Voting Neuron Grant Application - CodeGov
This is our formal application for the Grants for Voting Neurons program Season 2 offered by DFINITY.
We are applying for team grants for the following proposal topics:
- IC-OS Version Election
- Protocol Canister Management
- Subnet Management & API Boundary Node Management
- Participant Management & Node Admin
The CodeGov team has been reviewing and voting independently on these NNS proposal topics for almost a year as a grant recipient for these topics during Season 1, and we would be honored if the NNS would award us with the opportunity to continue in the grant program during Season 2. We have been successful at helping advance decentralization of NNS governance through funding from this grant program. We are a larger team of developers from the ICP community who have the skills to provide an educated evaluation of proposal details, document their findings, and a willingness to vote reliably on every proposal.
CodeGov
Details about the CodeGov organization including our manifesto, team members, and known neuron configuration can always be found on our website at codegov.org. The configuration of the CodeGov known neuron is actively managed to ensure that Followees selected for each proposal topic are fully committed and available to perform detailed reviews with a target timeline of 48 hours after proposal creation. The CodeGov known neuron vote is cast automatically by consensus among the selected Followees for each topic in which they specialize. In the rare event that we cannot reach consensus automatically due to unforeseen circumstances, then the vote for the CodeGov neuron is cast manually based on feedback from the reviewers who have been able to complete their proposal review within the established timeframe. Hence, we always strive to complete our reviews as soon as possible and well before DFINITY votes.
The CodeGov neuron owns the minimal amount of voting power required to participate in NNS governance, but we trigger 5-6% total voting power for the topics that we cover. Hence, the voting power that we trigger is 100% provided by other neurons who have chosen to follow us on these topics. This is a great honor and a heavy responsibility that we take very seriously. It inspires us to perform our due diligence on every proposal and reminds us that our work has been making a difference to the NNS governance community.
In addition to participation in NNS voting, we also have a CodeGov WTN neuron that votes on WaterNeuron proposals. WaterNeuron is a liquid staking protocol built on ICP that owns very large 6 month and 8 year neurons and enables WTN token owners to cast the votes for these large NNS neurons. CodeGov is involved in WaterNeuron to help provide a credible and reliable option for the WTN community to follow on NNS proposals. We built a vote relay canister that automatically casts the same vote on WTN NNS proposals that CodeGov already casts on NNS proposals. This canister has provided reliable replication of the Codegov vote between the NNS and the WTN SNS for over a year. Several months ago, DFINITY created a WTN neuron and forked our vote relay app in order to replicate their own vote. After over a year of active engagement in the WTN community, CodeGov has developed a strong reputation as evidenced by the high number of people who have chosen to follow us. This demonstrates an additional way that CodeGov is contributing to the long term success of ICP.
IC-OS Version Election
Team members reviewing this topic include @hpeebles @timk11 and @cyberowl. Demonstrations of our reviews can be found by searching the forum for the IC-OS-election tag and scrolling through the posts for easily identifiable CodeGov reviews. Select examples are also provided (137578, 136664, 136223). Even though only 3 reviewers are required for the grants program, we will often have 4-5 reviewers covering this topic to give more developers experience with the codebase.
Protocol Canister Management
Team members who intend to continue reviewing this topic include @cyberowl @timk11 and @LaCosta. Demonstrations of our reviews can be found by searching the forum for the Protocol-Canister-Management tag and scrolling through the posts for easily identifiable CodeGov reviews. Select examples are also provided (137582-83, 135286, 137499-500, 137262-67). Even though only 3 reviewers are required for the grants program, we will often have 4-5 reviewers covering this topic to give more developers experience with the codebase.
Participant Management & Node Admin
Team members who intend to continue reviewing this topic include @timk11 @LaCosta @Cris.MntYetti and @ZoLee. Demonstrations of our reviews can be found by searching the forum for the New Node Provider Proposals thread and scrolling through the posts for easily identifiable CodeGov reviews. Select examples are also provided (134664, 137071, 137077-78). Even though only 3 reviewers are required for the grants program, we will often have 4 reviewers covering this topic to provide a more diverse decision.
Subnet Management & API Boundary Node Management
Team members who intend to continue reviewing this topic include @timk11 @LaCosta @Cris.MntYetti and @ZoLee. Demonstrations of our reviews can be found by searching the forum for the Subnet-Management and API-Boundary-Node-Management tag and scrolling through the posts for easily identifiable CodeGov reviews. Select examples are also provided (137229-34, 135664-66, 137338-42, 137170). Even though only 3 reviewers are required for the grants program, we will often have 4 reviewers covering this topic to provide a more diverse range of perspectives.
Team Member Bios
Hamish Peebles (@hpeebles)
Co-founder and developer of OpenChat. Hamish graduated with a degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge then leapt into the world of software engineering and has loved it there ever since. He enjoys finding simple solutions to complex problems with a focus on performance and scalability.
Tim Kirchler (@timk11)
Tim has designed or contributed to a number of projects on the Internet Computer. These include a multi-sig wallet built for the BUIDL Bitcoin Hackathon, an app for encrypting and sharing content using an early version of the vetKeys feature, an oracle to show estimated liquidity position returns, a Motoko-based Ethereum virtual machine and a machine learning model trainer using zero-knowledge proofs (in progress). Having originally come from a health science background, Tim holds a Master of Digital Health and Data Science from the University of Sydney and has a special interest in the application of blockchain technology and artificial intelligence to the health domain.
Jefri (@cyberowl)
Jefri, known in the ecosystem as cyberowl, is a seasoned software developer with a strong focus on the IC. He has extensive experience in blockchain development, particularly with Motoko and JavaScript, drawing from prior work with concurrent languages like Elixir and Erlang that follow the Actor model. Jefri has contributed to diverse projects, including a file uploader pattern for JS, Rust, and Motoko as part of an ICDevs.org bounty, a GitHub-like platform for designers, and a time capsule app that won the VetKeys hackathon. His code has been adopted by other developers.
As a key participant in CodeGov, Jefri reviews NNS proposals, verifies canister upgrades, and ensures the security, transparency, and integrity of decentralized applications. He actively engages in forum discussions on governance, SNS decentralization sales (e.g., Modclub, Seers DAO), and critiques failed projects like BOOM DAO to promote better practices.
Passionate about building products people 
, privacy, and true decentralization.
Henrique LaCosta (@LaCosta)
Henrique has developed and contributed to several projects on different blockchains, mostly on Ethereum and on the Internet Computer. Some of the projects include a lending protocol on CoreDAO for the ETH Lisbon 2023 Hackathon, a card game on the Internet Computer for the Build on ICP Portugal Hackathon, and contributions to the Obsidian Tears project, a blockchain-based 2D RPG with NFT integration. Currently Henrique is also working on a project for the World Computer Hacker League.
Cris MntYetti (@cris.mntyetti)
Cris has been active in the blockchain space since 2020, and aligned with the Internet Computer’s vision shortly after its May 2021 launch. He has a growing 8-year neuron since July 2021 and has spent the last four years deep in the IC trenches on a daily basis.
Chris’s background blends a technical foundation with hands-on work in retail, designing physical stores, mapping customer flows, and managing B2B sales. That experience taught him how people actually interact with systems, and how even the best strategy collapses when it’s disconnected from execution.
Today, Cris works at the intersection of Web2 and Web3, helping teams translate complex ideas into usable systems, structure projects to avoid chaos, and grow without losing direction. He has a strong passion for data analysis, spotting patterns, uncovering inefficiencies, and building strategies that solve problems at the root. Whether it’s fixing communication gaps in DAOs, tightening user flows, or aligning incentives across stakeholders, his focus is always on making things work in practice, not just on paper.
Zack (@ZoLee)
CodeGov team member for over 2 years reviewing all proposal types at one time or another.
Wenzel Bartlett (@wpb)
Founder and manager for the CodeGov.org known neuron. Founding member and manager for the Synapse.vote known neuron. Active participant in NNS governance for over 4 years.
Voting Principles
CodeGov team members vote independently based on their individual opinions but there are some commonly held principles. We aim to apply the same standards in our reviews no matter whom it might affect. We believe it’s important for reviewers to be as impartial as possible and to provide the reviews as information without veering into unrelated points or agendas.
We generally strive to reflect the wishes of the NNS community as expressed through community-approved Governance proposals, as these are a reference on what the current standards should be. Although there may be some cases where the standards can be counterproductive, most of the time they should be followed and we would prefer to see them being discussed and changed rather than simply being overridden.
We support the development of a well-functioning, safe and decentralized network. We encourage a high standard of proposals, whereby all the necessary information to enable any community member to plan their vote can be found in the proposal itself or by following links given within it.
Team Processes
While the teams listed above reflect our current plan to staff these reviews for any proposal topic where we are awarded a grant, we reserve the right to change these teams and our known neuron Followee configuration as needed. We will actively manage our team membership in a way that ensures we have skilled reviewers dedicated to each topic who can make the time and resource commitment to these reviews for the duration of the grant program. Hence, if anyone needs to drop out for personal reasons or because they are not in compliance with the grant requirements or our CodeGov team standards, then we will recruit and train others to fill their spots. We may also add additional team members as needed to ensure that we are able to fulfill our commitment to these proposal topics in the most reliable way possible. Performing technical reviews of NNS proposals is real work that requires skilled developers who are dedicated to the task every week. It can only be accomplished reliably with adequate funding that developers are willing to accept. Our reviewers are asked to review each proposal for technical correctness and compliance with established work processes defined by the NNS community and/or DFINITY and to vote on each proposal with their own convictions. They are expected to explain and defend their vote, but to always remain diplomatic and civilized in how they make their case. The fact that we have a larger team provides a safety in numbers where individual reviewers can have an opinion that differs from the rest of the reviewers, which provides an opportunity to raise awareness of differing points of view. Having a larger team enables us to be flexible in our organizational structure and work processes to ensure we are a reliable known neuron to follow on any proposal topic. We have spent a lot of time trying to gain experience and credibility as reviewers of technical NNS proposals and one of our goals is continuous improvement.
Final Remarks
Thank you for the opportunity to apply for these grants. Whether or not we get some or all the grants, CodeGov will remain committed to supporting decentralization of the NNS through active participation in governance. Our neuron will always be configured to follow people and organizations in the ICP community who have publicly announced that they are committed to being reliable and educated Followees on any proposal topic. We will not follow anyone who pencil whips their vote or casts automatic yes or no votes without first making a concerted effort to review technical details and vote with an educated opinion. If we cannot find suitable Followees for a specific topic, then of course we will follow DFINITY on that topic. DFINITY is an appropriate Followee for any topic because they offer an educated and active voice on all NNS changes. However, if decentralization is our goal, then CodeGov is here as an option to help enable the ICP community to move in that direction.