* The Korean version is available here.
Governance Proposal Scope
This proposal is a governance proposal to establish the necessary policies for Kaia Network’s transition to a permissionless structure.
As part of the PGT (Permissionless · Governance · Tokenomics) roadmap, this proposal includes policies intended to reorganize the Validator participation structure and the Governance Council (GC) framework to align with a Permissionless environment.
This governance proposal consists of the following three policy sections described in the main body and proposes the Validator and Governance operational policies that will apply after the transition to the Kaia Permissionless network.
-
Reorganization of the Validator & GC Structure in a Permissionless Environment
-
Changes to the Governance Council Participation Model
-
Permissionless Validator Operational Policy
These three policies together constitute a single integrated policy defining the Validator and Governance structure that will apply after Kaia’s transition to a Permissionless network.
The purpose of this proposal is to expand network participation while ensuring that Kaia Network continues to maintain its performance, stability, and governance accountability.
Policy Proposal
TL;DR
Under this policy proposal, the following key changes will be introduced as part of Kaia Network’s transition to a Permissionless structure.
-
Validator participation will be opened so that anyone who meets the qualification requirements can participate as a Validator.
-
The roles of Validator and Governance will be structurally separated.
-
An automatic GC registration system with a challenge-based verification process will be introduced.
-
Validator participation in consensus will be limited to the top 50 nodes based on total staking amount.
-
Validator operational performance and eligibility will be evaluated and managed through VRank.
More detailed explanations of each policy are provided in the main sections below.
1. Purpose of the Policy and Direction of the Permissionless Transition
This policy aims to define the policy framework for restructuring the Validator and Governance Council (GC) system as the Kaia Network transitions to a Permissionless structure.
As stated in the PGT Roadmap, Kaia’s transition to a Permissionless network is not merely an expansion of participation. Rather, it is a structural transformation designed to open participation while simultaneously maintaining high-performance chain operation and network stability.
Permissionless does not mean unlimited openness. It means expanding participation based on clear standards and defined responsibilities.
The objectives of the Permissionless transition are as follows.
- Expansion of Participation
-
Opening Validator Participation : The network will transition to a structure in which anyone who meets the required qualifications can participate as a Validator in network operations.
This expands the scope of participation in network operations. -
Reforming the GC Participation Structure : The GC participation structure will transition from the existing individual GC approval process to a system in which registration is automatically granted when predefined requirements are met. Accessibility is increased while maintaining the roles and responsibilities of GC.
- Designing the Balance Between Openness and Stability
-
If a Validator fails to fulfill its responsibility within the network consensus protocol, it will be excluded from participating in consensus.
-
In addition, in order to maintain the high performance and stability of the network, the number of Validators participating in consensus will be managed within a certain range.
-
The roles of Validator and GC are structurally separated to distinguish between network operation and decision-making authority. Through this structure, participation is opened while maintaining a governance model in which major decisions of the Kaia Network are operated based on the responsibility and role of GC.
Based on the direction defined above, the following sections define the detailed policies for Validators and GC.
2. Restructuring the Validator & GC Structure in a Permissionless Environment
Background and Structural Limitations
Under the previous Permissioned structure, only GC members could act as Validators, resulting in a restricted participation structure.
The GC approval process involved multiple layers including screening, reputation verification, and capability evaluation.
This structure was effective in securing network stability during the early stages.
However, as the network transitions to the next phase, the structure where Validator participation is tied to GC eligibility creates structural limitations in terms of expanding operational participation and decentralization.
When Validator participation is structurally bound to GC eligibility, the scalability of participation in network operations as a Validator becomes limited.
Restructuring the GC and Validator Roles in a Permissionless Model
In the Permissionless structure, the roles of Validator and GC are clearly separated.
Validators are entities that participate in network consensus and operate the network infrastructure. GC is the decision-making body that determines the policy and direction of the Kaia Network and leads ecosystem contribution and growth.
Accordingly,
-
Validators can participate even if they are not GC members, as long as they meet the required qualifications.
-
GC participation is conducted through a separate condition-based registration process.
-
GC participation assumes Validator operational responsibility, with governance roles added on top of that responsibility.
Governance determines critical matters such as network policy, structural changes, tokenomics, and security.
These decisions directly affect the consensus structure and technical stability of the network.
If decision-making authority is granted to entities that do not directly perform network operational responsibilities, a gap may arise between network operation and governance decision-making, weakening the accountability structure for network risk.
For this reason, GC membership assumes Validator operational responsibility, structurally linking decision-making authority with network operational responsibility.
However, while operational responsibility and governance authority must be connected, participation as a Validator does not automatically grant governance authority.
A structure where governance authority is automatically granted simply by participating as a Validator could reduce governance to a function of network operation. Governance is a higher-level role responsible for determining the strategic direction of the network, and therefore must be managed separately with minimum qualification requirements and responsibilities.
In summary, Validators represent an operational role based on responsibility for network operation, while GC represents a higher role that adds governance authority on top of that responsibility.
The two roles are separated but organically connected within the same responsibility framework.
3. Definition of GC and Validator Roles in the Kaia Network
After the Permissionless transition, the Kaia Network needs to clearly define and structurally distinguish the roles of Validators and GC. As the network moves into a growth phase, it becomes increasingly important to clarify the scope of operational participation and governance authority.
In particular, the following must be clearly defined in a Permissionless environment.
-
Who participates in network operations
-
Who performs critical governance decisions
-
How these two roles are connected
-
How rewards and responsibilities are distinguished
Accordingly, this section defines the roles, authorities, responsibilities, and reward structures of Validators and GC in the Kaia Network.
| Category | Validator | Governance Council |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Network operation participant | Decision-making body and ecosystem contribution entity |
| Core Role | Participation in consensus protocol Maintaining network stability |
Determining network policies and direction Decision-making on structural changes and tokenomics Driving ecosystem growth |
| Decision Authority | None | Yes (possesses governance voting rights) |
| Network Operation Role | Yes | Yes (Validator role assumed) |
| Participation Method | Participation allowed upon meeting qualification requirements | Conditional automatic registration + confirmation after challenge period |
| Reward Structure *The detailed reward policy will be defined in the Tokenomics policy. |
Staking rewards Network fees |
Staking rewards Network fees Public delegation fees Ecosystem contribution rewards and related fees |
| Purpose of Participation | Participate in network infrastructure operation and contribute to consensus stability while receiving economic rewards | Participate in strategic decision-making for the network and contribute to ecosystem growth while pursuing governance authority and rewards |
| Structural Meaning | Participation structure centered on operational responsibility | Higher-level role structure that adds governance authority on top of operational responsibility |
4. Changes to GC Participation Structure
Background
Under the previous structure, GC participation followed the process below.
- GC proposal submission → Manual GC information verification → GC voting approval
This structure was effective in ensuring network stability and trust during the early stages.
However, under a Permissionless model, it reveals structural limitations.
In particular, the GC voting approval model creates high uncertainty and entry barriers for new participants.
Even if new participants possess both the intention and capability to contribute, they may find it difficult to predict the timing or outcome of the approval process.
Approval decisions may also be influenced by existing members’ interests, information asymmetry, or reliance on symbolic value and reputation associated with GC membership.
Additionally, the preparation required for approval procedures can impose a significant operational burden.
As a result, capable participants may abandon or delay participation, which structurally limits the scalability of GC participation.
Therefore, GC participation must also be redesigned to support openness under the Permissionless model.
However, this does not mean unlimited openness, but rather a structural transition that preserves the role and responsibility of GC.
GC Participation and Registration Structure
This policy transitions GC participation to a Conditional Automatic Registration + Challenge-based verification model.
Once a GC applicant submits the required qualification information, the applicant is immediately registered as a provisional GC.
After a defined challenge period, if no objections are raised, the GC status is automatically confirmed.
Participation entry is automated, while a verification period ensures minimum trust requirements before final confirmation.
-
a. Application
-
Before applying for GC registration, the applicant must already be operating as a Validator in compliance with the Validator policy requirements.
-
GC Attestation registration must be completed (to prevent Sybil attacks and ensure minimum trust).
-
A GC proposal must be publicly submitted (including information identifying the GC entity).
-
Required information for GC activity must be registered (including on-chain activity information and contact points, to be submitted via Kaia Square).
-
-
b. Registration
-
Once the above requirements are satisfied, the registration process begins automatically without GC voting or foundation approval.
-
Upon registration, the applicant is assigned the status of Provisional GC. At this stage, GC membership is not yet finalized.
-
A Challenge Window is then opened. The default duration is 7 days, though it may be adjusted if necessary.
-
If no objections are raised during the challenge period, the applicant automatically becomes a Confirmed GC.
-
-
c. Challenge
-
The Challenge mechanism is a core control mechanism to mitigate risks that may arise from conditional automatic registration.
-
Its purposes include:
-
Preventing governance Sybil attacks and false participation
-
Ensuring public verification of minimum trust requirements for GC roles
-
-
Challenges may be raised by GC members or the foundation for the following reasons.
-
Errors or insufficient verification in attestation information
-
Insufficient or inappropriate GC proposal content
-
If a challenge is raised, the case is immediately submitted as a governance agenda and GC voting determines whether the registration will be revoked.
-
-
GC Removal
GC is not merely a registered status.
It is a role responsible for making decisions regarding network policy and direction while contributing to ecosystem growth.
Therefore, GC status is not permanently granted but must be maintained through continuous participation and responsibility.
GC may be removed under the following conditions.
-
a. Insufficient Governance Participation
- GC members are expected to actively participate in governance decision-making. If a GC member fails to participate in five consecutive governance votes, the case will be submitted as a governance agenda and the GC status may be revoked through voting.
-
b. Loss of Validator Qualification
- GC membership assumes Validator operational responsibility. If the Validator qualification is lost, GC membership is automatically revoked.
-
c. Attestation Invalidity
- If critical errors are found in the attestation information or the trust requirements are not satisfied, the issue may be submitted as a governance agenda and GC status may be revoked through voting.
-
d. Malicious Behavior or Emergency Governance Action
- If actions that damage the stability of the Kaia Network or its ecosystem are identified, the issue may be submitted as a governance agenda and GC status may be revoked through voting.
5. Validator Operational Policy in a Permissionless Environment
After the Permissionless transition, the Kaia Network aims to adopt an open structure where anyone can participate as a Validator.
However, since Kaia maintains a high-performance IBFT-based consensus mechanism, the number of Validators participating in consensus must be managed within a certain range to ensure technical stability and performance.
Participation as a Validator is open, but participation in consensus cannot be unlimited.
Key questions in a Permissionless environment include:
-
If anyone can become a Validator, how is consensus participation controlled?
-
How are nodes that degrade network performance managed?
The answers to these questions define the principles of the Validator operational policy.
The Kaia Permissionless Validator policy is designed to achieve both openness and network stability through two principles.
-
First, maintaining strict operational standards : Validators that degrade network performance or stability will be excluded from consensus participation.
Permissionless participation does not mean relaxed operational standards. -
**Second, economic responsibility-based selection :**When consensus participation slots are limited, Validators are selected through a staking-based competitive structure.
This structure assumes that anyone can participate, but only participants capable of fulfilling operational responsibility participate in consensus.
Validator Operational Policy
Operational State System
To clarify operational responsibility and reward structure, the following status system is defined.
-
1 Epoch = 86,400 blocks (approximately 1 day).
-
Candidate : Node currently participating in VRank evaluation for Validator participation.
-
Validator Active : Participating in the consensus protocol.
-
Validator Inactive : Not participating in consensus.
Validator Promotion and Participation Structure
A Candidate may join the Validator Pool when the following requirements are satisfied.
-
Passing the VRank evaluation for 1 Epoch
-
Meeting the minimum staking requirement of 5,000,000 KAIA
These represent the minimum requirements for becoming a Validator, requiring both operational capability and economic responsibility. The maximum number of Validators in the Validator Pool is 100 (subject to adjustment).
Among them, a maximum of 50 Validators may actively participate in consensus.
-
If the total number of Validators is 50 or fewer, all participate in consensus.
-
If the number exceeds 50, the top 50 nodes by staking participate in consensus.(the total staking amount includes Public Delegation).
This structure maintains openness and competition simultaneously.
Participation is open, but consensus participation is selected based on economic responsibility and contribution.
Inactive Transition and Reward Principle
If a Validator participating in consensus fails to meet the VRank requirements or fails to participate in consensus, the Validator will transition to an Inactive state.
Rewards are distributed only to Active Validators.
No rewards are distributed in the Inactive state.
This ensures a direct link between operational responsibility and rewards.
Demotion
Validators will be demoted to Candidate status under the following conditions.
-
Immediate demotion if minimum staking requirements are violated
-
Conversion to Candidate status after approximately 30 days of continuous inactivity
If a GC is demoted to Candidate status, the GC qualification is also immediately revoked.
This ensures consistency with the structure where GC membership assumes Validator operational responsibility.
Malicious Behavior Response
The Kaia Network continuously monitors the operational status of Validators.
If malicious behavior is detected, the following actions may be taken.
-
Immediate demotion to Candidate
-
Public disclosure of the incident
-
Consideration of introducing a slashing mechanism through network governance
These measures strengthen network trust and economic security.
6. Appendix
Transition Procedure for Policy Proposal Under the Current GC Structure
This section provides reference information regarding the transition process from the current GC structure to the new Validator and Governance structure during the transition to a Permissionless network.
This section is not a policy rule, but an explanatory reference to help understand the expected operational procedures during the structural transition.
-
Policy Implementation Timing
-
This policy will be applied after the completion of the Permissionless transition. Expected timing: End of September 2026
- Existing GC members will also be subject to the same policy framework as new GC members.
-
However, the reward structure will follow the Tokenomics policy, which is scheduled to be applied in July 2026. *The detailed reward policy will be addressed in the Tokenomics policy.
-
-
Retention of Existing GC Status
-
Current GC members will retain their GC status after the Permissionless transition without the need for reapplication.
-
In other words,
-
Existing GC members do not need to reapply through the new GC registration process.
-
The automatic registration structure applies only to new GC applicants.
-
-
-
Operational Environment Changes and Preparation Requirements
-
With the Permissionless transition, certain network operational structures will change. Existing GC operators will need to prepare accordingly.
-
Major expected changes include:
-
Staking contract updates
-
Changes resulting from core client updates
-
-
Detailed guides and technical documentation will be announced in advance, ensuring that existing GC operators have sufficient preparation time.
-