Flow Governance Working Group


The Flow Governance Working Group (GWG) exists to set out the process and structures for verifiable, participatory decision-making and technical upgrades in key areas, including:

  • Flow protocol security and performance parameters (changing minimum stake requirements, operator rewards, delegator fees, storage pricing, transaction fee rates from the tokenomics working group proposals)
  • Flow Foundation treasury spending (allocating Ecosystem Development Fund)
  • Flow Foundation & community management (nominating board members, appointing leadership)

The GWG is responsible for facilitating FLIPs going to vote on Flow’s voting tool: https://cast.fyi/


The Governance Working Group ensures the good governance of Flow and can only do so by constantly evolving to reflect the values of the community. The following values have served as an initial guide in the development of the Flow GWG but, we encourage anyone to submit feedback and suggestions about this approach at any time - the approach to best serve people is always evolving and we’ll do our best to reflect the best thinking around equitable access to opportunity and participatory governance.

  • Tenets/Values: verifiability, longevity, (Pareto) efficiency
  • Membership: the GWG is open to all, allowing representatives from the Flow Foundation, developers, researchers, community members, and industry experts to participate.
  • Decision-making: the GWG exists to set out the process for other core working groups to make decisions and to lay out guidelines and best practices for other core Flow working groups to ensure standardization and efficiency.
  • Meetings: Regular monthly meetings provide accountability to continue discussions, share ideas and opportunities, and make decisions.
  • Documentation: All decisions, discussions, and outcomes are documented, with meeting minutes, decision logs, and progress reports shared openly for public view and commentary.
  • Review and Evaluation: Periodic reviews and evaluations, including community feedback, ensure the GWG’s objectives are met. What the GWG is evaluated on and under what time scale will be an active area of Governance Working Group discussions.

Roles & Responsibilities

The GWG determines the process by which core Flow parameters may be updated as well as other key issues which may need to be addressed. This process will be characterized by its transparency, verifiability, equitable representation from interested stakeholders, and commitment to serving the best interests of the Flow ecosystem. Exactly how that will be achieved is the starting point for the GWG.

The key responsibilities to ensure effective problem-solving in this area include:

  • Soliciting feedback from samples of all Flow ecosystem stakeholders to understand how core issues impact them
  • Surfacing findings and problem statements
  • Facilitating discussions with stakeholders and experts to find sustainable solutions
  • Collaborating with the core protocol team to determine FLIP recommendation(s) for updates required
  • Facilitate vote on final proposal(s) by signing off on FLIPs when they go to vote. In this case, the GWG’s signature attests that the governance process (gathering feedback from necessary stakeholders, ensuring enough notice is given to all before changes are made, etc.) was followed prior to a FLIP going to a vote for implementation.

Founding + New Members

The GWG is always open to new members to solve Flow’s open governance problems.

GWG Priorities

Upcoming Agendas can be found here

Meeting Schedule

The last Tuesday of every month at 8am Pacific Time.

Inaugural meeting: October 31, 2023 @8am Pacific Time

The invite link will be posted here prior to the call start time, subscribe to this thread for updates.


Hi Team

  • Admin Was mentioned in discord that Dapper labs and Flow_ blockchain team is already very separate operationally been for while. will release announcements for any details?

  • $Flow has been dropping 99% from ATH . Does the team have any plans to restore confidence?

  • Will public the $Flow address of Flow Foundation ? What projects have you invested in and How many $Flow were invested? Does Flow foundation have its own Twitter account? Will this information be updated?

  • The flow community is the one that almost inactive (telegram discord). Does the team have any plans to reorganize the community?

1 Like

Governance Working Group Monthly Meeting
Tuesday, October 31 · 8:00 – 9:00am
Time zone: America/Vancouver
Google Meet joining info
Video call link: https://meet.google.com/mik-kdoe-yub
Or dial: ‪(CA) +1 647-737-8491‬ PIN: ‪296 218 254‬#
More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/mik-kdoe-yub?pin=1242415610532

Could we please add these meetings to the event calendar and announce them on e.g. Discord? I only just now noticed that this initiative is kicking off because there was no mention of it anywhere.

Is there a recording available?

Just like @bastian I missed the meeting too, if there is a recording would be nice watch. But luckily from the meeting notes on notion doc seems like I didn’t miss much. I was expecting more actionable items to be honest after first meeting. But I think comments are spot on for the next agenda. I will try to join next one for sure.

Just like @bluesign and @bastian I would have loved to participate but found out about the meeting only when it was too late.
Looking forward to the next one!

1 Like

Hey everyone,

Thanks for the feedback.

We’re working on enhancing the visibility of our working group meeting schedules across various channels to encourage broader participation next time. In the meantime, here’s a recording of the last meeting.

We’re also in the process of creating a dedicated GWG GitHub repository for the Governance Working Group where we will soon share the meeting minutes, schedule, and agenda for the next meeting.

We’ll keep you all posted here and on discord - thanks for your patience as we roll out more working groups and do our best to share a high standard of participation across all of them

Looking forward to joining the next meeting, I’m still catching up on video of the first meeting but was curious if the plan is still to have the meetings on the last Tuesday of each month so I can block it off on my calendar.

Thanks for the great questions @Bluebird

  • Admin Was mentioned in discord that Dapper labs and Flow_ blockchain team is already very separate operationally been for while. will release announcements for any details?

Dapper and Flow are indeed operationally separate and have been for a while now. The Flow Foundation wants to be able to show independence in impactful ways which will be shared as they’re achieved. Details on the Flow Foundation can be found here: Flow Foundation | Building Community Leadership

  • $Flow has been dropping 99% from ATH . Does the team have any plans to restore confidence?

In this current market cycle many tokens are down significantly 80% + from their ATH. For Flow, we have a tokenomics working group to focus on and work through details. Feel free to join the TWG if you have thoughts to share regarding this topic: GitHub - onflow/twg: Tokenomics Working Group. Here is the recording of the last meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7nte_WumE

  • Will public the $Flow address of Flow Foundation ? What projects have you invested in and How many $Flow were invested?

This level of transparency is really important and exactly the kind of thing the GWG is in a position to advocate for. Thank you so much for raising it. We’ll add this to the next GWG meeting agenda to determine how to best address it. Currently, the proposal is for the Flow Foundation to publish quarterly reports outlining Use of Funds starting in 2024.

Does Flow foundation have its own Twitter account? Will this information be updated?

Flow Foundation shares the main Flow twitter account (https://twitter.com/flow_blockchain) and will likely continue to do so.

  • The flow community is the one that almost inactive (telegram discord). Does the team have any plans to reorganize the community?

The empty room feeling has been discussed recently and minimally the team is considering a policy of not creating new channels and prioritizing fewer discord channels to reduce fragmentation.
I’d be keen to hear any ideas/suggestions you have for the right way to reorganize the community.

I think important to model system after successful democracies. There are a lot of points are blank now in my opinion, and the setup of institutions is essential. I think also legal counsel would be needed to set up this structure.

We for sure have to make some ground rules based on our principles ( like a constitution ) this can include things like user centric, developer friendly ruleset, by protecting economical value of the token etc, and some executive branch ( GWG probably ) which will to a some degree organise and manage other working groups, depending on the structure, move proposals to upper layer, and we need to include representation ( even veto power ) from protocol team.

I am not so keen on community voting on proposals, I think people care more about being represented than they care about voting. Community can push their representatives to foundation with some support can be better option. GWG member list by type and representation counts (seats) should be defined.

I think this is really important too; I know we already have some kind of transparency there ( Pull requests · onflow/foundation · GitHub ) I think also important to share holdings (whatever in USDC or FLOW ) at the beginning, and somehow share about running ( or expected ) costs.

For node selection criteria, a few suggestions.


Entity is important in considerations, is it established entity like T-Mobile, TicketMaster etc or some startup or individual

I think location can also be separated into two:

  • Entity (established company) and legal jurisdiction of the company. (or individual)
  • Infrastructure location ( where are the servers located etc )

Team structure

  • developers, support (dev-ops), management and how big is the team etc and their experiences in crypto or non-crypto related projects.


  • I think it is pretty important to ask why they want to run node? and why they chose the node type they are applying for?
  • Are they planning to bring some product to chain for example ( like liquid staking etc ) or they just want to run some market making ( or front running etc ) or provide some information to their users realtime (indexing chain maybe)

How well they know how Flow works?

  • for example if they plan to front run, do they know that they cannot etc :smiley:


  • do they commit to run the node for some time ( year , N years )

Also it would be nice to share with them the approx. cost of running a node on Flow Network ( monthly cost maybe, in hardware requirements etc ) in advance, as I guess except verification we have higher costs than someone can expect to run a node compared to other networks.

I think some documentation like I want to do X, which node should I run? would be also valuable ( maybe even most of the cases can end up with not needing to run a node at all )


It’s worth remembering a voting solution made by Emerald City integrated with the Emerald ID.

Perhaps the ideal scenario would be to combine the strengths of Cast with Emerald, creating a truly robust solution that benefits our group and, as a consequence, provides advantages to the wider community.

@jacob what do you think?

Hi everyone - here’s the link to the minutes of GWG’s first meeting (10/31/2023) - https://github.com/onflow/gwg/blob/main/meetings/GWG-meeting1-Oct31-2023.md

You will also find the recording of the meeting at the bottom but here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoU5EHLQE6w

The next meeting will be held on 11/28/2023, 8-9 AM PST (save the date). I will share more details soon here, on discord and on Flow’s official TG channel. Hope you all can make it. Thanks!

1 Like

Hello Flow Community - Announcing the details for the upcoming Flow Governance Working Group (GWG) meeting.

GWG Meeting #2

  • Date: Tuesday, November 28
  • Time: 8:00 am – 9:30 am PST
  • Video call link: Google Meet
  • Dial: ‪(US) +1 612-315-1700‬
    • PIN: ‪366 015 387‬#
  • Additional phone numbers: Tel.meet

Please find the suggested agenda for the meeting here. Feel free to share your inputs on the agenda or bring up any issues during the live Q&A session. For your reference, the minutes and recording of the previous meeting are accessible here.

Looking forward to your participation!

The Flow Foundation

Reminder - The 2nd GWG meeting is tomorrow, i.e., Tuesday, 11/28. Hope to see many of you there!

  • Time: 8:00 am – 9:30 am PST
  • Video call link: Google Meet
  • Dial: ‪(US) +1 612-315-1700‬
    • PIN: ‪366 015 387‬#
  • Additional phone numbers: Tel.meet


I could not attend the GWG meeting but I have an opinion.

I didn’t know where to write it, so let me write it here.

To be honest, the current Flow ecosystem is not vibrant.

It is certainly important to decentralize, but at the same time it is also important to revitalize the Flow economy.

I felt that Flow would never thrive if this were not done, so I call for reform in governance.

Specifically, we should change the way the Flow Ecosystem Fund is used.

One question.

Is there a public announcement of how this Flow Ecosystem Fund will be used?

I believe that the future of Flow depends largely on how this Fund is used.

The reason why the Flow Ecosystem is not vibrant is because there are not enough startups in Flow.

In other words, Flow needs crazy entrepreneurs who will realize the innovation of digital ownership in general.

If we compare the current Flow to the United States, The Flow Governance Working Group (GWG) and Tokenomics Working Group (TWG) are acting like the government.

This is very important, but at the same time, there is something else that is essential to the U.S. economy.

That is Silicon Valley.

Innovation is hard to come by in Flow today because a function like Silicon Valley does not exist.

The Flow Grants Program will not create important startups.

Applying for grants on Github felt like applying for a government grant.

Innovation requires taking a risk.

The way it works in Silicon Valley is that VCs decide which companies they want to invest in even if they have to take that risk, and the fund provides the money to invest in them.

I believe that we should set aside a portion of this FUND money to be invested as in Silicon Valley.

I propose my idea in more detail.

First, I recommend Roham Gharegozlou for a General Partner (GP) like position for this fund.

I think he is the right person for the job given his ability to raise funds, his connections to Silicon Valley DNA, his entrepreneurial foresight, and his desire to lead Flow to prosperity.

The GP has certain rights to invest the fund’s capital.

In fact, I would like to enter for this investment.

I believe that our project is essential to the revitalization of Flow.

I have written more details here.

I am not trying to push for funding for my project.

If the need for my project is rejected by the GP, then I will give up on procurement, let Product Market Fit be achieved, and try to procure again.

The reason why I am asserting my opinion is because I feel that the path to challenge does not exist right now for those who are serious about Flow and want to start a business.

In my case, I have the capital to hire developers to develop the product, but there are probably many entrepreneurs who do not.

Giving these people a chance is very important for Flow’s growth.

However, if Roham is made a GP, the relationship between the Flow Foundation and Dapper Labs may be criticized as too strong and decentralized.

There are several solutions to this point.

  • Make someone other than Roham a GP.
  • Establish certain rights on the part of the Flow Foundation so that GPs cannot run amok.
    • This is the point where governance should be discussed.

By the way, I don’t think this problem will be solved by a hackathon.

The problem that Flow is facing now is not a lack of technology, but a negative network effect.

In other words, there is a shortage of people with strong business skills, not technology.

This is also explained in detail in the following FORUM.

I would like GWG’s opinion.