Developing COMMUNITY GUIDELINES and a team of EDITORS on

As more and more articles are written on, we come up with a proposal to implement a category of editors who will have the role of verifying the articles and approving their publication on the platform. The need to start this project is to improve the quality of the articles and check them before publication. The editor program is open to any member of the community who wants to get involved. We propose for debate a set of necessary skills, rights offered and a list of community guidelines that must be followed by anyone who uses the platform.

Skills that we are looking for our editors:

  • Willingness to engage;
  • Attention to detail;
  • Writing skills;
  • Knowledge of grammar;
  • Strong Vocabulary;
  • Knowledge of style;
  • Timeliness.

Editor responsibilities include :

  • Verification of articles in accordance with the rules agreed for publication;
  • Checking articles on spelling, format, sentence structure and punctuation;
  • Approving, or, as the case may be, sending the article back to the author with the points that need to be corrected or changed in order for the article to be published;
  • Providing writing rights on the platform for every person interested to write as an author or providing author rights for all members;
  • Providing support to authors on creating and writing articles on the platform.

**Community Guidelines - **

We further propose a set of rules and guidelines for all members with the role of maintaining mutual respect and keep this a friendly place for civilized public activity:

  1. Don’t post content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, libelous or inflammatory.
  2. Don’t express hatred or intolerance for people on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, gender identity, religion, sexual orientantion, age or disability.
  3. Don’t impersonate other people or organizations.
  4. Posting content that invades others privacy is not allowed. For example, personal information as location addresses. phone numbers, email addresses or any sensitive information.
  5. Don’t post content that is violent, obscene, pornographic, or any that contains nudity, sexually or abusive explicit images.
  6. Shilling and commercial articles are allowed only if the project is presented in an explicit way and includes official details and links.

How will the publishing process work?

The article will be written by the author and sent for approval to the editor. If the author does not have the right to create new articles, it will be given by one of the editors.

The editor will check the article according to his responsibilities

If the article follows the community guidelines it will be approved by the editor.

If the article has minor spelling or page layout mistakes, the editor may correct and approve the article.

If the article has major spelling or page layout mistakes, the editor will send back the article to the
author and will ask for the article to be corrected.

If the article violates the community guidelines, the editor will send back the article to the author and will request the article to comply with the community guidelines. If by any means, it still violates the community guidelines, the editor has the right to reject or delete the article.

Editors Incentive

We can set up predetermined amounts of time called seasons for people to act as editors to incentivise members of the community to become editors. We might compensate them for their acting duties as editors by awarding them non-transferable NFTs (to be confirmed with the NFT project team) for each season in which they act as editors. Furthermore, based on parameters such as the number of articles reviewed, we can suggest and vote on an amount of $STANDARD tokens to be awarded to each editor at the end of the season. The tokens would have a two-season vesting period following the end of the season for which they were compensated.

We’re waiting for suggestions and we’re open to debate on how to implement this program better. Some of the topics are:

Is this program useful for the community, especially for the ones that write articles on .xyz ?

What other qualities do editors need?

What other responsibilities should editors have?

What other guidelines should we have included in our disclaimer model? Is there any present that should not be a rule?

What types of incentives should editors receive for their work?

How many seasons and how would you like them to be organized? How should the tasks be defined and what performance indicators can we use?

Finally, everything presented here is open to discussion. This is an open project, and we, as a community, must decide on many parts of it, including the duration of a season, how we want to organize it, how many editors we’ll need, how the duties should be specified, and what the performance indicators will be.

Deadline for discussions: 18.03.2022

The DAO Insider Team


The proposal sounds great!
I have a few suggestions in order to make the entire process more fair, structured and transparent, let me know what you think:)

  1. Regarding “If the article has minor spelling or page layout mistakes, the editor may correct and approve the article.”, I would suggest against modifying articles without the author’s consent or knowledge, even if there are only a few small grammar mistakes. It’s quite complicated to set a clear line as in what exactly counts as small grammar mistake/layout inconsistency and it might lead to cases where the author discovers some alterations which he/she does not approve with (maybe the layout was intentional, the typo was an intentional slang, whatever). I would suggest all modifications to be defined by the editor but actually “implemented” only by the author.

  2. Regarding ”sent for approval to the editor.” I did not see details about how the editor will be chosen (please correct me if I missed it) so I was thinking about a process in which all editors can see all the available articles (and maybe also what editor is working on what article, for the asigned ones) and he/she can choose one (or more? Can he asign himself more articles in parallel? or should we make sure that you can only take a new article after sending feedback/finishing the work on the previous article in order to make sure the articles won’t be blocked for too long by someone?) to work on.

  3. I suggest we also put some timers, and keep track of the timestamp of the last update from the author for each article so that the ones who have been waiting the most are prioritised (of course, this might be an overkill at the beginning, while there won’t be as many articles at the same time, but is just a thought).

  4. For the “sending feedback to the author” I was thinking about a system where editors can put comments on the text (just like in google drive documents, or on pull requests) so that it’s faster and easier both for the editor and author to pinpoint the exact line/word that needs to be modified. Maybe the author can also reply to those comments if something is not clear etc.

  5. Regarding the seasons, it’s just a suggestion, but maybe we can also split this in quarters. Therefore it will match the things we discussed about the nft badges and there will be Q1 2022, Q2 2022 etc. It s also a sweet spot, as in not too long yet not too short.

  6. Regarding performance indicators, there are a few options. We could put a minimum number of required approvals for each article (2 editors who approved it? Or at least one but who has an editor nft badge for a previous quarter?) and the incentives are based also on the comments that are fulfilled (aka those that actually make sense from the author’s point of view too). Or we could have a process in which one editor takes the article, does his/her magic, but after publication (so that the waiting time for publishing is not that long) any other editor can propose other edits (not sure yet how we’ll handle these, maybe send them to the author to be implemented?) and if we also keep track of these, it should discourage a superficial editing process in the first place. Also, based on the article’s number of likes we can conclude that the editor did a great job too, especially if there were resolved commentes.


Howdy! Regarding point 5, I would lean more towards the idea of ​​overlapping the seasons with epochs. In this way we have a clear timer that will delimit our seasons. The monetization of publishers should also be taken into account (here the discussion remains open). In each season a fixed number of reviewers can be defined who will work in that period. Registrations could be made a few days before the start of the season and we can use a lottery system to choose the reviewers. Also, for the preparation of the reviewers, a guide can be prepared and at the end a test to verify their knowledge.


Hello guys,
Just wanted to say beautifully written and explained Andreea. Good suggestions.Thank you!

1 Like

@andream, I like your answers. They are very constructive. I’ll add some extra thoughts below:

At point:

  1. I believe a good practice may be that any editor can choose an article from the articles pool, but to prioritise the older articles first. There should be a system in place where an editor is responsible to supervise the articles pool for a set period of time, to be agreed (let’s say an epoch). This will change and all editors will have the opportunity and responsibility to look after the project. This way, there will always be an editor accountable for the project. The “in charge” editor is not pushed to edit everything, written in the pool while he is supervising the project, on the contrary, s/he can check what are the most idle editors in the process and invite them to pick up the task.
  2. Last paragraph: “Also, based on the article’s number of likes we can conclude that the editor did a great job too, especially if there were resolved comments.”. The drawback I see here is that if the community likes an article will get more votes for the quality or importance of the lecture, not for editor’s work.
    Extra: I like the way you thought about the rewards and the vesting period, I am curious how do you plan (or anyone reading this) to raise funds for the editor rewards. Also, can there b implemented a way to reward the most voted/useful articles (I know this is an entire debate, an Idea I have is that the most voted article (or even paragraphs of it) in a set period to be converted in an NFT and transferred into writer’s wallet (or maybe we find a way to promote it, so the creator can sell it should s/he wish).

I propose a 4 eyes principle where the editor and the author review each other on the latest changes. The final article should always be reviewed by the person who did not do the final changes.

Scenario 1:
The article is submitted by the author to the editor. The editor does not make any changes to the article. In this case, this is considered the final state of the article, latest changes were done by the author and the review was done by the editor. Article is ready for publishing.

Scenario 2:
The article is submitted by the author to the editor. The editor makes minor changes to the article. In this case, the reviewers switch roles, the editor sends the article back for review to the author. If the author agrees and does not make any additional changes, the article is considered final. Article is ready for publishing.


I fully agree with point 2. The “in charge” editor could also be there to mediate in case there’s a debate on a certain edit that another editor requires but the author does not agree with, if it will ever be the case.

For point no. 3, indeed, the likes will be for the content, not the display or the grammar but I was thinking to take this into consideration only if the editor proposed a higher number of (accepted) edits before the article was published, thus concluding that the article might have had mistakes and might not have been so liked by the community so much if it weren’t for the edits. But of course, it’s quite a tricky situation, we can leave this one out.

Regarding the funds, the discussion with nft badges is a great one and I believe that could be the main focus, but we could also add a tipping mechanism where users can tip with a really small amount (in standard, preferably) for the article, and a small percentage of that could go to the editor as well (for this we’ll need smaller fees, I haven’t looked into how a polygon integration could work yet, it’s on my list, so for now it’s just an idea, please let me know if there’s no way this could work).
Also, to encourage people to interact with the articles (tipping, likes, comments, shares etc) we could also have a badge/badges for this kind of activity, some sort of “articles curator/promoter”.


That’ a great idea, related to what you said at point 1, I agree that it’s better not to modify any aspects without the author consent. We need to see if it’s possible to have a “comment” option on Wordpress as it’s on Google Docs for example where the author can see the interventions of the editor without changing the original text. I’ll ask @rbrt_phnx about this integration and come back with an answer.


Also we have not decided how the editors will be chosen yet, that’s why we want to discuss how should we choose them. It’s important to match the skills presented and to ensure that they fulfill the responsibilities listed above. Anyway, I propose that the editors should be elected by community vote here on Agora or on Discord. Everyone interested can apply, we’re looking especially to have editors that are not involved in the DAO Insider team yet. Also, the candidates can prepare a “cover letter” if they have any related experience.


I’ll leave some ideas:

  • editorial team of 6-8 elected by community vote from among volunteers.

  • The team will be elected for one season (3 months).
    one of the editors will also be the editors chef, he will make sure the team is well organized. the team will make a schedule so that every day at least 2 editors will be working.

  • a Discord channel for the team of editors + audio to centralize their information and to hear live with the authors of the articles.

  • 1 UPGRADE TASK: create a project of the team’s choice, which the team will develop and implement during the 3 months (e.g. create NFTs to reward the most liked articles.) This will help the project to develop constantly, every 3 months having an upgrade implemented.

INCENTIVES: All existing projects to get together at a meeting and discuss how they can receive a STANDARD allocation from Treasury to reward those who have been active for months and those who will be from now.
The reward should not be life changing money, but a small material reward.
EX: 1.000 STANDARD / month for all community projects, then this 1.000 should be divided equally to those who have been active in different projects. The figures may vary depending on the number of people, but not less than 10-15 Standard per person. One season’s vesting period, or lock staking for 1 year.


@MihneaT congratulation on the initiative on Agora. Impressive on how you structure it and write it! Well done mate!

I definitely agree with the fact that our community needs some editors for our article, and those who will do the job need to be voted and… paid as well. We need to rewards the hard work so maybe you can add a budget too.

I don’t have any experience with marketing, journalism, etc and I’m not good as well with writing techniques so the second suggestion that I can make is that any member of the team does not occupy the post for more than 6 months. I think we need to give more and more people the chance to work in this team and to incentivize in this way.


First of all, Mihnea, great job with this proposal! Also, very useful suggestions from Andreea, Andrei, MTK, Alex_h, Erwin and MAC. Ibtisam13, it’s always great to see appreciation comments, so nice job here, too.

I think this initiative could also be seen as a ramp for the ones wanting to contribute with articles on xyz but are still reticent due to some reasons. So, maybe an eye from an editor / a suggestion / a confirmation will turn some “pending” into “done”.

Then, I think it’s worth mentioning that anything we will decide on is subject to inspection / adaptation in order to get to a better and better overall product / way of working.

My views below:

Article reviews: Despite the fact that it might make the flow easier, I find it somehow invasive to edit someone’s words, so I would stick to comments. Also, regarding a 3rd possible scenario - the editor does not approve one part of the article - in this case, s/he makes no edit and informs the writer (via comment / discord chat / call if both are available) that a phrase must be changed / deleted. Once solved by the writer, we are back on the scenarios scheme.

Number of approves: At least 2 approves needed for an article to go live. Clear notifications to be set / maybe a Whatsapp group for the editors.

Timeline : quarterly – 3 months sounds just fine. Not too long, not too short. I agree with MAC that it’s a useful experience and if there are people who want to do it, we should give them the chance.

Next team of editors: by the end of the quarter, a new team of editors should be elected. I think it would be of help to have one editor from a previous editors team.

Ways to organize: A discord channel is needed, but the actual management should be up to the team and their schedule – eg. maybe some editors are available 9-15, others are 15-22 -. However, there must be a clear structure that the team should decide on in the first week of being elected.

Incentives: having the $STANDARD locked for a year sounds pretty cool. Also, take into consideration that the locking period could potentially bring higher percentages (TBD in a future proposal). No hate from devs, please J if it’s too much of an overhead, easier solutions can definitely be found.

Performance indicators: IMO all the credits should go to the writer. But I also think most of the writers will be fair and give credits to the editor, considering support was provided.

Team members: So far this year we have less than 30 articles / month, so I think a team of 6 persons should be enough.

Badge: I like Andreea’s badge suggestion, it would be a nice touch.

Upgrades: Superb idea from Erwin – incremental growth of the project with at least one aspect / editor’s team. I think simply having “one increment TBD” in mind will drive to lots of clicks and hopefully there will be a lot more than 1 by the end of the quarter. Also, a Quarterly Review would be pretty nice.


As @Erwin mentioned above, I agree that there should be some rewards to all members that builds things in the community. The editors are just an example, but the actual daily reviewers, community talks hosts, onboarding team, web3 team and many more should be included. We’re not speaking a huge amount of tokens, but only some rewards that will motivate the involved members to deliver high quality work and also bring new people in to these projects or build new projects from zero. Of course, we need to think of a structure and how we will share these tokens in proportion to the work done. But that’s a good starting point.


I think it’s a very good suggestion because that’s how we can discover our talents by rotation because some of us don’t even know what we’re good at. and as Mac said, I think that’s how we can all be contribute

Very good proposal. definetly needs editors, specifically on english articles.
Looking forward to this topic.
We will have people who will step up.
This looks like a part time job :slight_smile:
Good job Mihnea T. Positive feedback from me.

1 Like

Hello! I am glad to be among the first writers on so this initiative is close to my heart.

You’ve got some really good points and the replies have been especially useful, therefore I’d also like to contribute. I think we have a few people that can provide a great start to this initiative (and the ones among us that are more active will recognize them when it’ll come to voting them). As some mentioned before, we don’t have that many articles as of now, so there might not be a need for many editors - except if they were to also write something like a weekly newsletter/articles of their own (i mean something different than the daily/weekly reviews). If this were the case, I believe that the editors could choose 1 or 2 people that aren’t as experienced but proved to be interested and trustworthy as apprentices, so we have a learning cycle. This way, when seasons change, we won’t have to change all the more experienced editors with completely new people (or just writers, instead of just editors - the learning curve might be too steep in this case).

I think this also relates to on-chain credentials (if editors will receive an NFT/POAP for their work in a season) and contributor onboarding. This ties to the Ambassador program and will be used for a recruiting pipeline - identifying and recruiting talent.