Template
Template C — Indigenous Co-Design
DAO with co-design framework per NURJ paper; community-defined protocols.
Template C — Indigenous Co-Design Framework
Tier 2 — full smart-contract DAO required. This is not a deployable template; it is a co-design framework. Each Template C deployment is bespoke, paired with a specific community, with Landseed providing safety rails (audited core, bounded parameter space) but the community defining the encoding of cultural protocols.
Why this is co-design, not template
If Landseed engineers design a single Template C smart contract with FPIC checkpoints and cultural-guardian multi-sig — and then deploy that single template to indigenous community A, indigenous community B, and indigenous community C — we have reproduced exactly the colonial governance pattern the NURJ paper (Landseed-PBC/writing/remote-conservation-daos.md) explicitly critiques.
The NURJ paper, §V Theoretical Synthesis, is unambiguous: “In this ecosystem, indigenous voices are not merely included as stakeholders — they define the logic, objectives, and ethical foundations of governance itself.”
A Landseed-designed Template C imposed on multiple communities would:
- Encode our (Landseed’s) interpretation of indigenous governance, not the community’s own protocols
- Treat distinct cultural systems as if they were interchangeable
- Make the technology master and the community subject — exactly the inversion the paper rejects
Co-design is the resolution. The architecture provides:
- The audited core (treasury operations, attestation hooks, NRD-lite integration, basic governance scaffolding)
- The bounded parameter space (multi-sig structure, FPIC requirements, permissioned access controls)
- Engineering, legal, and operational support during co-design
The community provides:
- The protocols to encode
- Designation of cultural guardians
- Definition of culturally sensitive actions
- Distribution rules within the community fund
- Communication and transparency norms
- Membership succession protocols
- Success metrics alongside ECI
Each Template C deployment is consequently a partial bespoke build. This is more expensive than a true template (audit cost is per-deployment, not amortized). The cost is the architecture’s deliberate concession to indigenous data sovereignty.
When to use Template C
A property uses Template C when:
- The land is held by or co-managed with an indigenous community
- Cultural protocols affect ecological measurement (sacred sites, breeding seasons, restricted ceremonial areas, restricted observation periods)
- Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is constitutionally or culturally required
- Indigenous data sovereignty principles (CARE) apply
Examples:
- Argentina indigenous community lands (Wichí, Mbyá Guaraní, Mapuche)
- Ecuador Amazonian indigenous territories (Sápara, Achuar, Shuar, Waorani)
- Madagascar GELOSE/CLB community-managed natural resource areas
- Bangladesh Chittagong Hill Tracts (where culturally appropriate)
- US tribal trust lands (with BIA engagement; sui generis)
- Pacific Islands customary tenure
- Australian Native Title lands
If the property has any meaningful indigenous-community interest, default to Template C. Defaulting away to “simpler” templates risks paternalism.
Architecture — what is shared vs. what varies
Shared across all Template C deployments (the audited core)
These are uniform; they are the safety rails:
| Component | Substance | Why it’s uniform |
|---|---|---|
| Treasury operations | Multi-sig wallet on the chosen chain; bounded transaction sizes; time delays on large transfers | Treasury security is universal |
| Attestation hooks | DAO consumes EC-M-1.1 attestations from attestation receipts; does not generate attestations | Methodology integration is universal |
| NRD-lite integration | Wrapper entity (Marshall Islands DAO LLC + local nominee, or jurisdictional analogue) holds the VECR | Layer 1 ↔ Layer 2 integration is uniform |
| Basic governance scaffolding | Proposal types (methodology adoption, treasury action, management plan ratification, member admission/succession, module upgrade); voting and execution mechanics | Common substrate; specifics customized |
| Securities perimeter compliance | Permissioned membership, non-transferable units, no DAO credit issuance, no fund-of-DAOs | Required by 04-perimeter/ |
| Per-property isolation | One DAO per property; no cross-property treasury or governance | Required by 00-foundations/03-binding-principles.md |
Varies per deployment (the co-design space)
These are community-determined:
| Component | What the community decides | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Cultural protocols encoded | What protocols the smart contract enforces | Monitoring suspended during sacred breeding seasons; access controls preventing publication of culturally restricted observations |
| Cultural guardian designation | Who serves as cultural guardian; how they are chosen; how they are succeeded | Elder council nomination; community council election; rotational positions |
| Multi-sig structure | How many signatures, from which roles, for which actions | Treasury actions over X require N-of-M from community + cultural guardian |
| Distribution rules within the community fund | How the bulk distribution flows within the community | Elder fund, youth education, language preservation, cultural events, individual stipends |
| Communication norms | What is published externally vs. held within the community | Aggregate ECI scores published; raw observation data community-only |
| Membership succession | How beneficiaries are replaced | Elder death/retirement: community-led replacement; institutional seat: per institutional protocol |
| Success metrics | Community-defined metrics alongside ECI | Cultural vitality indicators, intergenerational knowledge transmission, language use |
The community’s choices are recorded in:
- Smart contract parameters (where they fit the bounded parameter space)
- Operating agreement provisions (where they require legal expression)
- Community-internal protocols (where they are not Landseed’s business to encode)
NURJ paper alignment — the implementation checklist
Every Template C deployment must demonstrably implement these NURJ paper recommendations. Deviations require notation and justification; skipping any is grounds for outside review to find the deployment paternalistic.
CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (NURJ §II.B; Carroll et al., 2020)
The CARE principles are: Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics.
| Principle | Implementation in Template C |
|---|---|
| Collective benefit | Distribution rules privilege community-defined collective uses (education, language preservation, intergenerational knowledge transfer); protocol fee to Landseed is small (typical 2–5%) |
| Authority to control | Beneficiary registry includes data-sovereignty assertions: who can access raw measurement data, who can share what externally, how community-held data flows out (or doesn’t) |
| Responsibility | Annual review by community-appointed reviewers (not Landseed) of access protocols, data flows, and DAO actions for cultural appropriateness |
| Ethics | FPIC checkpoints at every methodology change, management plan amendment, new measurement deployment; community veto on actions affecting cultural/ecological measurement |
FPIC checkpoints (NURJ §II.B)
FPIC — Free, Prior, and Informed Consent — is operationalized as governance gates, not advisory:
| Action requiring FPIC | Gate mechanism |
|---|---|
| New methodology version adoption | Community-council supermajority + 60-day deliberation period |
| Management plan amendment | Community-council majority + cultural guardian non-objection |
| New measurement equipment deployment (sensors, cameras) | Community-council unanimous + cultural guardian confirmation |
| Sensor placement in specific locations | Cultural guardian sign-off; some areas may be permanently off-limits |
| External publication of property-specific data | Community-council majority + cultural guardian non-objection |
| Membership admission of non-community member | Community-council supermajority + existing-community-member non-objection |
Cultural protocols encoded in smart contracts (NURJ §IV.A)
Concrete examples (each deployment varies based on community-specific protocols):
| Protocol | Encoding |
|---|---|
| Sacred breeding season for a designated species | Monitoring activities (scheduled visits, sensor data publication) suspended during defined dates |
| Sacred site access | Sensor placement and remote sensing prohibited within defined geographic boundaries; if methodology requires assessment of these areas, community-internal observers conduct it |
| Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) restrictions | Specific TEK-derived observations are not published externally; aggregated ECI scores are public, but the underlying observations are not |
| Ceremonial periods | Treasury actions and external communications paused during defined cultural periods |
| Cultural guardian veto on culturally sensitive actions | Multi-sig requirement: community-council majority + cultural guardian approval; either can veto |
Permissioned access controls (NURJ §I.D, §IV.A)
Permissioned blockchain access aligned with CARE:
- DAO state observable to community members only by default
- Specific aggregate data (e.g., property-level ECI scores) flows out to Landseed registry for credit issuance
- Raw observations and cultural-protocol details remain inside the permissioned boundary
- Cryptographic attestation logs are signed and verifiable but not publicly readable for sensitive content
Tokens as vessels of reciprocity (NURJ §IV.B)
The DAO’s economics module recognizes non-monetary contributions alongside monetary distributions:
| Contribution | Recognition |
|---|---|
| Cultural stewardship (active stewardship of sacred sites, traditional management) | Designated portion of community fund |
| Intergenerational knowledge transfer (mentorship, language teaching, ceremonial transmission) | Community-defined recognition; may include monetary distribution |
| Language preservation | Designated portion of community fund for language programs |
| Traditional ecological knowledge contribution | Recognition through cultural-guardian-controlled disbursement |
| Youth engagement | Education fund |
These are not “tokens” in the speculative-financial sense. They are encoded recognition of contributions, with associated community fund disbursement.
Capacity building (NURJ §IV.D)
Each Template C deployment includes:
- A budget line for community technical literacy training (proposal: $25k–$75k per deployment, multi-year)
- Landseed commitment to multi-year technical support for local DAO operation
- Training programs for designated community members on smart contract operation, treasury management, attestation interpretation
- Documentation in the community’s preferred language(s)
This is not optional. The NURJ paper (§IV.D) is explicit that capacity building is what makes the DAO operable by the community — without it, the technology becomes a Landseed-dependent system rather than a community-controlled tool.
Cultural risk assessment (NURJ §IV.E)
Annual review by community-appointed reviewers (not Landseed) covering:
- Access protocols (still appropriate? still working?)
- Data flows (anything inadvertent leaking out? anything being lost in?)
- DAO actions (any action that crossed cultural lines?)
- Membership changes (any succession that violated cultural protocols?)
- External communications (anything published that shouldn’t have been?)
Reviewers are paid through the community fund. Reports are community-internal first; redacted summaries are shared with Landseed for protocol improvement.
Indigenous evaluation methods (NURJ §IV.F; LaFrance & Nichols, 2010)
Community-defined success metrics alongside ECI measurement:
| Standard metric (Landseed methodology) | Community-defined complement |
|---|---|
| ECI (Ecological Condition Index) | Cultural vitality indicator (community-defined) |
| Threat multiplier | Stewardship effectiveness indicator (community-defined) |
| Per-acre credit yield | Intergenerational knowledge transmission indicator |
| ECI confidence bound | Language use among youth indicator |
Both metric families are reported. Landseed does not optimize against the community-defined metrics; the community uses them to evaluate the DAO’s success on its own terms.
Membership succession in Template C
When a beneficiary in Template C leaves (death, retirement, resignation, succession), the replacement is determined by the community itself, not by the DAO. The DAO’s role is to ratify the community’s decision, not to vote on it. Operationally:
- The community notifies the DAO of a succession event
- The community follows its own protocol to designate a replacement
- The DAO ratifies the replacement through procedural ratification (not a substantive vote)
- KYC and wallet onboarding follow standard procedures for the new member
This preserves cultural sovereignty (the who is community-determined) while maintaining DAO operational integrity (the what — voting weights, distribution shares — is encoded).
Engagement protocol — community-led, Landseed responding
The architecture’s discipline: Landseed does not approach a community to deploy Template C. The community defines the work; Landseed responds. Initiation paths:
- A community approaches Landseed (typically through an existing partner NGO)
- A community is partnered through a pre-existing Landseed relationship (Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership, etc.)
- A community participates in a co-development workshop where Landseed is one of multiple parties
Once initiation has happened on the community’s terms, the engagement phases below describe what each party contributes. The community leads each phase; Landseed’s role is to provide audited technical scaffolding, legal drafting capacity, and connections to outside reviewers — not to direct the design.
| Phase | Duration | Community leads | Landseed contributes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial engagement | 1–3 months | Whether to proceed; what context Landseed needs to understand; pace | Listening; no architectural commitments; documentation of community context as the community shares it |
| Co-design workshop(s) | 3–6 months | Cultural protocols, guardian roles, distribution rules, FPIC gates, what’s encoded vs. kept off-chain | Engineering capacity to encode community-defined logic; counsel to translate community decisions into legal language; bounded parameter space within audited core |
| Drafting | 2–4 months | Approval of each draft against community-defined criteria | Smart contract parameter drafts; operating agreement drafts; NRD-lite draft |
| Outside review | 1–2 months | Selection of indigenous-rights advocate (community veto on Landseed-suggested reviewers); community internal review | Outside review coordination; Landseed counsel review |
| Audit | 2–3 months | Approval of audit firm | Audit budget; coordination with smart contract auditor |
| Deployment | 1 month | Decision on go-live timing | Wrapper entity formation; smart contract deployment; NRD-lite recording; capacity-building program agreed in advance |
| Operation + capacity-building | Ongoing | DAO operation, all governance decisions, when (or whether) Landseed support continues | Multi-year technical support on community’s terms; community can terminate the support relationship at any time |
Total time from initial engagement to deployment: 12–18 months. This is slower than Tier 1 templates. The slowness is the architecture’s deliberate concession to authentic co-design — the community sets the pace.
Outside review requirements
Before any Template C deployment goes live, the deployment requires:
- Indigenous-rights advocate review — outside reviewer familiar with the specific community’s context and CARE principles, who reviews the deployment for paternalism and alignment with NURJ paper
- Community internal review — community council confirms the deployment matches what was co-designed
- Landseed legal review — confirms compliance with the perimeter, NRD-lite integration, securities considerations
- Smart contract audit — external firm; Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, or specialized DAO auditor
If any of the four reviews finds issues, deployment is delayed until they are resolved. We do not deploy “with reviewer concerns noted but not resolved.”
Cost per Template C deployment
| Item | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Co-design engagement (workshops, travel, community time) | $50k–$150k |
| Counsel (Landseed + indigenous-rights specialist) | $40k–$80k |
| Smart contract development (largely from audited core; some bespoke) | $80k–$150k |
| Audit | $80k–$150k |
| Wrapper entity formation + local nominee | $20k–$40k |
| Capacity-building budget (first 3 years) | $75k–$200k |
| Outside reviews | $20k–$40k |
| Project management | $40k–$80k |
| Total per deployment | $405k–$890k |
Working number: ~$650k per Template C deployment, with substantial portions of this benefiting the community (capacity building, community-internal coordination compensation).
This is more expensive than Tier 1 deployments. The cost is justified by the deeper engagement and the community-internal infrastructure built. Per 00-foundations/04-business-model.md, Landseed operates this as community infrastructure investment, not as M&A-style acquisition cost.
What Template C does NOT do
- Does not impose a single governance structure across communities
- Does not require the community to publish their internal governance procedures externally
- Does not give Landseed authority over cultural decisions
- Does not assume any particular blockchain or stablecoin lasts 99 years (migration plans included)
- Does not pretend that smart contracts can solve relational and political problems
The technology serves indigenous epistemologies, not the other way around. This is the operational expression of the NURJ paper’s central argument.
Open questions specific to Template C
These are flagged in 06-risks/ but are listed here for orientation:
- First Template C deployment — when? Likely late in the architecture’s first year of execution; not in the first pilot cohort (which is US Templates A, B). First Template C should be partnered through a long-standing Landseed relationship.
- Indigenous-rights advocate selection. Who reviews? Probably someone with NURJ paper familiarity, not a generic indigenous-rights lawyer. Possibly the NURJ paper’s reviewers themselves.
- Community-internal disputes. What happens if a community council and a cultural guardian disagree? The smart contract enforces the multi-sig but does not resolve the dispute; community-internal mediation processes are required, and the architecture must respect them.
- Methodology adoption with community veto. If the community vetoes a methodology version that other DAOs have adopted, the property may be left on a deprecated version. Methodology stewards must support multi-version operation; the architecture allows it.
- Catastrophic events affecting community-internal governance. If a community-internal political event disrupts the community council, the DAO must have safe-mode procedures. Community-internal politics are not Landseed’s to fix, but the DAO must continue to operate (treasury, distributions, methodology) under defined fallback rules during disruptions.