Proposal: Zenon Improvement Proposals (ZIP) framework development

Project Name: Zenon Improvement Proposals (ZIP) framework development

Description: This proposal is for the development of a “Zenon Improvement Proposals (ZIP)” framework and process. The major outputs from the project will be a framework, set of policies, common standards and workflows that will outline and define a robust improvements process for Zenon.

A improvements proposals framework will govern how individuals can initially propose possible network and core code changes to a crypto system. Following this, it will govern how voting will occur in an effort to determine the proposed changes impact and benefit to the ecosystem.

Changes to the core code, upgrades to the network and changes in standards should all be discussed and developed through this ZIP process in the future. Bitcoin has its BIP process and Ethereum its EIP process - and Mr Kaine has mentioned that this is something important in his eyes. At the moment there is a clear lack of strategy or policy around how a consensus could be formed regarding changes to Zenon, Syrius and the NoM.



If a specific change is required then how would we obtain agreeance to a satisfactory level of confidence that this change is indeed what the broader community would want? The goal is that this project will help set the framework to answer this question.

It’s not sexy or full of interesting coding efforts, but I believe this is something critical and necessary for the future success of the NoM. I am passionate about delivering this to a high level of quality and ensuring it meets the communities needs.

URL: Proposal: Zenon Improvement Proposals (ZIP) framework development

Team: Just myself for this one. I’ve developed similar framework development/options papers for customers through my day job as an IT solutions architect that have been well received and been the catalyst for significant internal change. The output will be a professional paper with a set of appendices for the key outcomes. I envisage the first ZIP will also be included and outline the identified process.


What is your high-level roadmap? 1 phase for this project, which would encompass the below:

Phase 1

  • Research and document comparisons of other networks improvement processes
  • Analysis of these processes with a view for what is suitable for Zenon
  • Development of a set of policies and framework for the ZIP process
  • Specification of ZIP categories
  • Documented review policies for submissions
  • Development of a ZIP submission template
  • Development of a phased ZIP approach plan (start small and build out)
  • Development of ZIP process workflows
  • Identification of voting mechanisms and potential solutions for voting
  • Submission of the first ZIP governing the process

Completion of Phase 1 will be measured by:

  • Completion and delivery of the framework to the community


Total Requested Funding = 2500 ZNN and 25000 QSR
Project Duration = 3 months

How did you calculate your budget? Based on similar papers I have written (albeit it for IT and not Crypto systems) I estimate this would take me anywhere from 100-150 hours to complete to a satisfactory level, I will work on it mostly out of hours in my spare time. Based on current ZNN price and relative hourly rates for this type of work I feel the amount requested is fair (it will all end up back into the eco-system anyway when I spawn a Sentinel).

Project and Payment Milestones:
Phase 1
Funding Request: 100%
Duration: 3 months

Other Information

Risks, Assumptions, Known Issues, Dependencies: It is worth noting that A-Z is a ZIP process in it’s own right, but not intended for the core governance (and is limited to Pillars) of the network and thus isn’t suitable for what we need long term.

Have you previously submitted a proposal (either in Accelerator-Z or Incubator)? No

Let me know your thoughts!

Would you support this proposal?

  • Yes I would support this proposal
  • No I would not support this proposal

0 voters


Curious to hear from the @devs about this one. I’m all for documentation like this. Just wondering what the devs think.

1 Like

Not many comments, but I have received some words of encouragement directly from a couple members and the vote is positive so I’m going to submit this. Please continue to ask questions or discuss the proposal here.

I really do feel this is a key process that needs to be ironed out asap

This proposal was approved today (thank you :pray:) - I’ve already started getting my thoughts down on structure and key points. I plan to canvass thoughts from some of the more active Pillar operators as well as key members of the community to try and lock down a current state of play. Will continue to provide updates


Just updating for anyone interested, I’m about 25 hours down. Have sunk a fair amount of time into researching and comparing the way other chains undertake their improvement processes and also spent a bit of time developing the structure for the document.

In terms of other chains, so far I’m looking at:

  • BTC
  • ETH
  • Binance Coin
  • Badger
  • zCash
  • ICP
  • IOTA
  • Solana
  • Cardano

If you know of any others you think should be included let me know.

Hopefully within the next couple of weeks I’ll be engaging the community on matters such as the Zenon Architectural Principles (which will help with the measured assessment of proposals) and some key common themes that I’ve picked up from the comparative analysis.


ThorChain maybe a good one to consider .
Monero too.

1 Like

Maybe polkadot as well

1 Like

What about Bancor? its kinda like thorchain

1 Like

thanks guys - I will check them all out, if they re-use existing governance methods I won’t go into detail though (so far the majority pretty much just rip off the BTC process which in turn was taken from the Python devs)


Seems like you have a great handle on things but lemme know if you need help analyzing a chain or two- I could use a break from my normie job :joy:


note to self: DrD3 will gladly perform first draft review on behalf of the community :hugs:


jajajajaja sounds good

1 Like

Just another update, I was sick for the last 2 weeks and barely got any work done on anything. Am back on deck now and refocused.

Current status is:

Governance overview completed
Current state of play/comparisons ongoing
Framework development ongoing


Mr Kaine showed up randomly in the Telegram chat and posted this:


Makes me think they have some development close to completion or waiting to commence but need the ZIP process online to get the communities engagement. As such I have sunk most of my time since Monday into this and am hoping to get the draft out by the weekend.

There will be some key decisions listed at the end of the document that the community will need to agree on - after which the ZIP process (stage 1) can be implemented


Lemme know if you need help proofreading it!

1 Like

Thanks @DrD3 - I’ll upload it here soon and get you all to have a read through.

It’s all complete now, just need to proof read once more and will submit.

Ok first draft pretty much complete. It’s late so the proof read likely missed quite a bit, I’ll go over it again tomorrow and re-upload with grammatical changes if needed. If anyone wants a docx version to mark up let me know

I’ll also create a new forum post in the ZNN forum to outline the key decisions that need to be made and facilitate discussion



Great read so far, will wait for my next coffee break to keep reading.

Really appreciate the background coverage of how other blockchains do governance/improvement proposals.

Looking forward to reading the proposed ZIP framework :heart_eyes:

1 Like

Looks like serious work - well done! :+1:


I like it, it’s a practical and reasonable approach. I have a remark regarding your proposed zip1 though, not sure if you want to debate that already (I think acceptance of this submission shouldn’t equal acceptance of zip1, correct?)
I think we should limit the zip process to changes to the reference implementation of znnd, i.e. go-zenon. What do you mean with informational zip, would you have an example?
Also minor zips, where you have changes to syrius as an example: I don’t think these should be part of the zip process. Consider syrius just another community project, others will build other wallets and it is not actually critical to the functioning of the network what features they have. So we shouldn’t include them in a protocol improvement governance process (I guess that is what zip should be).
So I would say we don’t need separate categories.

1 Like