Tech Brief | The Founding Assembly

Avalanche Subnet Structure: The platform is built on an Avalanche Subnet – a sovereign blockchain network running parallel to Avalanche’s Primary Network. The Subnet operates its own instance of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and is validated by a dedicated set of nodes. These validators form a permissioned subset of Avalanche’s global validator pool, exclusively responsible for consensus on this governance chain. By using an Avalanche Subnet, The Founding Assembly gains a bespoke blockchain with custom rules and isolated resources (no competition with other dApps for block space), ensuring consistent performance for civic transactions. The Subnet’s independence guarantees that congestion on Avalanche’s main network does not impact governance operations, while still allowing interoperability with the broader ecosystem as needed.

Validator Configuration: The governance Subnet will initially be secured by at least 5 validators, the recommended minimum for stability on Avalanche subnets. These validators could be run by trusted institutions or civil society partners (e.g. electoral commission, civic tech agencies) under a permissioned validation model. Only whitelisted nodes can join the validator set, enabling compliance with jurisdictional rules and high assurance of node integrity (e.g. known entities with KYC). Validators must also be members of Avalanche’s Primary Network (staking the required AVAX) to participate. This design ensures decentralization and security while meeting governance needs, no single entity controls the network, and each validator upholds legal accountability and uptime standards. The Avalanche Snowman consensus (a leaderless, PoS-based consensus) is employed on the Subnet, providing fault tolerance and fast agreement even as validators scale up. Block production rate is configurable (e.g. targeting one block every ~2 seconds) to balance responsiveness with network overhead.

Performance Expectations: The Avalanche platform is renowned for high throughput and low latency. The Subnet will leverage Avalanche’s consensus efficiency to achieve near-instant finality (typically ~1 second) on all transactions. In practice, this means votes and proposals are irrevocably confirmed within a second of submission, a crucial feature for reliable civic processes. The targeted transaction capacity is on the order of thousands of transactions per second (Avalanche can process ~4,500 TPS in each chain), which comfortably covers nationwide voting or petition signing events with ample headroom. This performance, combined with Avalanche’s ability to scale horizontally via additional subnets, makes the system future proof for growing participation or added functionality. Validators are expected to run robust hardware (modern multi-core servers with ample memory and network bandwidth) to handle peak loads and to maintain the <2s time-to-finality even under high usage. Overall, by building on an Avalanche Subnet, The Founding Assembly achieves a tailor made architecture with scalability, security, and speed all optimized for civic governance needs. A solution that addresses the blockchain trilemma via distributed validation, independent networks, and customizable rulesets.

Smart Contract Stack

All on-chain logic for governance is implemented in Solidity smart contracts deployed to the Avalanche Subnet’s EVM. We adhere to Ethereum-standard interfaces (ERC/EIP specs) for familiarity, while tailoring business logic to governance. The core smart contract components include:

Proposal & Voting Contract: At the heart of the platform is a governance contract that manages proposals (bills, referenda) and voting. Verified members (identities described below) can submit proposals – either directly or via an automated petition process. Each proposal is stored on-chain with metadata (e.g. IPFS hash of the full bill text, timestamps, proposer address) and goes through states: Draft/Pending, Active (Voting Open), and Closed (Accepted or Rejected). When a proposal becomes Active, the contract opens a voting period (configurable duration, e.g. 7 days) during which eligible addresses (those holding a valid Founders Token NFT) may cast their vote. Votes are recorded as immutable events or mappings (e.g. proposalID ⇒ yes-vote count, no-vote count). Each identity gets exactly one vote per proposal (enforced by checking the voter's NFT ownership and ensuring no double-voting). The contract enforces quorum and majority logic: a proposal will only pass if a minimum number of distinct voters participate (quorum threshold) and a required majority of those votes are in favor. For example, quorum might be 50% of all active Founders Tokens and the passing threshold a simple majority (>50% yes among votes cast). These parameters are adjustable through on-chain governance to allow the Assembly to refine its decision rules. Once the voting period elapses, the contract automatically finalizes the outcome: marking the proposal Accepted (if criteria met) or Rejected. Accepted proposals could trigger follow-on actions, such as minting a law NFT or queuing a transaction (if the platform were controlling funds or other on-chain resources), though in this civic context it may simply serve as an official record of the decision.
Petition Contract: To encourage grassroots agenda-setting, the platform includes an on-chain petition system. This smart contract allows any member to initiate a petition (essentially a precursor to a formal proposal) by providing a description of the issue or bill they want to introduce. Other members can support the petition by adding their signature (a transaction recording their approval). The contract maintains a list of signatories for each petition (or simply a count of unique supporters, since the identities are known via NFTs). If the number of supporters reaches a defined threshold (e.g. 5% of the token holders), the petition is considered successful. A successful petition can automatically generate a proposal in the governance contract – the petition contract can call into the Proposal contract to create a new proposal entry on behalf of the petitioners. This workflow means community-backed ideas seamlessly move into the formal voting phase once they have enough backing. The petition contract prevents abuse by disallowing duplicate signing and possibly imposing a limit on active petitions per member to avoid spam. Petitions that do not meet the threshold within a certain timeframe can be expired to reduce clutter.
Soulbound Identity Token Contract: A specialized ERC-721 contract (detailed in the next section) represents the Founders Tokens non-transferable NFTs that confer membership and voting rights. The governance and petition contracts reference this NFT contract to check voter eligibility. For instance, on each vote or petition signature, the contract’s balanceOf(msg.sender) is checked to confirm the user holds the NFT (balance must be 1). Because the NFT is soulbound to one’s address (non-fungible and non-transferable), it serves as a digital ID tying votes to verified persons. This avoids the need for maintaining separate allowlists of addresses in the governance contract, the NFT ownership is the allowlist. The NFT contract also exposes a total supply of active tokens, which the governance contract uses to compute quorum (e.g. quorum = 50% of totalSupply() of identity tokens). If a token is revoked or burned, that automatically reduces the supply and thus quorum requirements adjust dynamically to the current number of members.
Revocation & Suspension Logic: To handle cases like member disqualification or identity loss, the system provides for token revocation and temporary suspension. The identity NFT contract is augmented with admin-only functions to freeze or burn tokens. A freeze flag (soulbound lock) can be set on a specific token ID or address this could leverage a Soulbound Token standard interface (e.g. ERC-5192) where locked(tokenId) returns true for all tokens, indicating they are non-transferable. Additionally, we implement a custom mapping of suspended tokens: if a token is frozen due to, say, an ongoing investigation, the governance contract will consult this mapping to exclude that holder from voting/quorum temporarily. Freezing does not remove the token from the owner, but essentially disables its voting power until the freeze is lifted. Revocation, on the other hand, is achieved by burning the NFT (using an ERC-721 _burn function extended to only the contract owner or an authorized governance authority). Burning a Founders Token permanently removes that identity’s on-chain credentials and voting rights. This might occur if a member resigns or is removed for violating rules. The contracts ensure that a burned token cannot be used in any active vote (the vote function will check ownership at the time of casting and at tally finalization). To support revocations during ongoing proposals, the governance contract could either ignore votes from addresses that have lost their token by final count, or dynamically adjust quorum if a token was revoked mid-vote (implementation choice depending on policy). In summary, revocation and suspension capabilities are built-in, but strictly controlled (e.g. only an appointed admin multisig or a supermajority governance vote could call these functions) to prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement.

All contracts will be developed following best practices (using OpenZeppelin libraries for ERC-721, access control, Governor contract patterns, etc., to ensure security). Solidity’s event emissions are utilized extensively for transparency, every proposal creation, vote cast, petition signed, token issued or revoked triggers events that can be tracked off-chain for audit and user notification. On-chain governance logic can itself be upgradeable or managed via a proxy pattern if we anticipate changes, but by default the governance contract could also allow on-chain amendments (e.g. a proposal could update governance parameters in the contract if passed, truly eating our own dogfood for governance). Overall, the smart contract stack encodes the full democratic process, from proposals and petitions to voting and enactment, directly on the Avalanche Subnet, ensuring tamper-proof and autonomous governance according to The Founding Assembly’s constitution.

Soulbound Civic Token (NFT ID)

At the core of member identity is the Founders Token, a soulbound NFT that serves as a digital ID card for participants. This token is implemented as a customized ERC-721 token on the Avalanche Subnet, following the concept of Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) non-transferable tokens that represent a person’s identity or credentials. Each verified member of The Founding Assembly is issued exactly one Founders Token, which is permanently linked to their wallet address (their “soul”). Key technical characteristics of this token include:

Non-Transferability: Unlike regular NFTs, Founders Tokens cannot be sent or traded. The smart contract overrides standard ERC-721 transfer functions (transferFrom, safeTransferFrom, etc.) to always revert or do nothing when called. This ensures the token is bound for life to the original address and cannot be sold or delegated – aligning with the platform’s one-person-one-vote principle. We implement the optional ERC-5192 interface (“Minimal Soulbound NFTs”) which provides a locked status; all tokens will return locked = true indicating their transfer functions are disabled by design. Because of this restriction, the token has no marketplace value and solely functions as a governance credential (no speculation or external economic influence).
Unique Identity and Metadata: Each token carries metadata that uniquely identifies the member in a civic context. The metadata is stored off-chain (e.g. on IPFS or Avalanche’s native blob storage if available), with the tokenURI pointing to a JSON document containing fields like: member name or pseudonym, a photograph hash or avatar (if desired), a membership ID number, date of issuance, and status flags (e.g. Active, Suspended, Revoked). For privacy, personally identifiable information can be kept minimal or encoded (the platform might use an internal unique ID and not the person’s real name on-chain, depending on compliance requirements). The metadata could also include the member’s constituency or district (if relevant for regional representation) and any credentials (e.g. “Charter Member”, “Councilor”, etc.) the Assembly wishes to publicly attach. However, sensitive data (address, national ID number) is not put on-chain; those details remain with the off-chain verification provider. The NFT thus acts as a pointer to a verified identity, without exposing private data on the ledger.
Issuance Process: Founders Tokens are minted through a controlled process. Initially, an Issuing Authority (likely a smart contract function protected by ONLY_ADMIN role or a multisig of Assembly officials) will mint tokens to verified addresses. The typical flow is that a new participant undergoes an identity verification/KYC offline (for example, presenting government ID or using a service like Fractal ID which integrates with). Once verified as an eligible “Founder” (e.g. a citizen or member of the Assembly), the participant provides an Avalanche-compatible wallet address. The admin then calls mint(address) on the NFT contract, creating a new token ID for that user’s address. The token ID might be assigned sequentially or could encode some info (like region codes), but it’s mainly an index. The minting emits an event (NewFounder) and the token is thereafter used as that person’s on-chain identity. The contract can also be designed to allow self-sovereign registration if desired: e.g. the user could call a claimToken() function after an off-chain authorization, which in turn the contract checks against a whitelist or signature from the authority. But generally, minting is tightly controlled to prevent unauthorized identities. The total supply of tokens equals the number of active members at any time, and the contract may implement ERC-721 Enumerable for easy enumeration of all holders (useful for snapshotting voter lists, though not strictly required).
Freezing & Revocation: The Founders Token contract provides admin functions for freeze(account) and revoke(tokenId). Freezing toggles an internal flag that is Frozen(account) returns true. This would typically be used if a member’s privileges are put on hold (for example, if their eligibility is under review or they requested a temporary deactivation). A frozen token still exists in the owner’s wallet but the governance dApps and contracts will treat that account as inactive e.g. the voting contract might refuse votes from frozen accounts. Technically,a freeze could be implemented by transferring the token into a quarantine contract, but since transfers are disabled, we simply mark it in the contract storage. Revocation, on the other hand, permanently destroys the token via burn. Only an authorized account (e.g. an Assembly administrator smart contract or vote result) can call burn on someone’s token. Burning removes the token from circulation (totalSupply decreases) and emits a Revocation event. If the person later can be re-admitted (e.g. an appeal), a brand new token (with new ID) would be minted to them, the system could keep track of linkages if needed, but generally a new token means a fresh start. The non-transferable nature means lost keys are a scenario to plan for: if a member loses access to their wallet, the admins can revoke the old token and reissue a new token to a new address after re-verification, effectively performing a key rotation while ensuring only one token per person. The smart contract ensures that no address can hold more than one Founders Token at a time (when minting, if an address already has one, it will reject) though in normal operation, this can’t happen anyway due to one token per address and no transfers.

In summary, the Founders Token is a soulbound ERC-721 credential that underpins identity and trust in the platform. It leverages Avalanche’s EVM compatibility to implement standardized NFT functionality while introducing transfer locks and administrative controls for a governance context. This approach provides the digital passport for participants: as long as you hold the token, you are recognized as a member with full rights; if the token is taken away, your rights are rescinded. The design emphasizes security (no one can steal or sell your identity token due to non-transferability) and integrity (each token is backed by real-world identity checks). It’s the linchpin that enables on-chain votes to be one per person and gives The Founding Assembly a reliable mechanism to manage its roster of eligible voters on the Avalanche network.

Founders Wallet Design

The Founders Wallet is a dedicated decentralized application (DApp) that serves as the user interface and wallet for participants to engage with the governance platform. It is essentially the front-end portal where members manage their identity token, participate in governance (vote, propose, sign petitions), and receive updates. The design encompasses both the client-side application and supporting backend services, focusing on usability and secure Web3 integration:

User Authentication & Identity Verification: The wallet DApp integrates with Avalanche-compatible wallets (such as the Avalanche Core Wallet or MetaMask configured for the Subnet) to authenticate users. When a member visits the DApp, they are prompted to connect their wallet. Upon connection, the DApp checks for the presence of a Founders Token NFT in that wallet (by querying the NFT contract for balanceOf(userAddress)). This serves as the login credentials if the token is found and is active, the user is recognized as an authenticated Founder. No separate username/password is required, the NFT is the identity proof. If a user without a token connects, the DApp can guide them to the registration process (e.g. “No Founders Token detected, please complete identity verification to receive your digital ID”). This could involve linking to an external KYC portal or providing instructions to contact an admin. The wallet DApp thus ensures only verified members access the governance features, while maintaining privacy (the app only knows the wallet address and token ID, not personal info). To further secure access, the DApp can use message signing challenges (“sign this message to prove ownership of the wallet”) on login, which the user signs with their private key establishing that the genuine token holder is present.
Voting Interface: The Founders Wallet provides a user-friendly interface for all on-chain votes. It will list all Active proposals with details such as title, description, voting deadline, and current vote counts (if votes are public). Users can click on a proposal to view full content (pulled from IPFS or a content repository via the hash stored on-chain). The UI will offer voting options (e.g. Vote Yes, Vote No buttons for a binary vote, or multiple choices if applicable). When the user chooses an option, the DApp will prompt a transaction through their wallet, calling the governance contract’s vote(proposalId, choice) function. Thanks to the Avalanche Subnet’s gas-free design (discussed later), the user likely won’t need to worry about transaction fees, making the experience seamless (the DApp may still show a confirmation but no gas estimation anxiety). After voting, the UI can show a checkmark or “Vote recorded” status, possibly by reading the event or transaction receipt. The app will prevent double-voting by detecting if the user already cast a vote (the governance contract could expose a method like hasVoted(proposalId, user) or events can be indexed by the DApp to know if that address voted). It will also visually indicate if a proposal has met quorum or is passed/failed once the voting period ends. The real-time feedback (like updating vote counts) can be achieved by either periodically polling the contract or using a Web3 subscription (if the Avalanche node supports WebSocket or push notifications). The voting interface is designed to be intuitive: clearly showing time remaining, options chosen, and preventing any invalid actions (like voting after deadline or on a frozen account, etc., which the contract anyway disallows).
Proposal & Petition Management: The DApp allows eligible members to initiate new petitions and proposals. For petitions, a user fills out a form (title, problem statement, proposed solution, perhaps attachments or links) and submits it. The DApp will call the Petition Contract’s createPetition(data) method, storing the petition on-chain. Afterwards, the petition detail page shows a “Sign Petition” button for others. The DApp will track how many signatures a petition has in real time by reading the contract state. Once the threshold is reached, the UI can indicate “Threshold reached! This petition will advance to a proposal.” If automatic, it might show the new Proposal ID created. For proposals (bypassing petition), if the governance rules allow certain roles to propose directly, the DApp can present a “New Proposal” form to authorized users (for example, council members or the petition threshold logic itself). Creating a proposal might involve uploading the proposal document to IPFS (the DApp handles the file upload and gets a hash) and then calling the governance contract propose(title, ipfsHash, ...). The Founders Wallet will have rich text support or integration with external editing tools for drafting bills, but once finalized, only the IPFS hash and summary go on-chain. The DApp thus streamlines the entire lifecycle: from idea inception (petition) to formal proposal to voting, all in one interface.
Candidacy and Elections: If The Founding Assembly conducts elections for certain positions (e.g. periodic elections for representatives or officials), the Founders Wallet will have a dedicated module for candidacy applications and voting. Members could see announcements of an upcoming election (with filing deadlines and eligibility criteria). The DApp would allow an eligible member to “Declare Candidacy” by submitting a candidacy form, this could call a registerCandidate(electionId, details) on an Election contract, storing their name and manifesto (likely via IPFS again). Once the campaign phase is over, the election voting phase would open in the DApp. This is more complex than binary proposals since multiple candidates are involved. The UI would list candidates for the given election (perhaps grouped by office or district if multiple contests). Members can select their preferred candidate and cast a vote similar to proposal voting. Under the hood, it might call voteCandidate(electionId, candidateId) on the Election contract. The wallet DApp ensures each member votes at most once per election contest. Vote secrecy might be desired here; if so, the DApp could facilitate a commit-reveal scheme (members submit an encrypted vote then later reveal, the UI would manage the two-step process transparently). Election results would be displayed in the app once the counting is done (either immediately if open voting, or after reveal). The DApp can highlight winners and also record the result on-chain for posterity. Essentially, the Founders Wallet acts as a ballot interface for both direct democracy votes (on proposals/referenda) and representative elections.
Notifications and Updates: Keeping citizens informed is crucial. The Founders Wallet DApp will feature real-time notifications for key events. For example, when a new proposal is created, all users might see a notification in-app (“New Proposal on Education Reform – voting starts now”). When a user’s petition crosses the threshold, they get an alert. Other possible notifications: voting reminders (“2 days left to vote on Proposal X”), results announcements (“Proposal Y passed”), or administrative alerts (if a user’s token was frozen or a new election is upcoming). Technically, these notifications can be implemented by a backend service that listens to blockchain events and then uses a push mechanism. One approach is integration with a decentralized notification service (there are protocols like EPNS – Ethereum Push Notification Service, which could possibly work on Avalanche if adapted). Alternatively, the platform could collect optional contact info from users (email or phone) for off-chain notifications. However, to keep it Web3 native and privacy-preserving, the DApp might simply have a notifications center that appears when the user is online, pulling events relevant to them (e.g. filter events by their address or by general governance events). The DApp could also integrate with the Avalanche Core browser extension’s notification if available. In summary, users will be well-informed through the wallet interface itself, reducing the chance of missing a vote or important update.
Technical Stack (Frontend): The Founders Wallet is built as a responsive web application (and possibly a mobile app in the future). The frontend can be developed using modern JavaScript frameworks such as React or Vue.js, which provide a dynamic UI and component reusability. We will use TypeScript for type safety in the complex state management of votes and proposals. For styling and UI components, a library like Chakra UI or Material-UI can ensure a clean, accessible design suitable for civic tech (e.g. high contrast, easy navigation). State management can leverage Context or Redux to handle global state (like current user’s token status, list of proposals, etc.). For interacting with the Avalanche Subnet, we’ll integrate Web3 libraries: likely Ethers.js or Web3.js to communicate with the smart contracts via RPC. Since Avalanche’s Subnet EVM is Ethereum compatible, we can use these libraries out of the box by pointing them to the Subnet’s RPC URL (which our validators/nodes expose). We’ll configure the wallet to use the custom network (with the chain ID of the Subnet) – users may add this network to MetaMask manually or the DApp can prompt network switching via MetaMask’s API. Additionally, to simplify user login, we can integrate WalletConnect support, enabling mobile wallet users to connect by scanning a QR code. The DApp’s Web3 integration module will handle all contract ABIs and calls, likely generated from the Solidity code (we’ll use the ABI JSONs in the frontend to call vote(), propose(), etc.). For security, the frontend will be hosted in a way to prevent tampering – perhaps served via IPFS or a trusted cloud with checksums, and we will consider code signing. Since this is a government-grade app, thorough penetration testing and audits of the front-end will complement the smart contract audits.
Technical Stack (Backend & Integration): While much of the logic is on-chain, we will have some backend components for an optimal user experience. One is an indexer or data service: to show lists of proposals with aggregated vote counts or to filter petitions by user, it’s inefficient to make the browser iterate over all events on-chain. Instead, we’ll run an indexing service using something like The Graph or a custom Node.js service. The Graph can be set up with a subgraph for our Subnet (pointed at our chain’s endpoint) indexing entities like Proposal, Vote, Petition, Candidate, etc. The Founders Wallet front-end can then query this subgraph via GraphQL for quick data retrieval (e.g. “give me all active proposals with their vote totals and whether the connected user voted”). If The Graph is not available for our chain, we can utilize Avalanche’s Explorer API or run our own SQL database that ingests contract events. A simple Node.js backend using ethers.js can subscribe to contract events and update a database that the frontend can query via REST or GraphQL. This backend can also handle heavy tasks like computing election results from encrypted votes or coordinating the commit-reveal scheme (though ideally that’s trustless, but a coordinator node might add convenience). Another backend responsibility is the notification service as mentioned: listening to events and sending out emails or push messages. We might also incorporate an off-chain storage for large media (for the Media DApp, see below) and have the backend handle uploading files to IPFS or a content delivery network, returning the hash to the DApp. All backend components will be built with reliability and security in mind, likely containerized (Docker) and deployed on a cloud or Avalanche’s native infrastructure if available. They will not hold any private keys or perform blockchain transactions (except possibly a relayer for notifications), thus user actions remain fully on-chain and self-custodied.
User Experience & Accessibility: The Founders Wallet is designed to be as simple as a typical mobile banking or social app, given the target audience may include non-crypto-savvy citizens. We will implement features like auto-network detection (if user is on the wrong network, prompt to switch to the Avalanche Subnet) and clear error messages (e.g. “You must have a Founders Token to access this page”). The DApp will be multilingual if serving a diverse population. It will also stress accessibility: proper labels, keyboard navigation, and compliance with WCAG guidelines, so that all citizens including those with disabilities can use the platform. Finally, we acknowledge not everyone will have a crypto wallet initially, so part of the wallet design might include educational onboarding guiding new users how to install the Avalanche Core or MetaMask and how to secure their private key (given the Founders Token’s importance). The goal is a frictionless civic tech application where the blockchain underpinnings are mostly invisible to the user. They see a “civic wallet” that holds their ID and a list of ongoing civic activities they can partake in, with the complexity of blockchain abstracted away.

In summary, the Founders Wallet DApp is the all-in-one portal for The Founding Assembly’s participants. It combines identity management, voting, proposal submission, and communication in a single secure application. Built with a modern web tech stack and integrated tightly with Avalanche’s Web3 tools, it offers an intuitive experience akin to traditional online services, while under the hood it transacts directly with the Avalanche Subnet for every critical action – ensuring trustlessness and transparency. This approach empowers a freelance or agency development team to leverage common frameworks (React, Node, GraphQL) alongside Avalanche’s robust SDKs to deliver a polished, maintainable platform.

Gasless Subnet Configuration

A hallmark of The Founding Assembly’s Avalanche Subnet is its gasless transaction experience – participants can interact with the blockchain without paying any fees. This is achieved by custom configuration of the Subnet’s parameters and fee structure:

Zero-Fee Transaction Processing: Avalanche subnets allow custom fee regimes, including the option to effectively set gas costs to zerochainstack.com. In our Subnet’s genesis configuration, we define a native gas token (which could be a governance token or just AVAX itself) but configure the base fee (baseFeePerGas) to 0. Specifically, we set the EVM gas schedule such that minBaseFee = 0 and related parameters are tuned so that the base fee does not automatically escalate under normal usage. This means that for all typical transactions (voting, petition signing, etc.), the required gas price is 0, resulting in no fees being charged to users. The validators will accept 0 as a valid gas price and include transactions without requiring any payment. By having baseFee = 0, we essentially remove the economic barrier for participation – users do not need to hold or spend a cryptocurrency to engage in governance. This design choice aligns with the civic nature of the platform: we want any eligible citizen to vote freely, without the friction of acquiring tokens.
Custom Gas Token (Fee Asset): Even though fees are zero, the chain’s EVM still needs to nominate a fee currency (the feeAsset in Avalanche’s Subnet-EVM config). We have flexibility here – for instance, we could use the Assembly’s own utility token or the Avalanche native asset. Using AVAX as the fee asset with zero base fee is simplest, but we might also define a dummy token called, say, “ASSEMBLY” token. In either case, because the fee is zero, users won’t actually consume or need balances of this token. However, if needed, the platform can pre-distribute a small amount of the gas token to each member’s address (for example, 1 unit upon minting their NFT) just in case a non-zero fee is ever required (perhaps in edge cases if network congestion triggers a base fee > 0). But under normal operations, gas price = 0 and gas fee = 0 for all transactions. This approach is fully supported by Avalanche’s Subnet architecture – as noted, developers can choose their transaction fees and the token used.
Subnet Genesis Settings: The genesis file of the Avalanche Subnet-EVM will explicitly reflect the gasless policy. For example, parameters might look like:
json
CopyEdit
"feeConfig": {
"gasLimit": 15000000,
"minBaseFee": 0,
"targetGas": 15000000,
"baseFeeChangeDenominator": 36,
"minBlockGasCost": 0,
"maxBlockGasCost": 0,
"targetBlockRate": 2,
"blockGasCostStep": 0
}
In this sample, we set minBaseFee to 0 and also cap maxBlockGasCost and the block gas cost step to 0 to prevent base fee from rising. Essentially, this disables the EIP-1559 fee escalation mechanism – blocks will always have 0 base fee regardless of usage. The gasLimit is kept at a high number (15 million, similar to Ethereum, or higher if we want to allow more computation per block) to accommodate large transactions if needed (like heavy contract execution for tallying or cryptographic verification). The target block rate of 2 seconds aligns with producing a block every 2 seconds, which suits near-instant finality without producing undue empty blocks. These settings ensure that even at full throughput, the protocol does not start imposing fees. This genesis config is agreed upon by all validators when the Subnet is launched, so all nodes enforce the no-fee policy.
Validator Incentives: One might wonder, why would validators include transactions with zero fees? In our permissioned governance Subnet, validators (very often public institutions or stakeholders) are not motivated by per-tx fees but rather by the mandate to run the platform as public infrastructure. They may be subsidized through other means (e.g. government budget) or simply treat validation as a civic duty. Avalanche’s design normally burns a portion of fees and gives the rest to block proposers, but in our case there are no fees to distribute or burn. Validators still benefit by potentially receiving staking rewards if we configure any (though typically staking rewards are on the Primary Network for AVAX). We can set up a reward token distribution if needed to compensate validators, or rely on non-monetary incentives. The key point is that gasless operation lowers the barrier for end-users while validators, being permissioned and likely well-resourced, can sustain the network without gas revenue. The Avalanche Subnet model allows this flexibility, effectively letting us create a public-good blockchain.
Spam and Abuse Mitigation: Completely removing fees raises the risk of spam transactions (since there’s no cost to spamming). We address this at multiple layers. First, participation in the network is already gated by holding a Founders Token. Outsiders (who don’t have the NFT) cannot directly spam governance functions because the contracts will reject them (they won’t pass the onlyMember checks, as their address has no NFT). They could still spam empty transactions or unrelated contract calls if the network is open, but we can introduce a transaction allowlist at the chain level as well. Avalanche subnets support features like allowlisting contract deployers or transaction types. We can restrict the Subnet so that only the governance contracts and known system contracts are usable, and only certain addresses (like the admins) can deploy new contracts. This prevents someone from deploying a random smart contract and flooding the network with useless TXs. Additionally, if a member (who does have a token) attempted to spam by sending repeated votes or dummy petitions, the contracts naturally limit such actions (one vote per proposal, one petition at a time per user, etc.). The validators also have the authority to filter obviously malicious spam at the networking level since it’s a permissioned set – if an address starts sending thousands of no-op transactions per second, validators can agree to drop or throttle those (this would be part of an operational policy outside the chain protocol). Given the relatively small, known user base (the set of Assembly members), spam volume is expected to be low. Thus, the convenience of gasless usage outweighs the risks, especially with these safeguards.
User Experience Benefits: With the gasless configuration, interacting with the platform feels instant and free for users, much like a Web2 application. A member can click “vote” and not worry about having a balance of some token or paying even a few cents – crucial for broad adoption in a civic setting. There are no “transaction failed due to insufficient gas” errors, which are common hurdles in other blockchain dApps. This also simplifies onboarding: users only manage one asset (their identity NFT) and do not need to learn about AVAX or any crypto currency. The Avalanche Subnet essentially acts as a fee-free private network, akin to how an internal database would function, but still retains the transparency and security of a public blockchain. The commitment to no fees can be communicated clearly to users: “no cryptocurrencies or payments required to participate,” lowering skepticism and increasing inclusivity.
Maintaining Network Health: We will monitor network performance closely in this configuration. Avalanche’s consensus is robust and does not rely on fees for stability; however, if transaction volume grows enormously (e.g. someone writes a script to auto-sign every petition repeatedly), we may consider introducing a very minimal fee or rate-limiting as a deterrent. Avalanche offers the ability to adjust the gas parameters even after launch (through governance updates to the chain config if needed). For now, we aim for truly gasless, but the architecture allows evolving to, say, a very low flat fee (like 0.0001 token) if absolutely necessary to curb abuse, or implementing a Proof-of-Authority spam filter (only process N tx per second from one address). These are contingency options. In initial deployment, thanks to the controlled user base and contract-level checks, we anticipate smooth operation with zero fees.

In summary, the Avalanche Subnet is configured to operate entirely gasless, leveraging Avalanche’s flexible fee configuration to eliminate transaction costs. This positions Avalanche as the ideal solution – unlike many L1 blockchains where high gas fees can impede dApp usage, here the Subnet’s custom rules make the user experience of governance frictionless. Citizens can focus on civic duties rather than blockchain mechanics, fulfilling The Founding Assembly’s mission of accessible, blockchain-powered governance.

DApp Ecosystem

Beyond the core wallet interface, The Founding Assembly platform will comprise a suite of specialized DApps to cover all facets of civic engagement. Each DApp focuses on a particular governance function, but they interoperate on the same Avalanche Subnet, sharing the identity system and common infrastructure. Below is an outline of the required DApps, including their purpose and technical considerations (frontend/backend tooling, integration):

Petition Portal: This is a public-facing DApp where community members can start and support petitions for new initiatives or changes in policy. The Petition Portal provides a catalog of all petitions (open, succeeded, or failed). Users (after logging in with their Founders Token via the Wallet or directly on this portal) can create a new petition by filling out a form (title, description, category, attachments). The DApp interacts with the Petition smart contract, calling functions to create petitions and sign them. For supporters, the portal shows a “Support” button on each active petition – clicking it triggers a blockchain transaction to record their support. The UI updates the support count in real-time (using on-chain events or a subgraph). Once a petition crosses the required signature threshold, the portal marks it as Ready (and might disable further signing). If it automatically spawns a proposal, the portal can display a link to the Proposal (on the Bill Submission DApp). Tech stack: likely integrated into the Founders Wallet as a section or implemented as a separate web app in React that shares state with the wallet (we can reuse components). It uses the same backend indexer to fetch lists of petitions and their status. On the backend, we might have text search capabilities to allow users to search petitions by keyword (could be implemented via indexing petition events into a database with full-text search). The portal would also have filters (e.g. by topic tags or popularity). Frontend tooling includes chart libraries if we show petition progression graphs, and backend might use a caching layer to sort petitions by number of signatures, etc. Overall, the Petition Portal empowers the grassroots democratic process, lowering the bar for agenda-setting.
Bill Submission & Tracking Platform: Once ideas mature into formal proposals (bills), they are managed in the Bill Submission DApp. This DApp is essentially the Proposals dashboard. It interfaces with the governance contract to allow authorized bill submissions and to present all proposals in an organized manner. Key features: A form for submitting a bill (used by either petition initiators after success or by authorized legislators). This would handle document upload (possibly integration with a rich text editor or a PDF uploader that stores the file on IPFS). The DApp then calls the propose() function on-chain. After submission, the proposal appears on the dashboard with statuses (e.g. “Voting opens in 2 days” if there’s a scheduled start, or “Voting Live” if immediate). The DApp shows each bill’s details, including the IPFS link to the full text, sponsor name (taken from the NFT identity, which could include a public name), and timeline (when voting starts/ends). During the voting period, this DApp might show live vote counts and after the period it will show Result: Passed/Failed, Yes X%, No Y%. If passed, the DApp could also track any execution steps (for example, if the proposal triggers a fund transfer, it can show “Funds disbursed” or similar – though in our case, mostly the result is just a record). Technically, this DApp can be part of the Founders Wallet as well, but it’s highlighted separately to emphasize the need for comprehensive proposal tracking. Tooling: similar React-based front-end with Web3 calls for voting (which might redirect to the Wallet’s vote component). Backend: uses the subgraph to list proposals and compute percentages efficiently. We will likely implement notifications or emails for proposal sponsors (e.g. “Your proposal is now live for voting”). The UI could have a calendar view or timeline for upcoming and past proposals, which could be implemented with a JS library or simply as sorted lists. Another consideration is to integrate a discussion forum – while not on-chain, we might embed a discussion thread from a tool like Discourse or an iframe for each proposal so members can deliberate. That would be an external integration but adds value. In essence, the Bill Submission platform is the legislative hub, giving a transparent view of all law-making activities on the blockchain.
Candidacy Application DApp: For governance roles that involve elections or appointments (e.g. choosing council members, board elections, etc.), we need a DApp where individuals can apply as candidates and where those elections are conducted. The Candidacy Application DApp allows a user to fill out a profile for an open position when nominations are open. This includes uploading a candidate statement, maybe a photo, and confirming eligibility (the DApp might call a function registerCandidate which checks that the user has not exceeded any limit, e.g. not running for two offices at once, and perhaps collects a refundable deposit if required in rules). The DApp then displays the list of candidates for each election. During the voting phase, this DApp overlaps with the Voting interface in the Wallet, but specifically it will present the list of candidates with their profiles and provide the means to vote for one (or rank them if using a different voting system – but likely one person one vote per position). After the election concludes (which could be time-based or triggered by an admin), the DApp will show results: winner(s) highlighted, vote totals for transparency. Tech: front-end possibly using a wizard UI for candidate application, integration with storage for candidate manifestos (IPFS again for storing any PDF resume or so). Backend may enforce that only people with certain credentials can run (for example, if a position is regional, only someone from that region can register – the NFT metadata might include region info to verify that). The DApp will probably be used by a smaller subset (those running), but the voting portion is used by all members when an election is on. We might separate “Apply” vs “Vote” views. Tooling: a combination of form handling (maybe React Hook Form), file upload management, and the usual smart contract calls for registering and voting. This DApp ensures leadership selection processes are as transparent and tamper-proof as the law-making processes.
Media Broadcast & Archival DApp: To maintain open governance, The Founding Assembly will have a Media DApp that broadcasts assembly meetings, debates, and announcements to the public (or members). This could be implemented as a streaming portal or a library of multimedia content linked to on-chain records for authenticity. For example, each official meeting or public hearing can be recorded (video/audio) and its file published via IPFS or a decentralized video service. The Media DApp then posts a reference on-chain, e.g. calling a postMedia(contentHash, metadata) on a MediaRegistry contract that logs it with a timestamp and perhaps ties it to a particular proposal or event. The DApp front-end would have a video player or audio player that streams from IPFS or a CDN, and it can fetch the list of available media by querying that contract. This ensures that any citizen can verify the content hasn’t been altered (the hash on-chain must match the file). Live Streaming: If live streams of ongoing sessions are needed, we might integrate a service like Livepeer (a decentralized live video streaming platform) or simply use platforms like YouTube but then store a hash of the final recording on-chain. The Media DApp can show “Live Now” indicators and embed a live video, then later archive it. Additionally, the Media DApp can serve as a repository for press releases, transcripts, and public announcements. For instance, when a proposal passes, the government might issue a statement – the text of which could be stored on IPFS and the hash recorded by a transaction (ensuring public auditability). Tooling: likely a Vue or React app focused on content consumption; heavy use of third-party integrations for video (maybe IPFS via gateways or using specialized libraries for decentralized video). Backend: might run a pinning service for IPFS to ensure content availability, and maybe a search index for transcripts. Another feature is digital signing of content: since posting the hash on-chain already acts as a signature (coming from an official address), the public can trust that media is official. This DApp increases transparency, letting the public “tune in” to governance. It can be open to non-token holders as well (view-only access doesn’t require a Founders Token, only publishing requires a permission). We will ensure a user-friendly interface with categories (e.g. “Assembly Session 2025-05-01 Video”) and the ability to download or share links. In summary, the Media DApp bridges on-chain governance with information dissemination, anchored by Avalanche’s immutable records for trust.
Public Finance Dashboard: Financial transparency is key in governance. This DApp will display how public funds are allocated and utilized, as recorded on the blockchain. If The Founding Assembly’s scope includes budgeting or treasury management, we will implement smart contracts for a Treasury (holding funds, possibly as tokens or stablecoins on the Subnet) and on-chain budget proposals. The Finance Dashboard then becomes the window into those contracts. It would show the current balances of relevant funds, all expenditures authorized by passed proposals, and incoming funds if any. For instance, if a proposal to spend $100k on infrastructure passes and triggers a transaction from the treasury contract, the dashboard will reflect that outflow (with a reference to the proposal that authorized it). Charts and graphs can display spending by category, timeline of expenses, etc., to give citizens a clear view of financial stewardship. Even if actual disbursement is off-chain (say the Assembly just records decisions but money moves in fiat off-chain), the Dashboard can still track decisions and link to external audits. Ideally, however, for maximum trust, some funds could be on-chain (maybe as a stablecoin or CBDC on Avalanche) so that transfers are visible on the Subnet. The DApp will likely use libraries like D3 or Chart.js to visualize budget data. Backend: a service might aggregate transactions by category; for example, tagging treasury withdrawals with metadata (the proposal ID or purpose) and storing that in a database for easier querying and display. We might integrate with external financial systems via API if needed (for example, if we want to show a comparison of on-chain decided budget vs actual spending reports from government ERP). For the purpose of our platform, focusing on on-chain data: every financial transaction (smart contract call that moves funds) can be pulled from Avalanche’s event logs; we could develop a subgraph indexing the Treasury contract transfers, then classify them. The UI might have sections like “Budget Overview”, “Expenditures”, “Revenues”. If the Assembly collects membership fees or donations on-chain, those would also display as revenues. Security is crucial – read-only dashboard but it should reflect true on-chain state, so we will cross-verify data from the node RPC to avoid any tampering in the middle. The Finance Dashboard thereby holds officials accountable by shining light on where every token or coin is going, with cryptographic proof (transaction hashes) for each entry.

Each of these DApps will be developed with a consistent look-and-feel (branding of The Founding Assembly) and share common components (e.g. the same wallet connection component, header, and navigation to switch between modules). They will all use the Founders Token identity for access control where appropriate (Media and Finance viewing may be public, but Petition, Bill, Candidacy actions require login). By utilizing a modular architecture, we allow independent development teams to work on each DApp in parallel (for example, one team focuses on the Petition Portal while another builds the Finance Dashboard) while ensuring they integrate seamlessly on the Avalanche Subnet.

From a tooling perspective: all DApps will use similar frontend frameworks (JavaScript/TypeScript based, making use of Web3 libraries) and share a design system (likely built in a Storybook for reusability). For backend tools, we lean on GraphQL APIs (Graph protocol) for data aggregation across all modules, plus possibly microservices for specialized tasks (like an IPFS pinning service for Media, an analytics service for Finance). Logging and monitoring tools (like Grafana or Sentry) will be set up to track usage and errors in each DApp, ensuring a reliable user experience.

By providing this rich ecosystem – Petition Portal, Bill Tracker, Election App, Media Hub, and Finance Dashboard – The Founding Assembly ensures that every aspect of the democratic process is supported by a dedicated digital tool. And because all these tools run on the Avalanche Subnet, they share the same single source of truth and benefit from the Subnet’s performance and security. This unified yet modular approach highlights Avalanche’s strength in hosting a constellation of dApps on one network, all working together for a comprehensive governance platform.

Security, Privacy & Compliance

In designing this governance platform on Avalanche, we place heavy emphasis on security, privacy, and regulatory compliance to ensure the system is robust against attacks and aligns with legal requirements:

Blockchain Security & Finality: The Avalanche consensus protocol provides strong security guarantees – it is Byzantine fault tolerant, and with our chosen set of validators, we ensure >⅔ of stake/honest weight at all times. Transactions achieve finality within ~1-2 seconds, meaning once a vote or action is confirmed in a block, it cannot be reversed. This rapid finality greatly reduces the risk of chain re-orgs or double voting. For governance, this is critical: when a proposal outcome is decided, the result is locked in irreversibly. Validators are bonded by staked AVAX on the primary network, adding economic security (they’d lose stake if they violate consensus). We will also implement periodic check-pointing or state hashes of the Subnet to Avalanche’s Primary Network (or even to external anchors) for additional security – this is an optional measure to allow independent audit of the Subnet’s state. All smart contracts will undergo thorough audits by third-party security firms to catch vulnerabilities (reentrancy, overflow, etc.) before deployment. We use established libraries (OpenZeppelin) to minimize custom attack surface. The governance contracts enforce role-based access control for admin functions (using multi-signature wallets for any sensitive admin keys) to prevent a single point of failure. Additionally, since the validators are permissioned, we have a governance model for the infrastructure itself: any changes to the Subnet config or validator set must be agreed by a multi-party process, ensuring no rogue operator can alter rules. Overall, Avalanche’s secure-by-design consensus and our prudent contract security practices will safeguard the integrity of the platform.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Privacy: While transparency is important, we also need to protect voter privacy. Avalanche subnets can integrate advanced cryptographic protocols such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) to achieve privacy without sacrificing auditability. We are exploring using ZKPs in two main areas: identity verification and secret balloting. For identity, during the KYC process we could use a ZKP scheme to prove something like “user is a citizen of country X and not already registered” without revealing their actual identity on-chain. However, given a permissioned environment, we might simply trust the off-chain verification. More prominently, for voter anonymity, we plan to implement a commit-and-reveal scheme with zero-knowledge. One approach is utilizing a protocol akin to Semaphore (a Ethereum ZK library for anonymous signaling): we establish a Merkle tree of all eligible voters (each voter gets a secret identity nullifier). When voting, instead of directly calling vote(choice) (which is linkable to their address), the user could generate a ZK proof that “I am a member of the set of token holders and I have not voted yet” and submit that proof along with an encrypted vote. The smart contract (with a verifier contract for the zkSNARK) would verify the proof is valid (meaning the voter is eligible and unique) without learning which address it came from. The vote (still encrypted or as a commitment) is stored. After the voting period, either a trusted committee or another ZK process can tally the votes and produce a proof that the tally is correct matching the commitments. This ensures voter anonymity – no one can link a yes/no vote to a specific person’s wallet, neither during nor after voting. Another simpler method is a traditional commit-reveal: voters submit a hash of their vote with a salt, then after closing they reveal the vote and salt. This hides the vote content initially, but the link to the address is eventually public at reveal, so it’s not fully anonymous to observers (though one can hide among all revealed votes if they all reveal simultaneously, still an observer can correlate reveal tx to address). The ZK approach (using something like MACI – Minimal Anti-Collusion Infrastructure) is more complex but provides strong anonymity and even anti-bribery measures. The compliance requirement of secret ballot in political votes can be met with such techniques. We will weigh complexity vs. benefit; perhaps implementing commit-reveal as a first step (to hide interim results and reduce undue influence) and then upgrading to full ZK voting in a later version. Avalanche’s EVM supports verifying zkSNARKs (especially if we use efficient circuits and maybe Avalanche’s precompiles if any), and the subnet’s zero fees make ZK proofs viable (since proofs are computationally heavy, normally costly in gas, but here cost is not an issue aside from performance). By leveraging ZKPs, we can achieve privacy-by-design in the voting process, aligning with democratic norms of secret ballots while keeping the overall outcome transparent and verifiable.
Public Auditability: Despite introducing privacy for individual votes, the platform retains end-to-end auditability. All governance actions (petition creations, votes cast (albeit possibly anonymized), proposal results, token issuances, revocations) are recorded on the Avalanche ledger which is publicly accessible. We ensure that any observer can validate the integrity of the process: for example, an auditor can verify that the number of votes counted for a proposal equals the number of unique eligible voters who participated (with ZK, they can verify proofs of uniqueness, or with commit-reveal, they can match commits to reveals). The use of Avalanche means we inherit its transparency – the ledger can be browsed via block explorers (we can set up a custom explorer for our Subnet, or use Avalanche’s Explorer tool configured for our network). All proposal contracts will expose read-only functions to query current tallies, total token counts, etc., so third-party watchdog organizations could build their own dashboards or even run their own validating nodes for oversight. Audit trails are inherently built in: for instance, every token ID issued is on-chain, so an auditor could check that the number of tokens equals the number of verified identities from off-chain records. If any discrepancy or unauthorized mint occurred, it would be evident on-chain. We will also publish the source code of our smart contracts and ideally a formal specification, so that the public (and experts) can review how decisions are made and verify that the deployed bytecode matches the audited source (verifiable via Avalanche’s explorer which can support contract verification like Etherscan does). By making the system auditable, we comply with open-government principles and build trust: anyone can independently confirm that “Proposal X passed with Y votes on date Z” and that this result was correctly determined by the programmed rules, with no tampering possible.
Data Privacy & Personal Information: Compliance with privacy laws (such as GDPR or local data protection laws) is taken seriously. We design the system such that personal data is mostly kept off-chain. The on-chain identity (Founders Token) is a pseudonymous identifier (essentially a wallet address and token ID). The mapping of that token to a real person’s identity is maintained off-chain by the Assembly’s secure databases or the verifying authority. That database would be protected under standard IT policies and not public. On-chain, we store minimal personal info – perhaps just a hash of a citizen ID or an anonymized code, if needed to link to off-chain records. This way, if someone examines the blockchain, they cannot derive a person’s real identity, only that a token ID voted. This approach is compliant with privacy regulations since no personal identifiable information (PII) is exposed publicly without consent. Furthermore, if a member wishes to withdraw (and maybe invoke a “right to be forgotten”), we can revoke their token and, off-chain, scrub their data, while on-chain the only trace remains an anonymized historical record (their past votes remain but are not linked to a name). This is a tricky area because blockchain is immutable, but by only storing pseudonyms we mitigate privacy concerns. We also consider using Selective Disclosure techniques – for example, the identity NFT’s metadata could be encrypted such that only authorized persons (e.g. an election committee) can decrypt certain fields, whereas for everyone else it’s just an unreadable blob. Avalanche subnets can enforce custom privacy rules and even integrate encryption at the VM level. For instance, using homomorphic encryption or threshold encryption for votes (Avalanche documentation suggests subnets can incorporate such cryptographic measures for privacy). We may not implement full homomorphic vote counting initially, but we acknowledge the possibility, and Avalanche’s flexibility means we could incorporate new cryptographic modules (maybe via precompiled contracts) as they mature, ensuring the system stays at the cutting edge of privacy tech.
Compliance and Legal Considerations: The platform is built to comply with relevant laws for electronic voting and governance. KYC/AML compliance is handled in the identity issuance phase – only real verified individuals get a Founders Token, preventing fake or duplicate identities from participating. We maintain audit logs (off-chain) of verification events which can be provided to authorities if needed (for example, to prove someone didn’t vote twice under different identities, which the system prevents by design). The permissioned validator set adds another compliance layer: validators can be required to operate within certain jurisdictions or obtain any necessary approvals since they are processing potentially sensitive civic data. Avalanche’s architecture explicitly notes that subnets can enforce geographic or institutional restrictions on validators for compliance, which we take advantage of by selecting validators that meet our governance body’s criteria. Additionally, we incorporate contract allowlists to ensure no unauthorized or harmful contracts are deployed – this prevents, say, someone launching a DeFi app on our governance chain that could introduce financial crimes or distractions. By locking down the network to intended use-cases, we make regulatory oversight easier. All financial transactions on the platform (if any) can be tied to approved budget proposals, creating a clear paper trail for auditors, which aligns with public finance laws.
Resilience and Disaster Recovery: From a security standpoint, we also plan for continuity. Nodes will be run in multiple data centers and possibly multiple countries to avoid a single point of failure. We’ll have regular data backups of the blockchain state (even though validators have it, an extra backup won’t hurt) and of any off-chain data (like the identity registry). In case of a catastrophic event (natural disaster, etc.), new nodes can be spun up with the latest state to keep the network running. Since Avalanche finality is quick, RPO (recovery point objective) is basically immediate, we won’t lose confirmed transactions. We also leverage Avalanche’s interoperability features to possibly connect to other networks if needed for emergency measures (for example, Avalanche Warp Messaging could allow us to send messages to the Primary Network or another subnet in case we need to signal an emergency). While this might be beyond normal operations, it’s good to note that Avalanche is building cross-subnet communication that could be useful for future expansion or failsafes.
Performance Security (Dos protection): On the Avalanche Subnet, especially with no gas fees, we ensure the node infrastructure is hardened against denial-of-service attacks. Each node will have firewall rules, rate limiting at the RPC level (to avoid a spammer overloading the public RPC endpoint with requests). The network being permissioned means we can also identify and stop malicious traffic more easily than on a public network. Avalanche’s networking layer uses a gossip protocol that is resilient and we will tune it if needed for our smaller validator count. We’ll also continuously monitor the network latency and transaction processing. Avalanche provides validator health metrics which we can use to detect any anomalies (like if a validator is lagging or missing consensus rounds, which could indicate an attack or issue). By proactively monitoring and responding, we maintain the platform’s reliability.

In conclusion, by leveraging Avalanche’s features and supplementing with advanced cryptography, The Founding Assembly’s platform is engineered to be secure, privacy-preserving, and compliant. Zero-knowledge proofs and selective disclosure techniques protect individual privacy (e.g. anonymous voting), while the immutable ledger and fast finality ensure public trust and auditability. The system adheres to governmental standards for data protection and provides tools for oversight bodies to verify every process. This combination of Avalanche’s technical strengths and a thoughtful security design makes Avalanche not just an option but the definitive solution for a modern blockchain-based civic governance platform, delivering decentralization with the rigor and confidence required in public-sector deployments.