Skip to content

Protocol Use Cases

The Powers protocol is a flexible governance framework designed to support a wide variety of organizational structures and operational needs. By enabling modular, role-based, and chain-aware "mandates," it provides a robust foundation for decentralized systems.

Below are several examples illustrating how the protocol can be applied.

Decentralized Grant Programs

Scenario: A large decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) or foundation manages multiple grant pools dedicated to specific fields, such as DeFi, web3 infrastructure, social impact, and art.

Challenge: Efficiently and accountably managing these funds requires specialized expertise for each field, robust oversight to prevent misuse, and a transparent process for applicants and the community.

The Powers protocol can be used to create a multi-layered governance structure.

  • Role-Based Committees: The main DAO establishes distinct "Committee" roles (e.g., ROLE_DEFI_COMMITTEE, ROLE_ART_COMMITTEE).
  • Delegated Authority: Each committee is granted specific, limited powers over its respective funding pool. For example, the Art Committee has the power to propose votes and execute funding from the Art pool, but not the DeFi pool.
  • Oversight & Veto: A general "Oversight Board" (which could be the main DAO token holders) retains a higher-level power, such as the ability to veto decision from any committee or audit committee actions.
  • Transparent Process: Applications, committee votes, and final fund disbursements are all recorded as on-chain transactions, creating a fully accountable and auditable trail for the entire community.

This structure leverages the expertise of specialized committees for informed decision-making while maintaining rigorous oversight and accountability, ensuring grant funds are allocated efficiently.

Fair & Sybil-Resistant Incentive Distributions

Scenario: A global artist collective wants to foster engagement by running periodic art contests. The goal is to distribute prizes (funding, exhibition opportunities) based on community assessed artistic contribution and community participation.

Challenge: The contest must be fair, transparent, inclusive, and resistant to Sybil attacks (where one person creates many accounts to gain an unfair advantage in voting).

With Powers, the collective can implement a governance flow that automates the entire process.

  • Verified Participation: Powers can be configured to restrict participation based on verified roles. A ROLE_VERIFIED_MEMBER can be required to particpate and vote.
  • Privacy-Preserving Verification: This role can be granted based on Zero-Knowledge (ZK) proofs. For instance, a member can prove they are over 18 and have a unique identity (e.g., via services like ZKPassport) without revealing their personal information. This mitigates Sybil attacks transparently.
  • On-Chain Process: The submission, voting, and selection processes are all managed on-chain. Voting results are immutable and transparently recorded.
  • Automated Distribution: The protocol's mandates are configured to automatically trigger prize distribution via smart contracts to the wallets of the winning artists as soon as the voting period ends and the results are finalized.

This on-chain, trustless process is not only secure and efficient but also allows the collective to focus on its mission—creating and sharing art—while the protocol handles the complex mechanics of fair governance.

Accountable Political Representation

Scenario: A large decentralized political organization needs to select and manage official representatives for key roles, such as President, Spokesperson, or Treasurer, which may control organizational accounts (e.g., a Safe or ENS domain).

Challenge: The selection and replacement of these representatives must be transparent, accountable to the community, and resilient against manipulation, while allowing for different selection methods appropriate for each role.

Powers enables the organization to design and enforce bespoke election and accountability flows.

  • Role-Specific Election Methods: The protocol can manage distinct governance flows for each role. For example:
    • The President might be elected via a direct, delegated token vote from all members.
    • The Spokesperson could be chosen by a specialized "Advisory Council" role.
    • The Treasurer might be selected from a pool of vetted candidates who have posted a bond.
  • On-Chain Authority: The "power" to control the organization's Safe or update its ENS record is programmatically tied to the wallet address that successfully wins the election for that role.
  • Dynamic & Reformable: If a representative needs to be replaced (e.g., via a vote of no confidence) or if the election method itself needs to be changed, the community can trigger a dedicated governance flow to reform the underlying mandates, ensuring the system remains accountable and adaptable.

This structure ensures representatives are directly accountable to the community through transparent, on-chain processes, and that the organization's governance can evolve securely over time.

Multi-Chain Governance Coordination

Scenario: A DAO operates across multiple blockchain networks, with a main treasury on Ethereum but active projects and sub-communities on L2s like Polygon or Optimism.

Challenge: The organization needs a unified governance framework. Decisions made by the main DAO on Ethereum must be securely and reliably reflected in actions on other chains (e.g., funding a project on Polygon).

The Powers protocol's design allows for asynchronous, cross-chain state-checking.

  • Interoperable Mandates: An instance of the Powers protocol on Polygon can be configured with a mandate that "checks the state" of a specific decision at the main Powers instance on Ethereum.
  • Example Flow: A treasury management decision is proposed and passed on Ethereum to fund a Polygon-based project. Once this decision is finalized on Ethereum, the Polygon-based protocol instance recognizes this state change (e.g., via a cross-chain message or oracle).
  • Triggered Actions: This recognition automatically "unlocks" a corresponding power on Polygon, permitting a local ROLE_TREASURY_DISBURSER to execute the funding allocation from the DAO's Polygon treasury. The action on Polygon is blocked until the governance on Ethereum allows it.

This asynchronous coordination enables the organization to operate seamlessly across different blockchain environments, maintaining a coherent and unified governance structure without compromising the security and sovereignty of each network.

Unifying Diverse Global Communities

Scenario: A large, global organization has many distinct communities (e.g., based on language, region, or specific interests), each with its own culture, values, and governance preferences.

Challenge: The organization needs to create a cohesive structure that respects community-level autonomy and empowers local participation, rather than imposing a single, rigid, top-down governance model.

Powers facilitates a modular and progressively decentralized governance structure.

  • Local Autonomy: The organization can create a "template" of role-restricted mandates that each local community can adopt and modify. This allows each community (e.g., a COMMUNITY_JAPAN or COMMUNITY_BRAZIL) to govern itself according to its unique preferences for local matters.
  • Global Alignment: These local communities still operate within the broader organization. A global "Federal" layer of governance (managed by all communities) can retain power over shared resources, cross-community standards, and core protocol functions.
  • Progressive Decentralization: Over time, the central organization can gradually introduce new roles and responsibilities, allowing established communities to take on more complex governance functions as they grow and demonstrate capability.

This gradual and modular approach, often called "fractal governance," ensures that all communities feel included and empowered to participate, fostering a resilient, diverse, and unified organization.