In YOM, there are three levels of governance: platform governance, metaspace governance and individual governance. For each, we defined a set of legal structures and design patterns.

Platform Governance

Like most businesses and crypto projects, commercial entities are fundamentally in control of the intellectual property. While this allows for the project to accelerate towards a commercially sustainable ecosystem, it may conflict with the long term vision of the project.
For this reason, we are establishing a type of Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). The DAO can be used for 1) platform-wide and content governance and 2) electing active Explorers as Yombassadors (i.e. moderators) who gain the ability to moderate content and reward Explorers for social behavior.
  1. 1.
    Yombassadors (i.e. moderators) who gain the ability to moderate players by rewarding Explorers for social behavior or temporarily banning them if they do not comply with the elected community policies.
  2. 2.
    Yommissioners, representing the quality assurance committee, who gain the ability to approve or disapprove new content on the platform.
  3. 3.
    Cardinals can propose new community policies and receive a seat in the board at YOM. Their policies get reviewed before public vote by those who ascended the Ascension Tree.
The mechanics of how this will work can be found in Cooporation, for information on the legal structure of the DAO, and Ascension, for information on membership within the DAO.

Metaspace Governance

Regarding the decision-making and moderation within metaspaces, Creators will keep sovereignty over anything that happens with and within their metaspaces as long as it adheres to the rules set by the DAO. It is then up to the Creator to further delegate this control to their community.
Creators can control which type of content is allowed in their metaspaces and which restrictions apply to visiting Explorers. This gives Creators the flexibility to create adult experiences, but won't require other Creators to apply the same (age-related) restrictions on their content.
The thesis here is that as long as the fundamental governance systems are decentralized, any subsystem this will inherit the decentralized properties from this governance system. This way we can retain sovereignty with Creators as long as they remain within the boundaries set by the DAO.


While YOM has systems in place for community-driven governance, YOM does not create its own content and therefore cannot be directly held accountable for content created as NFTs on the blockchain. The reason for this is the immutable nature of the blockchain. Therefore, the Creator rather than YOM is held accountable for any llegally created content or any consequences thereof.

Individual Governance

The more Explorers use YOM, the more membership perks they receive within the DAO to participate in platform decision-making. This means that fundamentally, platform decision-making is an reflection of the most engaged Explorers. However, individual preferences can vary by a lot an therefore it is not sufficient to create a system that only can handle objective criteria.
Therefore as an additional design principle, we decided to give weight to the subjective: Explorers have the abilty to block (types of) content within their personal experience. Depending on their level of tolerance, Explorers, can therefore block specific content and/or apply universal filters to control what content they may experience.