Question by @homerj (https://gov.tools/budget_discussion/95)
04/04/2025 - 12:30 AM UTC
So the problem statement is "The problem being solved is the mismatch between current DAO tools' individualistic design and the collective, decentralized governance needs of Indigenous and similar communities. The goal is to create Cardano infrastructure that supports group-focused, adaptable coordination aligned with these communities' existing systems.". Can you please provide evidence of a single "tribal nation" today that wants to use a service like the one you're proposing to design and clarify what's holding them back (in an easy to understand language)?
We can. First, some context for you. The word ‘Iwi’ roughly means ‘nation’ and is often translated as tribe. There are 139 "Fully coded Iwi" (coded by the NZ Government for its census and similar purposes) and 45 "Partially coded iwi". The atomic unit for Maori ‘collective nation’ (in many cases related groups in a bioregion and/or water catchment) is the ‘Hapū’ of which there are over 800 consisting of a total of 1m Māori in the New Zealand’s population of 5m.
We can provide evidence from many of these Indigenous nations expressing interest in decentralized governance tools we are working to deliver, tailored to their collective needs. The most immediate are from the people themselves as endorsements which are beginning to be published (see Endorsements).
Our experiences responding to the needs of Indigenous leaders from the Cook Islands, Samoa, Colombia, and Brazil have affirmed the importance of these technologies, highlighting the global demand for tools like these.
A parallel validation of this identified need comes from outside the Cardano ecosystem—IndigiDAO, a project similarly focused on advancing data sovereignty and empowering Native communities through data ownership grounded in Indigenous rights and blockchain principles. However, unlike the Indigenous DAO toolkit, it does not yet offer the underlying settlement, identity infrastructure, or decentralisation advantages enabled by Cardano and the EUTxO model.
So, in Aotearoa New Zealand alone, there are over around 180 registered Iwi (aggregated tribal nations), hundreds of Hapū (tribal nations), and thousands of land trusts, each with their own processes and systems for managing memberships, coordinating cultural and community activities, and managing collective resources and assets. The development of culturally appropriate DAO tools provides a clear pathway for these communities to establish their digital infrastructure in alignment with their community practices and values.
The primary challenge these communities face is not a lack of interest but the absence of tools and systems that meet their specific needs.
In summary, there is a clear demand among Indigenous communities for these tools that respect and integrate their traditional governance structures. The principle of “Nothing about us without us” underscores the necessity for Indigenous communities to be central participants in decisions that affect them. By not actively engaging and resourcing Mātou Collective, the Cardano Community risks perpetuating a pattern where tools are developed without the crucial input of those they are intended to serve. This approach not only overlooks the invaluable insights and cultural frameworks of Indigenous nations but also diminishes the effectiveness and relevance of the tools being created which are also useful for collectives, civil, and solidarity groups who organise in a similar way.
True innovation and equity demand that Indigenous voices are not only heard but are instrumental in shaping the technologies that impact their communities. Collaborative development with Māori and other indigenous nations, by an Indigenous development team, ensures that solutions are culturally appropriate, sustainable, and genuinely beneficial. It’s imperative that the Cardano Community commits to this inclusive approach, recognising that meaningful progress arises from partnerships rooted in respect, reciprocity, and shared authority.
And, to address your question about whats holding them back, well despite being deeply experienced in collective decision-making and communal governance, Indigenous peoples are largely underrepresented in the adoption of DAO tools. This is not due to a lack of capacity for coordination—quite the opposite. Many Indigenous communities already have sophisticated governance systems rooted in consensus, relational accountability, and long-standing stewardship practices. However, current DAO tools are poorly aligned with these cultural realities. They are often built for crypto-native users, assume Western individualistic paradigms of ownership and authority, and require a high degree of technical expertise to deploy and manage. As a result, they feel foreign, inaccessible, and in some cases extractive or incompatible with Indigenous values.
In addition, most existing DAO platforms fail to address key needs for cultural sovereignty, local-first infrastructure, and identity systems that reflect kinship, trust, and whakapapa (genealogy). They rely on platform-bound identities, top-down onboarding processes, and coordination models designed around markets—not communities. Without tools that honour Indigenous ways of organizing and reduce dependency on centralized platforms, the barriers to adoption remain high. To enable meaningful participation, DAO tooling must be reimagined not just technically, but culturally and relationally, in partnership with Indigenous peoples themselves.