We need to differentiate between different zips. Not all of them rely on activation by pillars. Some purely informational zips, like this very first zip, rely on community wide consensus, not just pillar acceptance. And there’s no technical activation for informational zips.
It’s just a process to signal agreement. Hence why most if not all of the community should be able to signal their support through a signed message. The consensus threshold can be lower, in return. But excluding certain entities out of the gate would not be right imo.
For Sporks that rely on pillar activation, I agree, then weighted by delegation could make more sense.
to take a lesson from cosmos community (where they have similar concept of validator and staker), by default, the your vote goes with the validator you stake with… BUT if you don’t like their vote or feel passionately, you can vote directly… the direct vote overrides the vote of the validator
to znnify this, if your delegate to a pillar, you vote with that pillar be default, but you can override that vote by also having the option to vote directly
in most cases, you should be aligned with your validator and therefore let them vote for you, but in some cases, you might want to override it while still delegating to them
As much as I hate Gov’t structure, I think we can use it to help us form our structure. I believe anyone should be able to come up with a ZIP. Anyone can author, just like in the US, anyone can write a bill. But to introduce a bill to congress a Rep or Senator needs to sponsor and introduce it for consideration. A lobbyist cannot introduce legislation directly for debate.
As the “main” economic actors and representatives of delegators, I do believe Pillars should sponsor ZIPs for consideration. Without a sponsor, how will an author convince Pillars to take it seriously?
this is age old debate of voting by population weight or voting 1 per state… US decided to go with a hybrid approach
I think for where we are now, we go with pure weighted voting system… yes, whales can influence. yes, control is not fully decentralized as a few can have an out-sized impact. BUT, if you do 1 vote per wallet, whales can just create a ton of wallets as well
ultimately, a decentralized ID service can be built on znn at which point we can discuss a hybrid approach. but for where we are now, we want those with the most at risk to be able to steer the network
Acceptance votes based on ZNN holdings per address (irrespective of staking, delegating, sentinel, pillar) eliminates this issue.
Again, a differentiated approach is needed since e.g. for sporks Pillars are the ones to ultimately activate it. So they should have a higher weight during the Acceptance vote to signal to other Pillars if they’re willing to support Spork activation.
For informational ZIPs on the other hand, the process ends at stage 4 and there is no reason whatsoever to limit voting participation to Pillars and delegators.
Seems to me that a 2/3 (by weight) supermajority of pillars should carry the day in terms of making decisions. With a preliminary vote prior to the final to allow people to potentially pull their weight from a given pillar or to pull LP zennies out and delegate for a close final vote.
If I understand correctly for a spork there would also need to be a simple majority of pillars in agreement and willing to accept the change for it to move forward so that would really be the final tally to achieve a successful change.
Idea, what if we removed the discussion about how a spork gets activated and refer to a to be debated ZIP to address the process. Today, we cannot activate sporks ourselves.
Bitcoin did this with BIP 8 & 9.
This is a difficult topic that requires mechanisms that do not exist today.
you bring up a good point… if you assume success, at some point you’ll need to filter out proposed ZIPs or there will be hundreds per day
govt does this by requiring a rep or senator to propose their bill
early on, that will work for ZNN as it will be easy enough to get in contact with pillars… what if over time it becomes hard? in cosmos, they have a $ filter… so in order to propose (equivalent of) a ZIP, you have to put up a certain amount of money… if “no with veto” is the result, you lose the money
I like a version of this where there is a $ threshold (risked money) in order to propose a ZIP that anyone can ‘sponsor’… so an individual can put up money themselves or have a group or sentinel/pillar put up for them
that said, in effort to get something in place that will work now, I’m okay with funneling things through pillars, but do worry about its long-term viability
NoM Phase 1 activation will be through a spork iirc.
What are the elements you want to leave out? Better we already discuss and dig deep now than to try and take shortcuts if we have to address them anyway by November, no?
I was thinking the core team will activate Phase 1 via the current method - hard coded address. That is the only way a spork can get activated today.
Maybe we can acknowledge that assumption and say we need to discuss and debate a method to remove that hard coded address and come up with a new method for future sporks.
Look at all the debate around BIP8 and 9. That discussion latest years I believe before they settled on a method to adopt Taproot.
Just a serie of observations about how a weighted vote with ZNN could lead 29 out of the 30 top pillars to fork the network:
This is a decentralization issue if implemented with a naive approach.
A quadratic voting system could mitigate this issue by undermining top pillars power.
As it is now it already can be seen as a problem but what would it be if big players with billions join ?
I agree with the idea of direct voting in case your pillar doesn’t align with your opinion. Override should be an option.
I disagree with the need to emulate a government. Our democracies have been built when the fastest communication system in place was the postman and we had noway to reach a consensus among thousand of people all across the countries. Not the case anymore.
Furthermore we could even think about a direct voting on ZIPs coming from anyone but pillars could have a weighted veto here, not a weighted vote. See it as a flipped lutte des classes.
If we want to craft a good governance system it could be interesting to see what have been done and what failed before. Direct democracies are utopias deeply rooted in the crypto ethos. There was a project about decentralized identity protocol on Zenon but I can’t find it back. This would deactivate the company shareholders voting style. Vote with your voice, not your coins ; the richest aren’t always the smartest, especially when it comes to protocols upgrades.
It seems likely the team would be very interested in making Phase 1 protocol upgrades thru the community activated spork process instead of how they did it in the past where they control the spork address.
Were coming up on some big changes and a key measure of actual decentralization(also many other factors) nowadays seems to be around the central control of a network so heres the opportunity to prove it imo.
All the discussion about implementation zips or informational is absolutely valuable and i dont mean to be a shit disturber but that honestly seems like its outside the scope of our current problem.
Hate to be the kaine simp here but the last thing he said was,
“We need the ZIP format to advance protocol upgrades”
Not saying we have to blindly follow him i just agree with what he has identified as the problem.
The team being interested in this or that is about assumption and should not matter. Never. They’re just signaling silence and we could as well assume they’re just hard at work and doing they’re thing, as usual.
Why vote by pillars “and public nodes” for spork? Couldn’t a supermajority of pillars just make a change of their own accord and bypass all of this anyway?
Isn’t governance by pillars outlined in white paper? Pillars should be invested parties who participate in the maintenance of the network. Is there anything to prevent a group of ZNN holders who feel underrepresented from getting together and erecting a pillar.
Sentinels’ role in the network is still undefined as I see it but their contribution is by definition less than that of a pillar. Maybe in the future these parameters can change depending…
No you’re totally right. I just remember that for the last spork kaine said public nodes had to upgrade their software for the fork to activate.
Iirc most public nodes are pillars anyways until sentinels go live.
But yeah I think for the sake of simplicity and also because they have the most skin in the game it should just be pillars. I’ll change it accordingly.
I think we should discuss the voting thresholds and who votes. To me it seems more clean for the Pillars to vote and use some weighting system based on delegation. If a delegator / ZNN holder does not like the Pillar’s vote, they can move to a new Pillar for their voice to be heard.
I do think we need to be careful allowing 29 or 30 pillars out of 80+ to fork the network. the Threshold can be a combination of delegation weight + number of pillars.
Pillars can and do self delegate large amounts and will thus significantly skew the effect you desire
delegators have proven not to care about governance. Their main concern is yield. Remember how many delegated to the passive pillars who never voted for AZ?
Not all ZIPs require activation by Pillars, hence other network participants should have a vote too