Qubic governance is driven by both Computors and its community. Computors decide on core proposals that guide the protocol and are related to the Computor Controlled Fund (CCF), while all holders can take part in open polls that shape the wider ecosystem.
THE STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNANCE
This page explains the structure governance operates inside — the bodies, funds, and mandates.
FOUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
What holds the structure together
Fund Separation
CCF, Incubation and Listing funds operate independently with distinct controls.
Decision vs. Execution
Boards decide direction and allocation; workgroups and projects execute.
Independent Oversight
Financial auditing is independent, mandatory, and publicly reported.
Protocol Primacy
Protocol rules override all governance decisions.
THE THREE FUNDS
Three funds. Three purposes. No shared pot. Each fund has its own controller, its own scope, and its own audit status.
Incubation Fund
| Purpose | Incubation projects only |
| Controlled by | |
| Isolation | Fully isolated from CCF |
| Audit status | Outside CCF audit scope |
| Income | No ongoing source |
CCF (Computor Fund)
| Purpose | Funds Full Workgroups and approved projects |
| Controlled by | |
| Audit status | Subject to Finance Auditing Entity |
| Income | Steady (8% Computor donation) |
Listing Fund
| Purpose | Exchange listings only |
| Controlled by | |
| Isolation | Fully isolated from CCF |
| Audit status | Outside CCF audit scope |
| Income | No ongoing source |
FUNDING FLOW
The CCF flow runs top to bottom under Computor approval. The isolated flows never touch it.
THE FULL GOVERNANCE HIERARCHY
Click any box to expand it and open its full mandate. Every node — including what an entity explicitly cannot do — is one click away.
Finance Auditing Entity
Independently audits all CCF-funded spending. No approval or execution authority.
Strategic Board
Defines direction and aligns workgroups. No direct fund control.
FINANCE AUDITING ENTITY
The strongest trust signal in the framework: independent, mandatory, and reported publicly.
Mandatory access — full read on all four
Scope
- Full Workgroups
- Small Execution Workgroups
- CCF-funded standalone projects
Explicit exclusions
- Incubation Fund spending
- Listing & Exchange Fund spending
No approval authority · no execution authority · no voting power — oversight only.
Published audit reports
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
What happens when there's a disagreement
| Conflict type | First arbiter | Escalation | Final authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational | Strategic Board | Computor review | Computors |
| Funding (CCF) | Strategic Board | Computor review | Computors |
| Funding (isolated) | Respective Board | Abuse intervention only | Board mandate |
| Strategic | Strategic Board | Computor review | Computors |
| Protocol | Tech Workgroup | CFB | Protocol binding |
If the Tech Workgroup determines a directive violates protocol rules or endangers network integrity, it must issue a Formal Technical Objection stating: (1) the protocol constraint involved, (2) the technical risk assessment, (3) whether the issue is safety-critical or architectural. A joint technical review between Tech Workgroup and CFB follows. If confirmed, the contested governance decision is automatically void. Governance bodies may not override protocol constraints through voting or funding pressure.
Deadlock resolution
Non-protocol disputes that governance bodies cannot resolve escalate to Computors, who act as the final governance stabiliser.
Emergency technical authority
The Tech Workgroup, aligned with CFB, may take temporary protective action strictly limited to risk mitigation, with a published incident report and post-event review by Computors and the Strategic Board. Protective only — never policy.
ELIGIBILITY & ELECTIONS
Who can serve, and how they're chosen
Mandatory requirements
Identity verification is internal only — never public doxxing.
Conflict of interest policy
- Disclosure of external roles or investments in competing projects
- Abstention where personal interests may conflict with Qubic's
- Immediate disclosure of new conflicts arising during tenure
- Undisclosed conflicts → immediate removal
Election basics
Board members are elected by community, workgroup representatives, or Computors — depending on board type.
Who can stand
- Only active Computors may nominate themselves or another eligible Computor delegate
- No other ecosystem role may nominate or stand
- Strategic responsibility only — no
operational execution, no fund control. Unpaid role.
Process
- Nomination: signed message in the Computor-operator Discord channel
- Voting: one proposal per candidate, the epoch immediately following nomination close
- Elected with at least Quorum (451+) YES votes