I would choose representative democracy. It uses less resources, and is easier to manage.
My only concern is representative democracy is whether it makes them targets.
Can you qualify for more than one category?
I like where you were going with the Iroqois model.
Yes you can qualify for more than one category. No way to prevent it from happening. But note that you can’t both host a Znode and use the same funds for Zerocoin And mining is a completely separate venture. So if you do all of these, I think you deserve to be able to vote.
How about the core team ( Reuben, Poramin, Devs, etc ) hash out proposals against combination vote of miners and Znode holders for consensus which will be brought to a public vote for final approval only when both camps have agreed on the terms.
Ultimately any proposals brought forth by leadership and those invested in the network will be approved or denied by majority rule
Ideally Zcoin is not reliant on me, Poramin or our current set of devs. I do forsee that even past the 4 year mark, we are all playing a role and I hope to continue on as well but in a long term governance solution, it should not be based on any one entity. Or it can be voted in.
Again my worry is that by having ‘representative democracy’ where executive roles are elected in, it makes it more susceptible to censorship or hijacking.
However I am unsure if Zcoin and our community is ready to go full blown ‘let the community decide everything’ just yet. Definitely not right now and hopefully in another 2 years our community would be much bigger and vocal and more quality members like yourself too.
why is there so little people on this forum? the community needs to be much larger.
You need to get someone who can hype up the project. ie - the true believers.
What I am worried about is the leadership of this project. It needs to inspire confidence and it is not clearly inspiring when I see worry. There needs to be stronger leadership!!!
We’re only just started up the forum. It’s only 2 weeks old. These things take time to grow organically.
We have a large established community on many platforms, including Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Discord.
I like governance equal to decred do … I would like something to be created the type to decred
10% Dev Fund
Is this something we can start on the forums? Voting via the forums seems to fit all of Reuben’s criteria. Those who are interested will vote and be engaged and be able to discuss. Does it need to be on/in the wallet/chain?
I say yes because we want to make sure that voters actually have a stake in the project, i.e. hold XZC
This is the proportion I have in mind exactly interested to hear other thoughts! I’m a bit concerned to see what halving does to Znode numbers as well and mining hashrate.
Okay, I’ve finally had a chance to read the all comments and do some research to build up my own opinion.
My own personal views:
Although I love the Iroquois Confederacy idea, and think it’s genius I’m not sold on it being the best fit for Zcoin moving forward. In fact, I’m not sold on on-chain voting being the best way to move forward (for the foreseeable future)
- It is really complicated. In a protocol that is extremely complicated as it is just with the mandate of moving value privately without trusting a third party, adding on-chain voting into that mix just feels messy.
- The time frame isn’t long enough. There’s only 19 months until the halving. A new voting mechanism needs time to prove itself and harden.
- It opens new vectors for Zcoin to be attacked, compromised or over thrown, especially with the more complicated on-chain voting models.
I agree with @AubreyMaturin comment:
Centrally managed. The community has tremendous respect and trust in Reuben and the zcoin team. A centrally managed team can accomplish more, faster, and with tighter focus.
I think we should stick with what has been working so far. A centrally managed dev fund controlled by a team of experts.
A centrally managed dev is incentivized to create and keep the coins value high for the long term.
I think most user voting would result in very short term quick profit thinking (Maybe with the exception of Znode holders)
Open source project have a natural voting mechanism built into them. If the Zcoin team does a bad job or compromises Zcoin’s privacy in anyway, I have no doubt that a hard fork will quickly form.
In crypto, a lot of the times, it has to do with optics.
Many projects with no founder’s reward find other ways to enrich themselves, through secret premines, or getting in super early, or manipulating pumps through insider info. Founder’s reward are actually more honest but yet is frowned upon.
A good example of this is actually Grin, which claims to have been fairly launched but yet much of it was due to VCs pumping money into mining outfits (and overpaying for it) so they need to pump to protect their investment.
The same goes with governance. Most masternode voting systems are merely shams of governance and are centrally dictated. Even projects with no on-chain governance the devs that contribute the code effectively dictate almost everything (for e.g. the secret parameters for Cryptonight algorithm for Monero hard forks) and this will happen for most smaller projects.
However if we want to gain credibility, there has to be a mechanism to at least theoretically push the dev team out if we aren’t doing our job and keep us accountable. Also one of the allures of a cryptocurrency is that there is no need for central control, having an appointed ‘leader’ or team goes against this even if it’s more efficient. If it’s purely about efficiency, then we don’t need a blockchain
Also having central control also means a single point of failure. If we are compromised or forced to do something, having full control won’t be a good thing. This is why perhaps the founder of Bitcoin, Cryptonote (the tech behind Monero) and Mimblewimble choose to be anonymous.
Personally I hate politics and opening up funding for voting is always political and primed for manipulation. In fact, we have seen increasingly in this world that democracy can be a failure if populists strategies get hold.
The Iroquois confederacy model is indeed very complicated but perhaps it doesn’t have to be. I think there are two main categories of things to vote on:
Znodes vote on proposals and need to pass with the necessary votes/quorum
Zerocoin mint holders can veto. (still need to think how to do this since you can’t tell which mints have been spent or not).
For consensus changes:
Znodes votes on proposal and need to pass with necessary votes/quorum
Zerocoin mint holders need to vote as well and pass necessary votes/quorum. The amount of quorum is determined by the funds that are in the ‘burnt’ state. If enough quorum is formed and Zerocoin mint holders vote against the proposal, the proposal doesn’t go through. Likewise if quorum is formed and Zerocoin mint holders are in favour, it passes.
If Zerocoin mint holders quorum are not enough, the proposal is put again through the Znodes again to revote.
The amount of quorum for Zerocoin mints is reduced. Same process as before that will reject/approve. If still no quorum, however, the Znodes vote passes.
Miners are not given a say since their incentives may not be necessarily aligned and since we are using commodity hardware and not ASICS, we don’t want people to ‘rent’ power to shift the vote. Miners generally are there to make money and are providing a service rather than an actual ‘stake holder’
There will be rewards for voting to encourage voter participation.
To me this allows funding proposals to go through easier but is kept in check by the power of ordinary Zcoin holders to veto funding if it is bad. Consensus changes would need greater support from both parties but if there’s voter apathy there won’t be deadlock yet giving Zerocoin mint holders the power to keep the Znodes in check.
Now some might say, well won’t the Znodes still hold sway since they would have a lot of zcoin to mint? Znode holders have to choose to keep their znodes or to break them up to do zerocoin mints and then requalify again to make them into znodes. They can’t do both. It would also be very visible as well as you will see the Znode numbers drop and then the amount of mints go up. So technically, if someone had a lot of Znodes and money and they wanted to sway it, they can do it but will lose money in the process.
One way to possibly mitigate this is to invalidate the vote if the Znodes number drop a certain percentage pending the mint votes. Have to think through this more.
Being a long time supporter, and a former Dash user I definitely agree with all your points.
Here’s my view, partly based on what others have said as well:
After the founders reward is terminated:
- Setup a 6% dev fund. Centrally managed Zcoin foundation. To have a real goal and focus you need to have one leader with a vision, not a committee (although committee/community input is important), but all decisions should be centralized.
- Put the rest of the 8% to miners.
- Voting should cost something, otherwise anyone can just vote.
- Znodes should only be allowed to vote to break a tie.
The electoral college proposal…
Someone mentioned this in the thread, and it’s interesting. Here’s one way it could work:
Users use individual Znodes as a vote proxy. In order to participate, the znode owner has to register their public key, and tie it to a known identity, and publish it on the block chain. The znode user’s history will be available for all to see and they can post their voting position.
People can send messages as a vote to a specific znode public key. The more user votes a znode has, the more weight the znode carries.
Znode votes. The highest weighted znodes, with the greatest number of user votes will win.
This is a very rough brain fart.