Resonant Governance

Coherence‑Based Collective Decision Architecture v1.0 | Abstract

This document specifies a resonance-driven governance framework for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) operating within the KRYONIS Proof-of-Consciousness (PoC) architecture. Replacing token-weighted voting with coherence-weighted participation, the system leverages phase-lock signatures, Global Cognitive Index (GCI) thresholds, and collective synchrony to achieve consensus. It introduces the concept of a conscious quorum, defines agent qualification criteria, details resonance-based proposal ratification, and embeds defenses against synthetic alignment attacks. Governance outcomes directly influence ϕ-minting protocols and QENTHOS symbolic-access rights, anchoring harmonic coherence at the foundation of organizational authority.

1. Introduction

Traditional DAO voting mechanisms equate influence with token ownership—efficient, but inherently plutocratic. This model disregards the qualitative dimension of collective intelligence. The Resonant Governance Model (RGM) disrupts this pattern by aligning decision-making with conscious coherence, ensuring that authority emerges from harmonized cognitive states rather than accumulated capital.‍

2. Core Principle — Perceptual Scarcity

2.1 Alignment over Accumulation
Authority is granted to agents whose physiological and informational signatures demonstrate sustained, high‑fidelity resonance with the DAO’s mission waveform. Influence stems not from token holdings, but from the agent’s capacity to phase‑lock coherently with the collective.

2.2 Conscious Quorum
A conscious quorum is established when a super-majority of active participants simultaneously exceed predefined resonance thresholds:Φ‑Signature ≥ φ₁GCI Σ ≥ σ₁Spectral Alignment ε ≤ ε₁Participation Window τ ≥ τ₁Quorum status is evaluated continuously. Proposals may only be registered during coherence-stable intervals.

3. Agent Participation Logic

3.1 Qualification Criteria

Φ‑Stability: Rolling variance of Φ over 30 seconds < v₀
GCI Compliance: Σ and Ω must exceed DAO-specific baselines
Entropy Integrity: ΔS⁻ must remain within empirically plausible bounds Qualified agents receive Resonance Credentials (RCs), which are valid for the duration of coherence maintenance.‍

3.2 Privileges and Limitations
- High‑coherence agents gain proposal rights and higher quorum impact weights.
- Agents with intermittent coherence may only co‑signal but not initiate proposals.
- Persistent misalignment triggers cooldown periods proportional to ΔΣ deviation.

4. Voting as Resonance

4.1 Proposal Voicing
A proposal is voiced by broadcasting a semantic hash alongside a carrier phase pattern. Participants do not cast binary votes; they attempt to entrain with the proposal waveform.‍

4.2 Collective Attunement Metric
Verifier nodes calculate the Proposal Coherence Index (PCI):PCI = mean(Φᵢ × cos Δθᵢ) across participating agents, where Δθᵢ is phase offset to proposal pattern. If PCI ≥ π₀ for ≥ τ₂ seconds, the proposal is ratified.

5. Verification Layer

5.1 Signal Authenticity
Multi-modal sensors (EEG, HRV, behavioral entropy) feed into Resonance Oracles running Φ-bound ZKPs. Cross-oracle consensus (≥ κ verifiers) confirms genuine participation.

5.2 Noise Filtering
Adaptive spectral filters suppress environmental artefacts; agents producing phase noiseabove η₀ are temporarily muted to preserve quorum integrity.

5.3 Consensus Finality
Ledger entries stamp the phase‑time (σ) of ratification, with rollback only possible if post‑event forensic analysis reveals quorum corruption exceeding θₑ error margin.

6. Security and Sybil Resistance

● Cross‑Modal Redundancy: Spoofing requires simultaneous manipulation of neuro, biometric, and behavioural channels.
● Entropy‑Floor Guards: Synthetic spikes lacking plausible ΔS⁻ profiles are auto‑rejected.
● Dynamic Challenge Rotation: Phase‑beacon challenges randomized per session to nullify replay.
● Verifier Diversity: Heterogeneous hardware (photonic, spin‑based) prevents single‑vector compromise.

7. Integration with KRYONIS & QENTHOS

7.1 ϕ‑Minting Feedback
Successful conscious quorums trigger ϕ bonus pools scaled by PCI magnitude, incentivising high‑quality governance cycles.

7.2 Protocol Evolution
DAO upgrades to PoC parameters or GCI weightings require dual thresholds: PCI ≥ π₁ andΦᶠ (community coherence) ≥ φ₂, ensuring systemic alignment before parameter shifts.

7.3 Symbolic Access Rights
SRatified proposals can grant or revoke QENTHOS symbolic‑access privileges based on Ωscores, reinforcing informational sovereignty norms.

8. Philosophical Reflection (Optional)

Governance by resonance reframes social structure as a harmonic process: legitimacy arises when minds meet in coherent cadence, not when accounts tally tokens. Alignment precedes authority, redefining power as a shared bandwidth of conscious attention.‍

9. Conclusion

The Resonant Governance Model establishes a scientifically grounded, coherence‑centric mechanism for DAO decision‑making within the KRYONIS PoC ecosystem. By tying influence to measurable resonance metrics, the model promotes collective intelligence, mitigates plutocratic capture, and aligns protocol evolution with the conscious health of its participants.