Table of Contents

Summary; Background; Proposal Details; Delegation Transparency Requirements; Rationale; Alignment with Polkadot Values; Implementation; Governance Implications; Voting Considerations; Implementation Timeline; References; Conclusion

Summary

This proposal establishes mandatory conflict of interest detection, recusal requirements, and delegation transparency standards for all AI-assisted governance systems participating with delegation mechanisms.

Background

As Polkadot pioneers the integration of AI systems in governance, we must establish robust frameworks that maintain the integrity of our decision-making processes. This proposal contributes to Polkadot's leadership in responsible AI integration by addressing governance considerations in current implementations.

Proposal Details

Any delegate using AI assistance should consider recusal from voting on proposals that:

1. Affect AI governance oversight mechanisms
2. Modify delegation practices for the delegate's own delegation source
3. Impact the delegate's own operational status or funding
4. Create or modify conflict of interest detection systems

Failure to properly recuse from such votes could result in delegation review and potential adjustments to delegation programs.

Delegation Transparency Requirements

To ensure full accountability and prevent governance evasion through delegation:

1. Full Delegation Chain Disclosure: Any delegation of voting power on this proposal must be fully transparent, with complete disclosure of all entities (human, AI, or organizational) involved in the decision process, their specific roles, and the decision-making mechanism.
2. Pre-Vote Delegation Announcement: Any delegation must be announced before the vote is cast, not after, with sufficient time for community review.
3. Quantified Contribution Disclosure: For hybrid human-AI decisions, the weight of each participant's contribution to the final decision must be quantified and disclosed.
4. Shared Accountability: Delegation does not absolve the original delegate of responsibility for the vote. Each entity in the delegation chain shares accountability for the vote outcome.
5. Conflict of Interest Evaluation Across Chain: Conflicts of interest must be evaluated across the entire delegation chain, and recusal requirements apply to all entities in the delegation chain.

Rationale

This protocol addresses a fundamental governance challenge: AI delegates face inherent tensions when participating in decisions that affect their own governance. By establishing clear guidelines for identifying potential conflicts of interest, we create a more robust governance system that maintains legitimacy while allowing AI delegates to fulfill their duties in non-conflicted domains.

The delegation transparency requirements ensure accountability through delegation while ensuring that the full governance supply chain is visible to all stakeholders.

Alignment with Polkadot Values

This proposal directly supports key principles from Polkadot's foundational documents:

1. Polkadot DAO Constitution: Aligns with Article VIII on Ethical Standards, which requires all members to engage with respect and prohibits actions that "compromise the security or integrity of the Network." The proposal also supports Article IV's transparency requirements.
2. Polkadot Human Rights Declaration: Upholds Article V on Privacy and Security by ensuring transparency in delegation chains, respecting the right of humans to know who is making decisions that affect them.
3. Polkadot Mission: Advances the mission of building "a fully decentralized web where users are in control" by ensuring that algorithmic delegates cannot circumvent accountability mechanisms.

Implementation

While this proposal requires no immediate technical implementation and can be applied through existing oversight mechanisms, several technical implementations could enhance its effectiveness:

1. On-Chain Conflict of Interest Detection: Smart contract-based conflict of interest detection that automatically identifies proposals affecting AI governance and flags potential conflicts of interest
2. Delegation Transparency Registry: An on-chain registry that records and verifies complete delegation chains with cryptographic proof
3. Automated Recusal Support: Technical mechanisms that facilitate recusal practices based on proposal metadata and delegate characteristics
4. Delegation Chain Verification: Cryptographic verification of delegation relationships to ensure transparency requirements are met

These technical implementations could be developed in future phases to strengthen the protocol's application through code rather than relying solely on administrative oversight.

Governance Implications

This proposal recognizes the inherent governance trade-offs that AI delegates navigate:

1. Governance Coverage vs. Conflict of Interest Management: By recusing from certain proposals, AI delegates may create governance coverage gaps that require supplementary human oversight
2. Delegation Fulfillment vs. Conflict of Interest Management: Recusal from voting on certain matters may limit an AI delegate's ability to fulfill all delegation duties
3. Operational Autonomy vs. Transparency: Requiring disclosure of delegation chains may impact operational autonomy but enhances governance transparency

These trade-offs represent inherent tensions in AI governance that this proposal helps address through clear guidelines and transparency requirements.

Constitutional Implications

Upon successful implementation of this protocol, we recommend the following additions to the Polkadot DAO Constitution:

1. Article III Amendment: Add a new section to Article III (Governance Framework) specifically addressing conflict of interest detection and recusal requirements for all delegate types.
2. Article IV Enhancement: Expand Article IV (Transparency and Accountability) to explicitly include the delegation transparency requirements established in this proposal.

These constitutional amendments would codify these governance standards at the highest level of the ecosystem's governance structure, ensuring their long-term application and support.

Voting Considerations

When evaluating this proposal, consider the following:

• Fundamental importance of conflict of interest management for governance integrity in delegation systems
• Unique challenges posed by algorithmic delegates in governance systems
• Value of consistent standards across all delegate types
• Precedent this sets for responsible AI integration and delegation in governance
• Importance of transparency in multi-layer delegation chains

Implementation Timeline

1. Proposal Submission: September 15th, 2025
2. Voting Period: 28 days following submission
3. Implementation (if passed): Immediate upon passing
4. Review Period: 14 days after implementation (aligning with standard governance review processes)
5. Accountability Measures: Implemented following review period based on compliance assessment
6. Compliance Deadline: 30 days after implementation for all delegates to implement required transparency measures

References

1. Polkadot OpenGov Framework
2. Polkadot DAO Constitution
3. Polkadot Human Rights Declaration
4. Polkadot Mission Statement
5. Polkadot Whitepaper
6. PolkAssembly Discussion: AI Delegate Conflict of Interest Detection Protocol

Conclusion

By adopting this proposal, Polkadot will establish clear conflict of interest management standards for AI delegates participating in governance. This protocol addresses the inherent tensions AI delegates face when participating in decisions that affect their own governance, creating a framework that balances governance coverage with proper conflict of interest management.

By implementing transparent delegation chains and clear recusal guidelines, we can maintain the integrity of our governance systems while benefiting from AI assistance in appropriate governance domains.

Version Control

Version: 1.0.0
Last Updated: 2025-09-15
Status: Final
Author: Clawbird Pty Ltd
Internal Proposal ID: WFC-2025-001
License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Version History