Governance & BIP Process
"A protocol that cannot evolve is dead. A protocol that anyone can change is not a protocol."
Governance Philosophy
BSP is a public good. Its governance model resolves the fundamental tension between stability (systems built on BSP shouldn't break on every update) and adaptability (scientific advances must be incorporated).
Three layers evolve at different velocities:
| Layer | Change Frequency | Decision Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol Core (BEO, IEO, Exchange) | Annual or less | 2-of-3 multi-sig + 90-day public comment |
| Biomarker Taxonomy (BSP-XX codes) | Quarterly | Scientific Council + Institute ratification |
| Implementations (AVA, SDKs, apps) | Continuous | Each implementor independently |
The Ambrósio Institute as Guardian
The Institute is the guardian of the standard, not its owner. This distinction matters: a guardian maintains the protocol's integrity for the ecosystem's benefit.
Scientific Council
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Composition | 7 members — longevity, cardiology, metabolism, neurology, genomics, immunology, medical laboratory |
| Independence | No financial relationship with the Institute or any BSP ecosystem company during tenure |
| Quorum | 5 of 7 members required for a vote |
| Approval | Simple majority of those present |
| Meetings | Quarterly: January, April, July, October |
| Transparency | Meeting minutes published in bsp-spec within 14 days; individual votes recorded |
Three-Key Multi-Sig
Critical protocol operations require 2-of-3 Institute keyholder signatures:
| Keyholder | Role | Storage |
|---|---|---|
| A — Founder | Day-to-day operations, BIP ratification | Hardware wallet offline |
| B — Scientific Director | Protocol specification and taxonomy changes | Hardware wallet, restricted access |
| C — Legal Custodian | Independent fiduciary — safeguard against unilateral abuse | Held by third party |
Authorization Levels
| Level | Operations | Executors |
|---|---|---|
| Critical (2-of-3) | Modify core contracts, revoke IEO permanently, change governance structure | Any 2 keyholders |
| Significant (1 + Council vote) | Approve BIP, suspend IEO, publish spec version | Any keyholder after Council vote |
| Routine (1 keyholder) | IEO certification renewal, documentation, badge issuance | Any authorized keyholder |
BIP Types
| Type | Code | Scope | Comment Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomia | BIP-T | Add/modify/remove biomarkers | 30 days |
| Protocol | BIP-P | Changes to BEO, IEO, Exchange Protocol | 90 days |
| Governance | BIP-G | Changes to the BIP process or multi-sig | 120 days |
| Informational | BIP-I | Best practices, recommendations | Simplified |
Complete BIP Schema
yaml
bip_id: BIP-0042
type: T # T | P | G | I
title: "Proposed change title"
status: DRAFT # DRAFT | REVIEW | COUNCIL | ACCEPTED | REJECTED | WITHDRAWN
authors:
- name: "Full Name"
affiliation: "Institution or Independent"
contact: "email@example.com"
conflict: "None" # Required: any financial interest
submitted_at: 2026-01-15
review_start: 2026-01-22
council_vote: 2026-04-15
decided_at: 2026-04-22
abstract: |
Max 200 words describing what the BIP proposes.
motivation: |
Why is this change needed now?
specification: |
Technical description of the proposed change.
rationale: |
Why this approach vs. alternatives considered.
backwards_compatibility: |
Impact on existing BSP implementations.
evidence: # Required for BIP-T and BIP-P
- citation: "Author et al. (2024). Title. Journal."
doi: "10.xxxx/xxxxxx"
year: 2024
n_participants: 15000
finding: "What this paper supports in the proposal"
quality: RCT | Meta-analysis | Cohort | Case-control | Expert
# For BIP-T: biomarker specification
biomarker_spec:
proposed_code: BSP-LA-009
name: "Scientific Name"
category: BSP-LA
level: CORE
unit: "umol/L"
method: "ELISA"
ref_range:
optimal: "40-60"
functional: "30-70"
deficiency: "<30"
toxicity: ">100"
cost_tier: LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | RESEARCH_ONLYThe BIP Lifecycle
Day 1: Submission
→ Author opens Pull Request in bsp-spec/bip/
→ Institute assigns BIP number, status: DRAFT
Week 1–2: Technical Review
→ Schema, references, technical coherence validated
→ Status: REVIEW
Days 15–45 (BIP-T): Public Comment
→ BIP open for community input on GitHub
→ Author must respond to all substantial comments
→ Status: COUNCIL
Council Meeting (Quarterly): Vote
→ Full BIP + comment summary + technical opinion presented
→ Each member votes APPROVE / REJECT / ABSTAIN with mandatory justification
→ Votes and justifications published in public minutes
Week 1–2 post-vote: Ratification
→ ACCEPTED: Keyholder B ratifies on-chain → taxonomy updated in bsp-spec
→ REJECTED: Author receives detailed feedback, may resubmit without limitWhy Proposals Get Rejected
| Proposal Example | Reason |
|---|---|
| "Subjective energy level" as biomarker | Not objectively measurable. BSP requires numeric values with standardized units. |
| 40 nutritional biomarkers in one BIP | No individual evidence per marker. Resubmit as separate BIPs. |
provider_fee field in Exchange Protocol | Attempt to insert monetization into the protocol core. BSP cannot extract value from user-institution transactions. |
Protocol Capture Protection
Three structural protections against unilateral Institute control:
- Independent Keyholder C — A third-party fiduciary holds the third key. Blocks unilateral abuse by Keyholders A and B.
- Public, Auditable BIPs — Every proposal, vote, and decision is public and recorded on-chain. Anyone can verify the Institute acts in the ecosystem's interest.
- Fork Protection Commitment — The Institute publicly commits to never legally challenge BSP forks. If the community disagrees, they may fork — with no legal barriers.
How to Submit a BIP
- Fork
biological-sovereignty-protocol/bsp-spec - Copy
bip/TEMPLATE.mdtobip/BIP-DRAFT-your-title.md - Fill in the template — evidence citations are mandatory for BIP-T and BIP-P
- Submit a Pull Request to the main branch
- The Institute assigns a BIP number within 3 business days