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)
2 Likes
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 
2 Likes
note to self: DrD3 will gladly perform first draft review on behalf of the community 
2 Likes
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
4 Likes
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
6 Likes
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
enjoy
7 Likes
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 
1 Like
Looks like serious work - well done! 
2 Likes
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
Yes that’s a very fair assumption - we can definitely improve ZIP1 prior to its submission to avoid having to update it at a later date
I see your point here - but in my view the ZIP process isn’t just for protocol change but any change that would require community consensus. Noting SYRIUS is the ‘official’ wallet, would we benefit from having a single official version rather than multiple community forks? I am not a dev so definitely keen for your input here (looking at this from a users perspective, multiple forks from different devs would be confusing)
Oh yes, you’re right, of course there are changes to znnd (go-zenon) possible that are not protocol updates. And I agree, every change to this code should require consensus. So that would also justify to have at least two categories (I’m not sure about a third?)
Still, this would concern the reference implementation of znnd.
We should also include necessary and zenonnetwork-owned libraries as well, i.e. libpow.
The difference between libpow and syrius then, is the direction of dependency. znnd requires libpow, syrius requires (not strictly, but to be useful) znnd.
znnd doesn’t care about syrius or any other client.
So yea, it’s the „official“ wallet, but it’s not important for the functioning of the network, so I would say changes don’t require consensus. Same thing as the explorer for example (literally)
ok thanks for providing more info - I might hit you up directly to flesh out some better options/naming and then post it back here for discussion?
Sure!
1 Like