Back to portfolio
Governance, Legal & PeopleSimulated project
Governance Coordinator portfolio brief
A simulated governance, legal & people exercise for Governance Coordinator. Treat it as realistic practice, not real client or protocol work.
6 deliverables6 tools referenced3 linked interview questions
Objective
Map one protocol's governance process
Expected deliverables
Proposal templateGovernance calendarMeeting summaryVoting guideExecution trackerProcess retrospective
Recommended workflow
- Map one protocol's governance process
- Write a proposal and execution checklist
- Review a past vote and identify operational failure points
- Review the result against the rubric, then package it as a case study.
Constraints and safety
- Use only public sources or clearly simulated data.
- Never include seed phrases, private keys, or wallet secrets.
- Redact private user, company, security, legal, or compensation information.
- State every assumption you make.
Tools in practice
- Governance forums
- Publish or track proposals, voting windows, delegate discussion, quorum, and execution status while preserving the official record.
- Snapshot or chain voting tools
- Publish or track proposals, voting windows, delegate discussion, quorum, and execution status while preserving the official record.
- Notion
- Draft, review, and maintain proposal template and governance calendar, with owners, source links, and change history.
- Discord
- Coordinate proposal discussion, deadlines, delegate communication, and escalation without replacing the formal voting system.
- block explorers
- Verify transactions, contract addresses, events, token movements, deployment state, and incident claims against chain data.
- budget and tracking tools
- Track proposal budgets, milestones, responsible owners, voting status, and post-vote execution.
What a strong submission shows
- A governance process map
- An improved proposal template
- A vote-to-execution tracker
- A neutral governance summary
Weak submission patterns
- Posting proposal links without process analysis
- Treating high turnout as proof of good governance
- Advocacy disguised as neutral coordination
Review rubric
- Accuracy of claims and sources
- Relevance to the target role
- Decision quality and trade-offs
- Completeness of the deliverable
- Clarity of communication
- Honest limitations and next steps
Present it as a case study
- Explain the problem, sources, decisions, ownership, constraints, output, review, and what you would change.
- Show the final artifact before the process notes.
- State what you owned and what belonged to other people.
- Label the work as simulated, and keep any real contribution clearly separate.
Interview questions this project helps you answer
How do you support a proposal author while remaining process-neutral?
What should happen after a proposal passes?
How would you handle an emergency proposal that bypasses normal review?