This is a statement from the Q International Foundation on its intention to vote on #6 Fundamental Constitution Proposal . The Q International Foundation’s Voting Policy lays down the principles according to which it exercises the voting rights attached to its Q tokens (QGOV). This statement is published to further the Q International Foundation’s commitment to providing full transparency of its voting behavior.

#6 Fundamental Constitution Proposal is currently open for voting on-chain. The proposal is correctly classified as a “fundamental” constitution proposal, requiring a 50% quorum and 75% majority to pass.

This set of proposed changes introduces the concept of governance services to integrated applications and a new way of assessing Root Node candidacy. Additionally, this proposal includes the following textual changes to the Constitution: adding the words “or individual” at the end of the Preamble, renaming the concept of “Non-Constitutional Changes” to “Other Changes”, and renaming two parameters. Finally, this proposal introduces a batching functionality for code upgrades.

Intended voting action

Q International Foundation supports this proposal and intends to vote “yes” in a directional vote in accordance with par. 2. b. of its Voting Policy.


The introduction of governance services to integrated applications has long been envisaged since the inception of the Q Protocol, as reflected in Section 5 of the Whitepaper. Integrating applications within Q’s governance framework provides greater governance security to processes of such applications (code upgrades and treasury oversight for instance) through the human judgement and discretion of the Root Nodes, supported by Q’s overall governance framework. In return for this benefit, applications will be paying recurring governance fees and thus providing the Q ecosystem with further sustainable fees, which strengthens the security of the system and thus benefits all stakeholders.

The amendment to the existing method of assessing Root Node candidacy is made in response to the Root Node panel’s continued growth and in anticipation of further activity in the Q Protocol. Currently, 25 out of 27 spots on the Root Node panel are filled, and with new developments such as the first Validator Node slashing on the Q Blockchain, the degree and quality of engagement of the members of the Root Node panel is growing in importance. Further, it is anticipated that with increasing activity in the Q Protocol, competition for the limited number of spots in the Root Node panel will emerge. Before this background, we propose to take into account Root Nodes’ activity as a major factor when assessing Root Node candidacy to promote the creation of a panel that is not only decentralized but also active and conscientious in the fulfillment of their duties.

Within the additional textual changes, adding the words “or individual” is meant to signal that Q is independent from individuals, in addition to the other constructs listed in the Preamble. Renaming “Non-Constitutional Changes” is aimed at resolving the potential for confusion as the current name of that concept implies that changes that do not lead to a textual modification of the Q Constitution would not require any kind of constitutional approval. It is therefore suggested to change this to the more generic name “Other Changes”. Further, the terms “Required RNL Majority” and “Required VNEL Majority” are introduced as the names of existing concepts. This is done to create stylistic consistency and ensuring that all technical parameters are included in Part B or Appendix 7.

Finally, a batch code upgrade functionality is introduced to alleviate the work of Root Nodes who will be able to execute accepted code upgrades with a single action instead of tens of actions as was the case in #1 Detailed Constitution Proposal.

Given the strong benefit for major stakeholder groups of the Q protocol, and before the background that the most substantive changes in this proposal relate to the implementation of protocol features that were already envisioned in the White Paper, we deem this proposal to have a “high relevance” as defined in par. 2 of the Voting Policy. The implementation of this proposal is in our view be “in the best interest of Q” as required in par. 1 of the Voting Policy.