OCP-1: Proposing the DAO


This document proposes the structure of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that would be governed by EDU holders, a decentralized token that the community hopes will serve as the primary token for web3 Education.


The Open Campus DAO, which will serve the EDU community and be governed by it, aims to be the heart of Education on the blockchain.

The EDU community will have the power to submit proposals, vote on the most exciting and promising ideas, and make them a reality.

The guiding values of Open Campus DAO are:

  • Embrace a Growth Mindset and Lifelong Learning: We advocate for a culture that celebrates growth and the joy of learning. Mistakes and challenges are not setbacks, but invaluable opportunities for development. We inspire educators and learners to constantly seek growth and view education as a never-ending journey.

  • Champion Decentralization and Inclusivity: Our vision is to create a globally inclusive learning landscape. Decentralization lies at the heart of our efforts, ensuring every voice is heard and everyone, no matter where they are, can contribute and learn. We also encourage and reward active contributions to the growth and governance of our DAO.

  • Promote Collaboration and Democratic Governance: We cultivate a community where collaboration is not only encouraged but celebrated. We believe in collective intelligence, making major decisions democratically and ensuring every stakeholder’s voice has weight.

  • Uphold Quality, Integrity, and Ethical Behavior: We’re committed to maintaining the highest standards of educational content and nurturing a culture of integrity. We model ethical behavior, teaching our community the immeasurable value of honesty, fairness, and responsibility.

  • Champion Transparency and Effective Communication: Trust is the bedrock of our community, and transparency in all operations and transactions fosters that trust. We facilitate open, constructive dialogue and feedback loops, fostering a culture of clear and effective communication.

  • Prioritise Fair Compensation and Content Ownership: We firmly believe that educators and content creators should be justly rewarded for their dedication and have rightful ownership of their content. Simultaneously, we champion a student-centered approach, ensuring the unique needs and learning styles of every learner are at the forefront of content creation.

  • Advocate for Financial Literacy and Inclusion: We strive to make education financially accessible to all, ensuring no one is barred from learning due to financial constraints. Moreover, we aim to educate our community about financial literacy, empowering them with the knowledge and skills to make informed financial decisions and navigate the world of finance with confidence and ease.


The EDU initiative is driven by the recognition that the current state of education is broken. We acknowledge the existing challenges and limitations within the traditional educational systems and are determined to address them head-on.

Our immediate objective is to continue cultivating a community that shares the belief that education needs to be reimagined and transformed. By coming together as educators, learners, creators, and co-publishers, we strive to challenge the status quo and revolutionize the educational landscape.

Through community growth and strategic partnerships, we aim to disrupt the outdated models and practices that hinder the potential of education. By embracing decentralization, digital rights, transparency, and financial inclusion, we seek to build an inclusive and innovative educational ecosystem that meets the diverse needs of learners worldwide.

By openly acknowledging the flaws and shortcomings of the current education system, we empower our community to envision and create a future where education is accessible, engaging, and effective. Together, we will dismantle the barriers and limitations that have hindered educational progress, paving the way for a brighter and more transformative learning experience for all.


  1. The Council’s role is to manage proposals and uphold the community’s vision. Council members are expected to review past proposals to avoid duplicating failed ones.
  2. The first Council will serve for nine months. Future Councils will serve for twelve months. Two months before a Council’s term ends, Tokenholders will vote to choose the next Council members. Any Tokenholders who wish to be Council members must announce their interest in the Governance Forum at least thirty days before the vote.
  3. A Council member can be removed and replaced before their term ends if the Tokenholders pass a Completed Proposal to do so.
  4. The Council is established to administer proposals and serve the vision of the community of Tokenholders.
  5. If a new proposal conflicts with a proposal currently up for a vote, the new proposal won’t be voted on until a decision has been reached on the current proposal. This prevents conflicting requirements from being approved.
  6. A proposal that conflicts with a Completed Proposal can’t be voted on for three months after the Completed Proposal has been implemented. This prevents wasting community resources.
  7. Any proposals involving illegal activity, hate speech, pornography, or anything against the Foundation’s mission or values won’t be put up for a vote.


  1. “Administrator” an individual chosen by the Council to offer operational and project management support for the governance process, provide administrative reporting and insights, help with the Foundation’s operations, and aid in the Foundation’s upkeep of the Protocol.
  2. “Completed Proposal” is a proposal that has been archived.
  3. “Council” is a group of five individuals elected by the Tokenholders through a Completed Proposal as per these Bylaws to help the Board with the implementation of Proposals and manage other matters as directed by the Tokenholders. The initial Council will be appointed by the Foundation Director(s) as per the Foundation Articles and will serve for an initial term of nine months.
  4. “Foundation” refers to the EDU Foundation.
  5. “Foundation Articles” are the Memorandum and Articles of Association.
  6. “Foundation Director(s)” are the director(s) of the Foundation.
  7. “Foundation Supervisor” is the supervisor of the Foundation.
  8. “Governance Forum” is a governance forum page designated by the Foundation accessible through a URL.
  9. “Ideation Guidelines” means the guidelines adopted by the Council from time to time for the Administrator review of a Proposal during the “Ideation” phase.
  10. “NFT” non-fungible tokens of the Protocol which are created.
  11. "NFT Holders” owner of one or more NFTs at such time.
  12. “Platform Website” means the website maintained at http://open-campus.xyz/ that allows Tokenholders to access the Protocol Functionalities.
  13. “Proposal” means a proposal put forth by a Tokenholder that satisfies the Proposal Threshold to a vote of all Tokenholders.
  14. “Proposal Threshold” at the time any Proposal is made, ownership of at least one (1) Token or NFT (as applicable) at that time.
  15. “Protocol” means the runtime code deployed to the BNB blockchain network and maintained at the GitHub repository located at https://github.com/opencampus-xyz/EDU-smart-contract/blob/main/contracts/EDuCoin.sol
  16. “Protocol Functionalities” means the functionalities enabled by the Tokens, including the ability to purchase web2 content offered by the Foundation education partners.
  17. “Token” means the governance token of the Protocol, known as the “EDU Token”, created, recorded, and maintained through smart contract code deployed to the BNB Chain blockchain network.
  18. “Tokenholder” means at any relevant time, an owner of one or more Tokens at such time.
  19. “Voting Period” means a seven day period after the submission of a Proposal during which the Tokenholders can vote in favor of, against, or abstain from voting for, the Proposal.


Phase 1: OCP submission

Any Tokenholder or NFT Holder who meets the Proposal Threshold can submit a Proposal on the Governance Forum. The Administrator reviews and approves Proposals according to the Ideation Guidelines. If a Proposal doesn’t meet these guidelines, the Administrator will return it to the submitter, detailing the issues. The Administrator can only return Proposals that don’t meet the Ideation Guidelines. Once any issues are fixed, the Proposal can be resubmitted for approval.

To ensure clarity and structure, each Proposal must follow this format, although the Council may require additional formatting for certain types of Proposals:

  • Title
  • Preamble - headers should include; Author, Status, Created Date
  • Abstract: Detailed Summary
  • Motivation
  • Specification (technical details, if applicable)
  • Proposed budget, anticipated fees and any other relevant forecasts
  • Benefits
  • Drawbacks
  • Goal for Proposal

Phase 2: OCP Comment Period by Tokenholders

Once a Proposal has been approved by NFT holders, it will be presented for review and comment by the other Tokenholders. This period, known as the “Comment Period,” lasts for seven days. The date that the Proposal is posted counts as the first day, regardless of the time it was posted. This period allows for a broader range of community members to provide their feedback and thoughts on the Proposal. The Tokenholder or NFT Holder who submitted the Proposal may make any changes to the proposal necessary to reflect any comments received during the Comment Period. After incorporating the community’s feedback, the revised Proposal is then submitted for Council Review. This iterative process ensures that the Proposal is refined and improved upon before it is put up for a vote.

Phase 3: OCP Council Review

During this phase, the Council undertakes a comprehensive review of the Proposal to determine its suitability for presentation to the Token Holders for voting. The Council’s review is guided by a set of considerations that are crucial for the integrity and sustainability of the Foundation.

  • Legal and Regulatory Compliance: The Council evaluates whether the implementation of the Proposal would lead to any breach of laws, regulations, obligations, or duties that the Foundation, the Council, or the Foundation Director(s) are subject to.
  • Alignment with Foundation’s Objectives and Mission: The Council assesses whether the Proposal aligns with the objectives of the Foundation as outlined in the Foundation Articles, and whether it supports the mission of the Foundation.
  • Engagement of Independent Advisers: To ensure a thorough and unbiased review, the Council may engage the services of independent advisers.

There is no quorum requirement for a Proposal. The Council may vary the quorum requirement, but only in a manner that results in a more stringent quorum requirement than that in force pre-variation.

Phase 4: Live OCP

Once the Council determines that a Proposal should be presented to the Tokenholders for a vote, it will initiate the voting process. Live OCP’s are hosted on Snapshot. The voting period will be clearly defined, and upon its expiration, the Proposal will either be approved or rejected based on the majority of votes cast. Tokenholders will have the opportunity to cast their votes in favor of or against the Proposal. Voting ‘In favor’ indicates support for the Proposal and its implementation as presented. Voting ‘Against’ indicates disapproval of the Proposal in its current form.

A Proposal will be adopted at the “Voting” phase only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. The Proposal Threshold is met.
  2. The option ‘yes’ receives the affirmative vote of at least a simple majority of the Tokens that cast a vote.

If these conditions are met and the Proposal is approved, it will move into an “in process” status and the Council will proceed with implementing the Proposal, if necessary.

In all other circumstances, the Proposal will fail. If rejected, the Proposal will move into an “archived” state for historical purposes.

The Council will ensure that the voting process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with all votes being recorded and made available for review. The results of the voting will be announced promptly after the voting period ends.

Phase 5: Proposal Status

Approved: Proposals that are approved, but have not yet been implemented, will be tagged as “in process”. The Council will provide periodic updates on proposals that are in process in the Governance Forum.

Completed:Proposals that are approved and are fully implemented will be tagged as “completed” by the Council.

Archived Proposal: Proposals that: (i) do not meet the Proposal Threshold; or (ii) otherwise are rejected during the Voting Period, will be archived for historical purposes.

Phase 6: Implementation

The implementation of an “in-process” OCP begins according to the timeline and specification outlined in the OCP.

The Foundation Director(s) are responsible for observing, implementing, carrying out, acting upon, and executing all decisions of the Tokenholders passed in accordance with the Bylaws and the Foundation Articles.

Any Foundation Director may veto a proposal or place any limitations on its observation and implementation as a Foundation Director in their discretion deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure the Foundation is compliant.


  • Open Campus DAO Website: The website serves as a hub for all DAO-related information and governance processes.
  • Communication Channel: A dedicated communication channel will be established for discussions, feedback, and proposal submissions. This platform will be moderated to maintain a respectful and productive environment.
  • Verification Process: EDU token holders are required to authenticate their wallets to post or comment. This process ensures that only eligible members participate in the DAO’s activities.
  • Community Guidelines: By participating in the Open Campus server, members agree to the Open Campus Rules Of Order. These rules prohibit discrimination, aggressive behavior, and hate speech. They also restrict off-topic posts and spamming. The Core Team reserves the right to manage messages, enforce rules, and make final decisions related to the server’s operations.
  • Proposal Submission and Voting: EDU token holders can submit their proposals and vote on existing ones via Snapshot. This platform requires wallet authentication to ensure secure and verified voting. More details about this process will be provided in OCP-2.


Solution prepared and ready to be ratified


Everything about Proposing the DAO looks good. Well written,formatted and easy to understand.


Look good. Easy to understand. Keep building !!!

1 Like

This one looks good.
I really appreciate you.

1 Like

I`m in where to vote?

1 Like

I love your project!!!

1 Like

Let’s go
I’m always happy with open campus

1 Like

This is ery good and strong project

Will definitely improve the standards of the project!

1 Like

Snapshot. Org…. Search open campus :sunglasses::+1: great to have you participate :rocket:

1 Like

I translated it to Spanish if you want to add it in a separate page for our Spanish-speaking community!