MIP-15: NFT Aggregator Development

Thanks for your reply.

Aggregation can be integrated directly in Sphere. MC would get access to the code to integrate it in the marketplace for batch buying and using different payment tokens.

I think the aggregator should be an entity of its own. An aggregator and a marketplace are 2 completely different things. Sphere will be used to sell primarily NFTs that are related to games, but the aggregator will list any NFT from any marketplace. An aggregator that has Sphere natively integrated would benefit the volume to the marketplace, but the marketplace listing marketplaces and collections that don’t have anything to do with gaming wouldn’t be beneficial in my opinion.

I think both Sphere and the aggregator have a big potential as separate platforms. Merging them into one wouldn’t do justice to the aggregator and create clutter for Sphere.



I like having an aggregator on the market. More competition is always good!

I do have some questions, while inclined to say yes.

50k for startup phase, initial marketing probably also legals and seeking extra funding. I get this. And then, Merit Circle (Ltd ?) gets 50% of stonks.

While it’s an aggregator, won’t this just be another Opensea? Opensea now is NFT marketplace + Gem, I think. Would this not compete with Sphere?

How does this translate to value for the MC token or the MC DAO? As two others have mentioned.

Also, do you have team members in mind? Is this the MC team? New team members? How do you pick them? Do you have leads to invest into the equity pre-seed in mind already?

I think everyone wants this, but are just wondering “does this generate value to our MC DAO?”.


Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship



While the project might be great I would prefer all investment proposals to go through MIP-2 (investment committee) rather than through direct voting by DAO. I’m happy to be be in Merit Circle DAO because here I have access to professionals who can make investment decisions better than me - so would be stupid not to use their competence.

Also - I agree with @sub that from MC DAO point of view it might be more beneficial to implement it as features inside Sphere. And with @HoneyBarrel - that we should measure will it be more like synergy or like competition for Sphere. So as is - I will vote NO, but simultaneously totally OK if investment committee approves.



I think it’d be nice if the DAO Contributors / Committee would give their thoughts too, and perhaps @SadCatCapital too if possible.

My questions are mainly three-fold:

  1. Do you have what it takes (team recruitment, investor recruitment)?
  2. Competitor vs Integrator & Synergy?
  3. Will it add value to the MC DAO, if so, in what way - e.g. MC token value, cashflows, revenue distro?


Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship


1 Like

Great post! Some notes:

Scope is wide

Considering you are currently a one man team and these applications are non trivial to build I would consider limiting the scope.

What have you done before?

To be able to deliver these features you need to grow a team and lead it. Additionally there’s a lot more to just developing when building a business. How do we know you can deliver on all of that?

How does that 50k/50% deal work?

If you raise another round you’ll probably be diluting current equity holders. At what minimum valuation would you raise and how much?

Can a DAO even hold equity?

Being a blockchain native org I don’t really see how that would work.

Have you considered building open source based on a grant?

Although maybe not the most obvious value add for Merit Circle directly but I do think an open source aggregator could add huge value to the wider NFT ecosystem. Market places could build their own adapters, games and users can easily build their own UIs on top and tap into all of the NFT liquidity on a blockchain.

Not to mention it guarantees that something of value is left if you ever decide to move on (which is perfectly understandable)

:heart: Mick


The aggregator will definitely not be a competitor to Sphere, but rather complement it. We won’t be a marketplace, so we also won’t have the fancy game-developer focused features like a customizable and detailed collection pages. There will be synergy, though. Sphere can integrate the smart contracts that have been developed by the aggregator. If we find a new way to save on gas fees, then we will also share this with the MC dev team.

Regarding value for the DAO, I think there are two value-adds here. Firstly, people that go to the aggregator might or might not know Sphere. They might just want to buy an Axie and buy this on Sphere via the aggregator. This means that Sphere generates fees, which will be used to buyback MC. Secondly, the MC DAO has a 50% stake in this aggregator. When the valuation of the aggregator appreciates, so will MC DAO’s stake.

Regarding the (technical) team, I will do the smart contracts and (most of) the frontend code. Later it will likely be necessary to hire another frontend developer. A backend developer will be needed to code the API and order indexers. I do have a couple of smort backend developers from past jobs that I can approach to join the team. Additionally, we’ll need a UI/UX designer. With the $50,000 we can hire someone for a small period of time to join the team and recruit more once we have closed a funding round. For investors I will likely rely more on the Merit Circle team’s connections.



Thanks for the answers! I think I begin to see the value. The aggregator will find the cheapest route to a NFT purchase. It looks at Opensea, Looksrare, Sphere. Whoever provides the optimal cost, will be bought (assuming the NFT listings are near equal).

So Electric’s app will provide ‘neutral’ users that buy NFTs a way to tap into Sphere indirectly, creating further volume to Sphere, netting fees which will boost the value of the MC DAO. Also, because of how Sphere works, these fees (2.5%) will market buy MC and rebate half. It’ll scale MC user numbers, expand the community, and so on.

As for the 50% stonk stake question, the MC DAO (or the Ltd. I am unsure) already has some equity deals I believe, so that isn’t an issue. It’ll allow the MC team to have a close bond with the Electric team, and (as Electric mentioned) even create technological benefits.

Seeing as the mentioned stonk stake is common stocks, MC will also have a significant say in its operations.

Voting a hard YES on this.

Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship



Thanks for your reply and questions! I’ll do my best to answer them all in detail.

Scope is wide
The scope is very wide indeed, but indicates what I envision for the aggregator. The product will be developed in incremental phases and according to market need, but launching an aggregator for multiple markets is the first priority. We will develop and launch features to complement this, but it won’t stand in the way of the core functionality: aggregating.

What have you done before
I am a developer at heart, which means I have the technological skills and knowledge to deliver. I also know my weaknesses, which would lie in the strategy and marketing of it all. I am however very open to receive feedback and guidance from the Merit Circle team.

Regarding my background. I am self-taught programmer, but did start teaching myself coding when I was 12, so I have been active for a while. I have build web3 integrated frontends and a range of varying backends. I have done this as a freelancer over the past 2 years. The backends that I have developed have been mostly focused on data-indexing from multiple EVM-based blockchains. I’ve built these from the ground-up, first in NodeJS, later in Rust. I know what it takes to build data-intensive applications like the aggregator will be. I’ve also been a senior frontend developer 2 years ago, in which I had to lead a small development team. I quit this job to go into the crypto space.

How does that 50k/50% deal work?
If this proposal is passed, only MC and I will hold equity in the aggregator. In a subsequent fundraise using preferred shares, our voting rights would not dilute. The valuation depends on where we stand once we reach the stage of a funding round, but my aim to offer 10% preferred equity at a valuation of $10M minimum.

Can a DAO even hold equity
I believe the DAO already has some equity deals. I think from a legal perspective the equity would be registered to Merit Circle LTD, but perhaps the team can better explain this.

Have you considered building open source based on a grant?
I actually think open-source will take away the edge the aggregator can have on its competitors. If you look at NFT and dex aggregator like Gem and Slingshot.finance, their smart contract is closed-source. Finding new ways to save on gas fees or make your app perform better is great to share with the developer world, but doesn’t add a benefit to the business necessarily.

I do agree that it’s great for other apps to build UI’s and applications that tap into the smart contracts. That would still be possible with SDK’s that don’t reveal the smart contract’s code.

If I ever decide to move on (which I highly doubt), anything that I made will be the aggregator’s property and will be left behind for the DAO and other stakeholders.


Thanks for this proposal - great to see all the various talent within the DAO popping up!

I agree with your points regarding there being opportunities for a new aggregator to enter the market. Albeit that we - as you have pointed out - potentially have a more powerful player in the market now following Opensea’s acquisition of Gem, there should certainly be room for good competition (in particular when taking into account how early we are in the NFT space still). Your post indicates that you have several good ideas with regards to how the product could look like, and I am also sure that the MC team would be a good fit to develop the ideas even further. I also note that several people more tech-savvy than me are backing your qualities, which I consider a good sign.

I do however think it would be beneficial to both parties that a written agreement is entered into, which sets out (i) the scope of the work under the project, (ii) each parties’ respective rights and obligations in connection with development of the project/product, (iii) details relating to the structure of the ownership and governance of the product and the separate entity developing and becoming direct owner of the product, (iv) funding of the entity/project, including provisions covering how additional funding will be handled, should it become necessary, (v) how profits will be shared/distributed between the relevant parties in the future, and (vi) exit provisions covering certain exit scenarios (e.g. if you should wish to move on as you mentioned).

The agreement does not need to be made too complicated, but in the interest of the DAO (as this might be a relationship continuing in the unforeseeable future), I think it makes sense to enter into an (enforceable) agreement which protects the DAO’s rights, including rights to any potential value accrual back to MC (as is also highlighted as an important point by a few).

When voting on this one, I would therefore preferably not have a binary “yes/no” option. I think it would make sense to make the “yes” subject to e.g. the majority of the MC DAO core contributors (or an even more limited group of key people within the DAO) subsequently approving a definitive agreement with the author and other relevant parties (if applicable) regarding the development of the product. As it might be difficult and inefficient for the broader group to settle all the details within this wider forum (including points (i)-(vi) set out above), I think it makes sense to delegate power to the MC DAO core contributors (or other limited group of key people) to bring this one home in a format that is beneficial for the DAO, including which secures the rights of the DAO.

Final remark regarding the question on whether the MC DAO can hold equity/stocks. The short answer is that the DAO as such cannot directly own equity/stocks. Merit Ltd. or another centralised entity (legal person) could on the other hand do it, but the equity would not be held by the DAO. There are however possibly ways to structure this which can work so that the DAO gets the economic upside (a topic which I think can be fine tuned in the mentioned agreement).



Thank you @0xDouwe for this interesting proposal, and for all the comments and questions so far.

We are always looking for new ways to add value to the Merit Circle ecosystem, and building new tools for the community to use is one way of achieving this. As the Sphere marketplace is finally coming to fruition, we believe an NFT aggregator could fit in nicely with Merit Circle’s journey into NFT trading.

We agree that due to how nascent NFT aggregation is, the space is far from being too competitive for another protocol to enter. Sphere is ideal for the NFT trading space for the exact same reason.

In terms of the scope of the project, we believe it to be manageable, if done in phases (as you have already replied to Mick). Even if initially the ‘advanced features’ aren’t available, as long as the aggregator is working as intended across marketplaces, and provides cheaper gas fees than Gem/Genie, then that is already good starting progress.

We believe there to be multiple potential value-adds through this aggregator. The first would simply be more users using Merit Circle ecosystem products. It is difficult to gauge how much knock-on impact this would have across the DAO, but more users is never a bad thing.

Secondly, as the aggregator will incorporate Sphere from the outset, anyone using the aggregator will be viewing NFTs listed on the Sphere marketplace. Agnostic NFT traders often just want to see the cheapest place they can buy something, but might not have heard of Sphere. Also, there is always the chance that Gem or Genie do not incorporate Sphere into their aggregators for some reason. This seems unlikely, but if they do not then Sphere could be at an automatic disadvantage to competitors. If this aggregator succeeds in pulling users and volume away from Gem and Genie, then their actions won’t matter as much.

Thirdly, would be the technological/coding advantages. Douwe already highlighted that Sphere and this aggregator would be sharing a common goal - to improve NFT trading. Even though the protocols are different, it’s highly likely that code/tech improvements that are discovered can benefit both protocols, and would be shared between the teams if so.

We appreciate that Douwe has highlighted he would need help with the marketing. This is where we think the Merit Circle DAO can step in and help. With the reach, and number of partners, that Merit Circle has, we don’t think marketing should be a problem.

We also agree with Honey that holding equity shouldn’t be a problem for Merit Circle, as the company already does hold equity. 50% of the equity in common shares will also give us the necessary voting ability to help govern the direction of the aggregator. As long as further equity raises are completed with preferred shares, and at the appropriate valuation, then we also do not anticipate this being a problem.

As always, our desire is to bring more value to the MC ecosystem, and DAO. We believe this will help both indirectly, and possibly directly in the future.

We will be voting YES to this proposal, and excited to see the ongoing development.

Signed with right paw,

Sad Cat Capital


Hello and thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough proposal, apologies if anything I say is redundant as I haven’t read all the comments yet.

I think this is a good idea, and you seem capable so I would like to support, but do have a couple questions.

  1. How much seed capital would need to be raised beyond the proposed $50k from Merit Circle? I see $50k = 50% equity but I presume Merit Circle would be getting a more favorable valuation than the potential investors that follow.

  2. Considering Sphere’s rebate mechanism, is it possible for this to also be considered at the aggregator level, for example if the same NFT is listed one Sphere and another marketplace and the total cost (list price + gas + trade fee) is equal, can the proposed contracts recognize that in this case Sphere is cheaper because of the rebate?

  3. In terms of capturing market share, my biggest concern is ability to deploy quickly. It’s OK to be second move on the few chains aggregators already exist on, but imo it’s important to beat the competition to deploying on the many other chains with NFT activity.

Being that we would be starting from behind, is it feasible to both catch up to gem as well as surpass them on the developments that they are almost certainly already working on?

I am also a bit concerned about equity as there is no way to accomplish this in a trustless manner. It’s not a dealbreaker because this involves the core contributors but could be seen as an example as to why we should invest in equity with other parties down the road which goes beyond the scope of this DAO.
Tokens can be made in 10 minutes by a capable dev so I don’t see time as a legitimate reason to take the equity route.

Again thank you, and I’m largely in favor of your proposal, and look forward to hearing more about it and the Core Contributors thoughts as well.

Joseph Baggashitcoins Esquire M.D. LLC Inc.


Thanks for your reply and questions Joey!

I explained the seed raise in a bit more detail in a reply above yours. Please, refer to the quote below.

Question number 2 is a brilliant take. A true aggregator should take all data into account when calculating the best deal. This includes additional fees such as marketplace fees and gas fees. Therefore, it is indeed a necessary feature for the aggregator to implement.

I think in the first phases it is important to capture a large market size, which is best achieved by integrating a broad range of marketplaces and chains. It will likely be best to start with an efficient and performant aggregator on Ethereum and expand to more chains soon after.

I think it’s very feasible to catch up with Gem in the sense that we can quickly deploy an aggregator that is user-friendly and performant. We can then expand this aggregator to multiple chains before going ahead with more advanced features such as social features and activity history. In the first phase, Gem would then still have the advantage of having more advanced features, but we would be more attractive considering our lower gas fees and availability on multiple chains.

Regarding tokens, indeed it’s easy to deploy a token from a technical point of view. Sustainable tokenomics on the other hand take more time to design. A product often quickly becomes worth as much as the token and without proper planning, a token usually become worthless.

I think for the DAO it doesn’t make sense to take many equity deals, but considering this would be a strategic investment/partnership with minimum risk, I think it makes sense in this case.


Ty for your great response!

I’d be happy to help setting milestones and help you integrate sphere (I wrote the smart contracts).
Also willing to help you on other technical fronts.
Pending some more formal agreement I think this should and could be moved to a vote relatively quickly imo.


Hi Douwe,

Thanks a lot for your tech proposal. I favor building something used and needed within the space, even more so since Gem.xyz sold out to Opensea.

I do have a few questions:

  1. Is this going to be an MC in-house project? If not, have you considered a higher equity split in favor of the DAO and instead become a product owner under the MC umbrella. The DAO could provide more funds and resources post-MVP and remove the need for outside funding post $50k.

  2. Have you discussed whether aggregation is on the roadmap for Sphere with the MC team? I thought Sphere planned on being a fully-fledged NFT platform, with the gaming assets angle just being an initial focus for launch. I may be completely wrong here.

  3. Are you confident in achieving cheaper fees and better contracts than Gem / Genie? Have you any working samples or leads in this. Having this nailed would already make this project a success.

  4. Where and when does MC reap the rewards of this platform? I’m assuming this is a play for getting an exit.

  5. Have you built a platform or SaaS from scratch before?

Thanks again for taking the time with your post. I’m largely in favour of voting YES to get the ball rolling.

Best regards,

1 Like

Hey AS,

Thank you for your support and questions, I appreciate it.

  1. Since MC will take a large stake in it, we will work together on this where possible and necessary. The plan is to have a dedicated dev team for the aggregator, but as @Mick has already mentioned some team members are willing to help and are more than welcome to! Their help and input is greatly appreciated, but of course I don’t want to be in the way of their other responsibilities. Regarding outside funding, it greatly decreases the risk for the DAO and benefits it in terms of the valuation of their stake.
  2. I have discussed the aggregator with Mark to a great extend. We both think Sphere could definitely benefit from having an aggregator implemented directly in the marketplace, which is something we set out to achieve. I think certain aggregator features such as the aggregation to other marketplaces might not be something Sphere would want, but that is of course up to the team.
  3. I am extremely confident in this. I have done testing with the smart contracts already and have found thus far that they’re cheaper than Gem. Moreover, I think these contracts can even be made cheaper.
  4. The direct financial rewards for the DAO can come a) From an exit in which she liquidates (part of) her stake. b) Appreciating valuation of her stake. c) Dividends paid over the revenue of the aggregator.
  5. I have. Not as a founder, but as a developer I have built a platform from the ground up that required an advanced backend and frontend:

Thank you for your support and I hope I have answered your questions!


Hi @0xDouwe , Thanks for your proposal.

I am really excited about this for a few reasons.

  1. Aggregators are still evolving and there is no winner yet. So we still have opportunity to fight it out and win in this space.

  2. I am afraid with gem acquisition, if gem wields too much power OpenSea might use it for extractive purposes which might effect Sphere later on. So having our own aggregator will be insurance against such deeds in future.

  3. I feel Once the aggregator is well known, there are many ways in which we can monetise. I am not at all worried about this aspect.
    Even creating & charging for an NFT data API can bring a good amount of money (as someone working on an NFT product myself, can attest to how bad existing NFT APIs are)

  4. A lot of people got disappointed when gem was acquired because they won’t be getting a token for the same.
    I feel one of the best ways to differentiate in this space apart from efficient contracts of course is creating a great token model for aggregator users to participate and own.
    I feel Merit Circle & its partners have lots of experience in the tokenomics design and can greatly help this product in that aspect.
    That said I want to highlight that moving fast is really needed in this space right now. So better to work on launching & iterating product in the short term and may be hint at a possible token model in the future.

I will be voting YES to this proposal.

1 Like

Greetings everybody,

as @deepu256 already mentioned there’s still opportunity in the aggregator space and OpenSea could use Gem in a way that favors them, as Sphere is a direct competitor to Opensea.

The strategy to capture a large user base and then monetize via various methods is probably the best way to go. However, I would not want to see ads on the platform. Ads are a cancer of web2 and should not be a part of web3. Introducing a token at a later stage when tokenomics are well thought out can still be another way to fund the project. This would also give the community the opportunity to benefit financially from it and not just VCs with equity.

I see a lot of synergies for both MC DAO and the aggregator team around @0xDouwe. The community benefits as well so it’s basically a win-win-win.

Considering the advantages and low initial costs I think this is a no-brainer and I’ll be voting YES.


Thank you for the proposal. Think this makes perfect sense for the MC DAO to accept this proposal. Another aggregator in this market which intergrates Sphere and hopefully pulls in more trading will only benefit MC. Plus the team can help with all the other areas that you may not be as knowledgable in, so it seems like a great partnership to me.

Will be an easy YES.

1 Like

Dear Douwe,

Let’s start off by expressing our gratitude for this post and the willingness to add value to the Merit Circle DAO. We are fortunate to have such a talented community that’s eager to contribute in their own way. Now, let’s zoom in a little bit and share our thoughts.

Independent contributions
The power of a DAO is the fact that you are home to dozens of individuals that all come together to work on a common goal. This creates a hub for idea generation and collaboration. The stronger the brand and the community, the better the ideas become and the more effective the collaborations will be.

As we proceed, we see the power of the individual becoming more evident. An individual can build a product suiting their own needs while finding the strengths from collaboration when necessary. There’s no friction throughout the development process, only additional knowledge to be gained through the feedback and expertise of others that contribute in their own way. We salute this, and wish to encourage many others to take this very same route.

We have asked the Merit Circle DAO’s main developer to run through the code, to quote; “That aggregator code looks tasty!” This stamp of approval gives us confidence that the author has a certain level of credibility and skills.

Discovering the unknown
Whereas this proposal is well thought-out and describes at length what the idea entails, there are tons of unknowns that have yet to be discovered. Suiting, the author proposes a clear start-up phase that allows the author, and other contributors, to discover these unknown and answer any questions. We believe that we are in the position to strongly advise in terms of user acquisition, branding and marketing.

The use case
We’re thrilled to see the potential of this idea and do agree with the author that there is plenty of space in this industry for an additional aggregator.

We believe NFT aggregation is a very useful application. It is a growing space that we suspect will only grow bigger with the growth of the NFT market. It is likely there will be a few dominant aggregators and a few dominant primary nft marketplaces. Sphere is building a primary marketplace, hence, there is no direct competition in our view, only addition. We also suspect there will be a lot of potential synergies from having the Sphere team and an Aggregation team cooperating.

The strategy to optimize for usability and growth of the user-base first is one we subscribe to. First we need to build something useful, grow a user-base and fuel your application with data. This will allow to further improve the UI/UX of the product and attract even more users. Once you have a large userbase there are always ways to monetize a useful (D)application. We therefore agree on not focussing on monetization too early for this specific application. It’s encouraging to see the author is aware of all these strategic considerations and that these align with the DAOs values.

Value accrual
As the author has described in his post, the goal here is not only to build something that can contribute to the overall NFT space, but by doing so also return value back to the MC DAO.

We will always be looking into ways to maximize revenue for the MC DAO and optimize the volume towards Sphere. Naturally, this goal should not interfere with the usefulness of the aggregation dapp. The useability of both our primary marketplace and the aggregation dapp in itself should always precede other considerations, else it will never be a successful dapp. It is important that an aggregation dapp is neutral in its core offering and has a suitable level of independence. The myriad of potential ways to bring value back to the Merit Circle DAO, either directly through equity ownership (and monetizing the aggregation dapp) or indirectly through cross-selling or expertise/resources exchange is something that we should crystalize later in the journey.

In terms of ownership we think it is important to confirm the proposition to both sides for clarity. As laid out in the proposal, merit Circle DAO will get 50% of the common shares in equity. Please specify to what use the other 50% is labeled, team equity?

As we understand new equity will be raised as preferred shares. Diluting the relative monetary share value of both the team and Merit Circle, but not the voting rights. This part does not have to be set in stone, to maintain flexibility in the best way to structure the raise and get the best result.

We think it is important that in the event that a token is released that Merit Circle DAO (or all common share holders) get an equal pro-rata share of tokens.

Through a legal structure with different servicing entities the Merit Circle DAO can hold equities. Infact, it holds a lot of equity and will likely own much more equity in the future. The DAO will be able to monetize on equity, just like it can monetize on tokens. There are just a few structural differences that lead to a general preference for tokens over equity for the DAO. Such as liquidity, transferability and composability.

However, we recognize equities also have their place in this world and the future world. This is why we are structuring in the way we do. We will soon release more details about our structuring. We are structuring in a way that it’s the tokenholders who legally own the underlying equity, through the DAO. This is something that most DAOs do not have, even the ones that have the infrastructure to invest in equity.

Given our feedback we believe that the proposal is not complete as of yet. Therefore, we wish to ask the author to include a section in the proposal that clearly states what is being voted on. We believe this should include the following;

  1. The acceptance of this proposal grants the Merit Circle DAO 50% ownership in the to-be created equity of the proposed project.
  2. In the event that a token is created, it should give Merit Circle DAO a pro-rata amount of tokens. Proportional to the amount of team tokens the team equity would get in such an event.
  3. Merit Circle will help with bootstrapping. This includes legals, branding, planning and fundraising. This is where the 50K budget is used for.
  4. After the bootstrap phase, Merit Circle DAO will remain a founding partner, but the aggregator team will be led by an independent team. The seed raise funds can be used by Douwe to comprise a team.

This post has been issued in the wrong section of the forum. Has this been intentional or are we good to move this to the ‘Governance’ category?


Dear team,

Thank you for your response and support for this proposal. I too believe the aggregator will bring great value to the DAO in both financial and technical aspects. There is no other team and project that I have more faith in to enter a partnership like the one we’re about to embark in (given the proposal is accepted).

In terms of equity distribution, I believe it’s most appropriate to grant 50% equity to the DAO and 50% equity to me. During the structuring of the fundraise, we can include the issuance of an employee option pool, which will be used to offer valuable team members a stake in the company. I think this is an important point to mention and therefore should be included with the 4 other points mentioned by you.

If you agree with the above mentioned above mentioned proposition, I’ll include these points in the poll section of the proposal.

Regarding the category, I must have excitedly clicked post too soon. We’re good to move it the Governance category.