I’m all for the idea but as said previously there’s a few key aspects the community needs to agree with first:
-Do we go with 1 initially and measure the impact before committing more, and if so - how many pillars?
-Set clear goals on measuring success, but the offer of the vested Pillar must be without a guarantee or commitment of success from the operator. They bring eyes/investors to the table - we provide a pillar, that’s the exchange
-Are they for a certain time only? Probably 12 months ± 12 months if voted in? Or perpetual?
-Who handles hosting/VPS costs? I’d suggest the operator takes on that role with help from community Devs for setup
-Voting: I think the pillars should operate exactly as other pillars and participate in consensus and governance to foster further involvement
-Dev effort: who’s developing the code to allow vested pillars to operate and are the technicals achievable etc.
Agree that a vested Pillar should be able to vote upfront to foster participation and deeper involvement.
For this reason the “vesting” mechanism should be embedded into NoM itself rather than just manually issuing ZNN/QSR at a certain rate for a group to purchase a Pillar at a later date.
Perhaps the “vesting” can follow the corresponding criteria as a starting point:
Vested Pillar slot issued to operator*
Operator responsible for Pillar setup/VM, etc.
Pillar generates yield and can vote immediately upon formation
Pillar yield “Collect” and pillar disassembly option is disabled until end of vesting period (can use 4 years as standard for simplicity)
(Optional) Pillar must maintain > 95% uptime and > 80% voting record otherwise throughout vesting period otherwise all yield goes to AZ
*The issuance of the vested Pillar itself may be the most technically challenging. Some ideas:
Operator is responsible for ZNN purchase but QSR burn is overriden for vested slot
Override both ZNN and QSR requirements for vested slot
And both options still don’t address the consensus to give a vested slot in the first place. The simplest idea I can think of here is a modified AZ vote that introduces a specific vote type for a vested Pillar application. All the proposal fields are basically the same but instead of the ZNN + QSR ask it just displays “Vested Pillar”
Not sure how many slots are envisioned and/or encoded into NoM already but we should probably have a cap which should be displayed in the UI. Considering a vested Pillar should act no different than a real Pillar than the ability to disassemble should be accounted for 15K ZNN from max supply against the total number of Pillar slots available.
Responding on behalf of Logos/OP1. We would be interested in experimenting with running a Vested Pillar, specifically if there was an override of the ZNN and QSR requirement. The ZNN requirement is less of a concern than the burn.
We could use the opportunity to include Zenon within the broader Logos Community.
If the vesting mechanism is in a state to be embedded into NoM then we would gladly entertain participation.
Since the QSR is to be burned anyways (good for the network) and AZ has a heartier amount of QSR, how about just applying with 6 AZ requests of 50K QSR each and then Logos covers the costs internally for the 15K ZNN
300K / 6.95M QSR = 4.3% of AZ’s QSR supply
It’s still a hefty percent of the funds so I think as long as there is a good will plan to develop and promote the network on Logos/Operators side, there’s good reasons for the community to consider.
If it’s a well structured proposal (tit for that, pillar is paid out in phases in exchange for value), I wholeheartedly support this, assuming that Logos can put zenon on the map and dedicate resources to it.
Hell I’ll give away 5k of my own znn if there’s a good partnership proposal but SZ funding falls short.
4% is nothing if it creates sustainable momentum.
And AZ funds can be replenished with protocol emissions anyway.
In any case, no need for fancy vesting code beyond what AZ logic already offers.
To anyone in the Zenon community: logos has loads of resources. Zenon should BUY some of them by giving Logos a pillar. Ezpz
Does anyone here remember that the original Zenon blockchain was just a fork of Dash? It was just a simple POC to act as a launchpad for future development of a next-generation dual-ledger, dual-coin Network of Momentum. The OG’s staked hard-earned BTC for the very prospect of this Network.
Redirecting AZ funds – or worse, pawning off vested pillars – for the ephemeral approval of some talking head on Twitter goes against the entire ethos of this project and legitimate blockchains in general.
This community needs to stop focusing on social media, on ‘hype’ and most of all price.
If you want people to be interested in the blockchain, then focus on the blockchain. Contribute any and all funds to getting blockchain developers to contribute to the blockchain.
The reason why Logos has come up to prominence in this discussion is because it is an ideologically aligned community that includes many developers and builders.
Understood, and based on what little I have seen can see why some are finding it appealing. Partnerships with other projects (if reputable) can make sense.
I just thought I’d throw my 2 cents in here. I grow a bit weary of the discussions re: marketing, influencers and exposure. I agree, there is a major visibility gap (who wouldn’t?) but visibility is the game of memecoins. We should focus on initiatives that attract real builders—hackathons, developer grants, targeted outreach to blockchain communities, etc. That’s how you build lasting visibility and relevance.
Correct me if I’m mistaken but it seems like you’re implying that development, marketing/narratives, and price are mutually exclusive components of a protocol.
If so, why?
Development brings a project to life, marketing/narratives help give it fuel, and subsequent price can attract and retain developers. It’s a feedback loop.
Every initiative you mentioned typically starts with awareness on social media in the first place which you are saying the community should now stop focusing on. Do you have an alternative for implementing these initiatives on little to no budget?
“Number Go Up,” as cliche as it might be, was one of the strongest mindshare magnets (for developers and hundreds of other disciplines) to Bitcoin’s place in today’s society after its release. It compels people to look under the hood and gain conviction to spend their time and energy contributing.
One of our current dilemmas is the difficulty in attracting new developers and builders to NoM. We have an incredible protocol and a big vision, but the onboarding process is too challenging due to a lack of sufficient documentation to get them started. Many areas need improvement, but without concrete tasks to delegate to new contributors, we’ll continue to struggle with finding people that are interested.
There’s also a communication gap between developers and the awareness/marketing teams, which we need to bridge to create effective strategies that generate interest in our network.
Partnering with Logos would be a strong move to gain visibility and create awareness around Zenon. Right now, we virtually don’t exist, and having a name like Logos behind us would significantly boost our trust-score and credibility.
In return, we can offer them the powerful tech-stack NoM provides. However, without proper documentation, it’s difficult to showcase our technical advantages over other L1s, highlight the possibilities our network creates, and develop the necessary marketing material to communicate these strengths effectively.
The relationship with Logos has been being built over the last 6 months thanks to the Network State event thrown at ETH Denver hosted by @buildcities that was sponsored by Zenon (and supported by A-Z).
To overlook these efforts in a public forum kind of undermines them.
Regarding docs, this might be the single biggest communications bridge that needs to be developed. I would gladly support multiple AZs for high-caliber docs.
Thanks for sharing, i dont mean any disrespect but what are you talking about? The only price talk these days is related to how many full AZs we can afford before emptying the treasury… all to fund the most developers possible, we pretty clearly all want the same thing.
Ill just give my 2 cents to say this is not new advice, the community struggles to organically diffuse some of the complicated tech as its developing i dont think we’d like anything more than to focus on the blockchain but as its been said many times, pressing collect is not novel.
Youve been here six months without really too much effort in demostrating to the community how unikernels could even contribute to the blockchain, other than them being “massive for the blockchain space”.
Please help us out with how to grow this awareness it would be add some real value.
On this forum, I agree absolutely. But I think the brand as a whole needs an overhaul with regards to image. Just take a look at Twitter, the number of people talking NOM development is…sparse. For every one there are at least ten hyping it as ‘the next 10x’ and making it sound like a TOKEN.
Zenon is a legitimate blockchain. The architecture and dynamics of the network are revolutionary, and I want devs to recognize that
I will be doing exactly that with my BagSwap build / AZ proposal. Not only will I request for its funding (the design is done as seen on X), but will also include an outreach campaign via channels targeting devs exclusively: mainly PR. The idea is to leverage builds like BagSwap to inspire new dev participation, and offer them an avenue to build alongside. I’ll be targeting the skills they likely lack: design / marketing. We need founder-devs.
I encourage all efforts and individual ideas that people want to build, but my direction is to build meme and lore around the one ticker that is already and microcap, has liquidity, a bridge, and usecase $ZNN.
If someone wants to make a dog coin, my recommendation is to name the dog zenon, the cat coin named zenon, Zenon_the_Frog, etc etc.
Consolidate, row together, less work, less liability, more long term sustainability, and actual substance.
Of course, I have no problem with new tickers. But I wanted to share my thought process. It’s all I really think about anymore.
