Governance model for JPG

Author: @JosephKnecht
Reviewers: @mel.eth, @DocHabanero
Purpose: Information and feedback


JPG is Index Coop’s NFT index token which is scheduled to launch in March. The following post outlines the governance model for JPG. This will be the first time governance rights are partially retained within an Index product token. The product-level governance model may serve as a template for future products.


JPG will retain partial governance rights since the voting topics for JPG are largely not of interest to the Index community or INDEX holders. For example, the voting decisions primarily relate to curation and auction decisions for the underlying protocols and JPG. Also, as JPG will likely become a major holder of the underlying tokens we wanted to ensure governance participation in order to be good community members in the underlying protocols and to avoid frustrating their quorum requirements. Lastly, locating partial governance in JPG adds value to the token which would probably not be realized if it vested in Index. However, there are hypothetical scenarios where a vote may be of interest to Index. Accordingly, it was desirable to primarily vest governance decisions in JPG yet still have a mechanism for escalating specific voting topics to Index. The governance model is described below.


  • There will be a JPG Governance Council (GC) that will consist of 5 members: 3 members from the Index community and 2 voted in by JPG holders.
  • One of the 3 representatives from Index will be a Steward who will lead the JPG GC. The Steward will initially be the JPG Product Designer (JK). The other 2 Index representatives will be selected by the Steward from the Index community. If there is a dispute about the selection process then the representation will be put to a vote by Index community members.
  • Any voting topic within a JPG protocol or for JPG itself will be referred to the JPG GC who will decide whether the topic should go to JPG or Index for a vote. Decisions will be made on a majority vote. It is very unlikely that a topic would ever be escalated to Index but it could be, for example, if a curation decision runs counter to Index community values. Examples of topics and their probable assignments are below:
Topic Probable Decider
Curation and auction decisions for underlying protocols JPG
Allocation of JPG resources, eg, ETH proceeds from auctions, airdrops, yield, etc. JPG
Recomposition, with the options being prescribed by the JPG GC JPG
Voting topics where Index has a strong interest as determined by the JPG GC Index
Votes that fail to achieve JPG quorum JPG GC
Votes where the is insufficient lead time (<3 days) to organize a JPG Snapshot vote JPG GC
Re-appointment of JPG GC Steward Index
  • Similar to how the Index metagovernance council works, if a JPG vote fails to reach quorum then the vote would be referred to JPG GC.
  • Any issues, learnings, or disputes would be relayed back to the Index Metagovernance Council.

Please feel free to send us any feedback or concerns. If there are no major objections we will implement the above model.


Basically totally agree with you, and suggesting this kind of discussion will make good effect to JPG value. 1 point I would like to raise a discussion is that there is probability Index is more appropriate to decide “Curation and auction decisions for underlying protocols”.

I guess this right define core value of JPG value itself, and final responsibility of JPG will be Index. e.g. JPG holders just leaves if they feel JPG is not profitable and judges JPG cannot make good decision on this area, but Index cannot.

I am not sure whether Index preceds JPS holders on ability of curating, but thinking about responsibilities, I think it is better Index holds the right.

Thanks and sorry for disturbing you, if I missed the point…

I should have been more clear that ‘curation and auction decisions’ refers to these decisions on NFTs within the protocols and not the protocol tokens themselves. For example, a protocol might call a vote to sell an NFT in its collection to raise funds for another NFT purchase. I suspect the JGC will find that JPG holders are better-positioned and more interested to make those NFT curation decisions than INDEX holders. There might be certain cases with a very large economic impact where the JGC may decide INDEX holders have an overriding interest, eg, to override a lowball reserve price or to liquidate an entire collection and distribute the proceeds as ETH. I hope that’s more clear.

1 Like

It’s pleasure to have got reply from you, and thanks for your clarification of ‘curation and auction decisions’ is not intended to selection of token, is referring to decisions on NFTs within the prodocols. I think it’s my lack of context that required this clarification, you have completely success to describe the governance model.

Based on clarification above, is it ok to discuss more? I am still anxious if it is appropriate to assume that curation of NFTs within underlyne tokens will be passed to JPG holders, because it assumes JPG holders are better at determine the value than Index community.

That assumption itself is no problem, but referring to IIP-091, JPG index is for users that need diversification and liquidity through index, so I guess it is natural that we assume Index community is likely to have better knowledge of NFTs. Otherwise Index is unable to choose proper tokens within JPG index. I am anxious assuming curation decider is JPG holders means paves the way to lose of proper diversification of JPG index.

How do you think about? I guess I am totally missing the context of what indices is, but just in case…

It’s my pleasure. Allow me to invite you to our JPG Discord channel where we can discuss these questions at more length.


We’re now accepting self-nominations from Index Coop Verified Contributors interested in joining the JPG Governance Council. There are 2 slots available. Nominees should have a strong background in NFTs and an interest in governance and community-building. The time exposure will be 1-2 hours/month.

Nominees should please contact me directly on Discord instead of replying here. Thanks.


We’ve now received several nominations from Index Coop contributors to serve on the JPG Governance Council. I don’t think it would be fair or appropriate for me to select the 2 IC reps so I’d like to do it by a contributor vote instead. @Hammad1412 is updating the Forum settings so that we can restrict votes to IC contributors. I’ll update everyone when that becomes available. Thanks for your patience.


i dont think this is a strong use of coop resources & that we should delegate jpg governance council to collectooor holders


I’m strongly inclined to agree. Let’s map out the full governance and report back here.

1 Like

The JPG Snapshot page is now live. Thanks @mel.eth
I’ve enabled voting for JPG holders, delegates, JPG Arrakis LPs, and JPG Uni V3 LPs. Please feel welcome to join the Snapshot page ahead of our upcoming votes.


Hi,the model for JPG is published now?

Not yet. We’ll make an announcement after the Collectooors NFT raffle is completed

Thanks,the activity is in Twitter?

JPG Discord

and if you’re a Collectooors NFT holder you can get into the gated channel here

1 Like

The Snapshot vote is now live for the Collectooors/JPG governance model. Feel free to post any questions here or in Discord (jpg or jpg-governance channels). Voting ends this Friday 2pm ET (6 pm UTC)


The vote to establish JPG’s governance model is now closed. By a majority weighted vote of 66.12% the proposal passed to allow JPG, JPG LP, and Collectooors NFT holders to make proposals and for Collectooors NFT holders to vote. This eliminates the need for a JPG governance council.


There are currently no arrangements in place for distributing the royalties from Collectooors NFT sales (currently 3.4 ETH). We plan to put this to a Collectooors NFT vote. Feel free to let me know if there are any concerns or questions with this approach.