# SourceCred governance

**URL:** <https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-governance/130>\
**Category:** Research\
**Created:** [July 19, 2019, 8:46am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-governance/130 "2019-07-19T08:46:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![decentralion](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/decentralion/32/7_2.png) [@decentralion](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/decentralion)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 2:08pm UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-governance/130/5 "2019-08-12T14:08:54Z")

</div>

👋 @burrrata, welcome to our Discourse. 1Hive looks really interesting, I wrote a post about the Harberger license here: [Harberger Grain License](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/harberger-grain-license/146)

A very big part of the SC vision is eventually using it to create project-specific tokens (see: [grain](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/an-overview-of-grain/147)). At that point, we’ll definitely need a DAO, and I’d much rather depend on solutions from Aragon/1Hive rather than roll something from scratch. At the moment, though, my emphasis is on battle-testing and improving the core reputation protocol, and I think setting up a DAO would be a distraction: we can get all the experience we need from the [OpenCollective Dogfooding](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/dogfooding-sourcecred-via-opencollective/134).

@s_ben and @burrrata, feel free to persuade me that SourceCred should get a DAO sooner. I’ll be more receptive to it if one of you is also willing to do the legwork of getting it up and running and reasonably integrated with cred. 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/sourcecred-governance/130)._