.
- Educate Whānau: Developing clear communication explainers for whānau on how token-to-fiat processes work, including associated risks and rights, is crucial for building financial literacy and trust.
The perceived difficulty, cost, and tax implications of fiat conversion directly disincentivise participation and can lead to a lack of trust in the token's value. Conversely, a seamless and transparent process will foster adoption and allow contributors to meet their real-world needs. Matou must prioritise the development of a highly efficient and trustworthy fiat on/off-ramp. This may require significant investment in infrastructure, legal compliance, and user education, but it is essential for the long-term viability and widespread adoption of the tokenomics model within whānau communities.
5.6 Enhancements for Voting and Proposal Frameworks
To optimise the voting and proposal frameworks, a multi-faceted approach is recommended. Hybrid voting models should combine quadratic or cumulative voting (to weight influence without plutocracy) with deliberative forums, such as online hui and kōrero spaces. This ensures that diverse voices are heard and relational decision-making is maintained, blending modern mechanisms with traditional practices.
Recognising varying levels of digital access and literacy within whānau, it is important to provide offline and low-tech options for voting and proposal submission. This could include methods like SMS, paper forms, or local proxies, ensuring inclusivity. Streamlining proposal templates is also crucial. Developing user-friendly templates that are easy for non-experts to complete, incorporating "I don't know yet" options and multi-choice selections, will lower the barrier to participation.
The mechanics of "spending votes" require a clear definition. If deployed it must be explicitly clarified whether voting tokens are "spent" (consumed) or merely used to calculate voting power.
Modelling the implications of both approaches (fixed vs. consumable tokens) on voter behaviour, strategic decision-making, and overall system dynamics is essential. While quadratic voting is theoretically robust for balancing power, the discussion around "spending votes" reveals a potential for over-complication that could deter participation. The blend of digital voting with traditional deliberative practices (hui, kōrero) is a strong cultural bridge, but the technical implementation needs to be seamless.
As suggested, Matou should "make the call" on an initial voting mechanism (e e.g., a simplified quadratic voting model) as a starting point. This provides a tangible system for communities to experience and then propose refinements based on practical use. This approach ensures that the underlying complexity of the governance structure does not impede user participation. Matou should prioritise user education and an intuitive UI for voting. This might involve offering different voting modes (e.g., a simple "yes/no" option with automated power allocation, or an "advanced" mode for strategic token spending) to cater to diverse user comfort levels, ensuring broad participation without compromising the integrity of the voting model.
5.7 Practical Software Features for Whānau Adoption
For widespread adoption and genuine empowerment within whānau communities, the software features must be tailored to their practical and cultural contexts. Prioritising low-bandwidth and mobile-first design is essential, ensuring tools are optimised for environments with limited internet infrastructure and accessible via mobile devices for all whānau members.
Multi-language support, including te reo Māori and English, is crucial for inclusivity and cultural relevance.
While building trust-minimised systems is important, the design should also allow for human oversight and corrections, acknowledging the significance of human judgment and relationships in whānau contexts. Finally, exploring the integration of $CTR with whānau identity or credentialing systems, potentially leveraging decentralised identifiers (DIDs) or verifiable credentials, can strengthen the link between digital identity and real-world relationships.
Conclusion
The conversation with Ian, Arama, and Ben illuminated the Mātou Collective's ambitious vision to empower whānau through a community-led DAO and innovative tokenomics. The Collective exhibits several key strengths, including its explicit cultural centring through the Elders Council and seasonal token issuance, its deliberate separation of governance from financial power, and its foundational commitment to co-design. These elements position Mātou uniquely within the decentralised landscape, offering a model deeply resonant with indigenous values.
However, the discussion also highlighted critical challenges that require strategic attention. The complexity of the internal governance model, particularly the two-house system, presented a significant hurdle for external participants to fully grasp without visual queues and narrative that connects with immediate grounded challenges for whanau.
The practical friction associated with token-to-fiat conversion emerged as a major concern, highlighting the disconnect between the theoretical benefits of a tokenised economy and the immediate, tangible financial needs of communities. Furthermore, a tension was observed between Matou's long-term systemic vision and the communities' immediate need for practical, functional tools.
To ensure success and widespread adoption, Mātou must prioritise simplifying its communication strategy, particularly by providing concrete "Version 1.0" baselines for co-design. This approach will make abstract concepts more accessible and enable more focused, iterative feedback.
Simultaneously, building robust, user-friendly fiat bridges is paramount to address the practical economic realities of whānau.
Moving forward, Mātou should embrace a "slow and deliberate" approach, prioritising depth over speed and focusing on actual whānau outcomes. This iterative process, grounded in cultural values and responsive to community feedback, will be crucial for building a truly self-sustaining ecosystem that supports the development of indigenous communities.