The 0L Community recently concluded its first round of collaborative, decentralized strategic planning. Starting first with rounds of guided discussion on the RadicalxChange Voice platform, the process culminated with a set of eight proposals for community vote. In this blog post, we’re going to take a brief look at the contents of those proposals and reflect on the outcomes of the vote.
The Voting Process
Seven of the eight proposals gave voters a yes-or-no binary option for voting. The eighth proposal was comprised of four parts that needed to be voted on independently. The voting platform was RadicalxChange Voice, which gives all voters an equal amount of “credits”, which can be used to vote more than once for any proposal they feel strongly about, allowing them to express how committed they are to that result (note this factor is expressed below as “voting power” which expresses the total commitment of both positive and negative votes). Voters were not able to see the votes of the group as they cast their votes, and the voters could change their votes right up to the deadline.
Proposal 2210-01 Final Supply
Synopsis: Proposal 1022-01 is focused on stopping inflation within 0L, while creating a mechanism for funding ongoing validator incentives in the absence of issuance. There are three parts to the proposal: (1) stop issuance; (2) rebase the token; and (3) create and fund an Infrastructure Escrow community wallet to provide validator rewards. The proposal asks for a single vote on all three parts; the three parts are interconnected and dependent.
Voting Result: This proposal passed by the largest margin (+134) and also showed the largest commitment of voting power (1,036 credits). Looking at the raw numbers in the voting, this proposal received the largest total number of positive votes and the highest number of voters.
Comments: Clearly, this was the topic of greatest concern to the community. The large positive vote was a bit of a surprise given the complexity of this proposal (3 parts) and the significant impact it would have on the system’s tokenomics.
Proposal 2210-02 Proof of Fee
Synopsis: Proof of Fee could be used to partially replace 0L’s current security model by adding new economic guarantees.
Voting Result: Passed by a reasonable margin (+63) and received the second largest amount of voting power (579). A look at the raw data shows this proposal had the third-largest number of voters and received the largest number of negative votes.
Comments: This was a highly technical question that is primarily of interest to validators (existing or potential). The high levels of commitment, combined with the median result in the voting margin, shows that there were strong opposing opinions about this. The large number of negative votes also shows this to be one of the most divisive proposed changes to the network’s technical architecture.
Proposal 2210-03 Musical Chairs
Synopsis: Change the way the validator selection set is chosen so that performance and cost can be optimized in a competitive way..
Voting Result: Passed with the smallest margin of any of the full proposals (+61) and showed a moderate amount of commitment in terms of voting power (191). A look at the raw data shows this proposal had the second-highest number of negative votes.
Comments: Like proposal 1022-02, this proposal presents a highly technical question that is primarily of interest to validators (existing or potential). This passed, but by the smallest margin of the entire set of proposal, and with a significant number of negative votes, indicating that this proposal is likely the most controversial of the entire set.
Proposal 2210-04 Repurpose Carpe
Synopsis: Move the Carpe app away from building towers and use it for something else, maybe as an oracle for the network.
Voting Result: Passed by with a reasonable margin (+74), but showed the second lowest amount of commitment in terms of voting power of any of the proposals (306). A look at the raw data shows this proposal had the second highest number of voters.
Comments: A large number of voters with a low expenditure of voting power would indicate that while people had opinions on this proposal, they were not strongly held.
Proposal 2210-05 Revenue Binding Primitives
Synopsis: Tells the engineering team to make 0L protocol primitives that support a variety of payment functions that will be needed for future app development their top priority.
Voting Result: Passed by the second-largest margin (+85), but showed a relatively low amount of commitment in terms of voting power (335). A look at the raw data shows that there were no votes against this proposal, one of only two to pass without opposition.
Comments: A non-controversial proposal that advocates for building tooling, this proposal passed easily.
Proposal 2210-06 Faucets for Workers
Synopsis: Create faucet tooling for Community Wallets and others to create automated rewards.
Voting Result: Passed with the smallest margin of any of the full proposals (+36) and showed the lowest commitment of voting power of any of the proposals (191). A look at the raw data shows this proposal had no negative votes, one of only two to pass without opposition.
Comments: This proposal was non-controversial, but generated low engagement, suggesting that it is generally supported but not necessarily a top priority for the community.
Proposal 2210-07 Donor-Directed Community Wallets
Synopsis: Create better oversight of community wallets such that they are actually donor-directed, and have purpose-built multisignature features.
Voting Result: Passed with the third highest margin of any of the full proposals (+76) and showed a moderate amount of commitment in terms of voting power (354). A look at the raw data shows this proposal had only one negative vote.
Comments: The result here aligns with what we’ve been hearing in community conversations, namely, that community wallets, as designed, are underperforming and need to better support more complex governance.
Proposal 2210-08 Infrastructure Escrow Fund
Synopsis: This proposal asked voters to indicate how they wished the cost of the Infrastructure Escrow Fund to be allocated among the existing wallet holders. Voters could vote for, or against, charging each of four categories: Validators, Community Wallets, Carpe Miners, or Basic Wallet Holders.
- Validators: +67 (487 commitments)
- Community Wallets: +58 (446 commitments)
- Carpe Miners: +1 (147 commitments)
- Basic Wallet Holders: 0 (156 commitments)
Comments: There is a clear and strong preference for diluting the Validators and Community Wallets. The results of this vote will be used to create the formula used for diluting all the wallet holders, a process needed to implement the Infrastructure Escrow Fund (as per Proposal 1022-1 Final Supply).
Where do we go from here?
It is important to note that all the proposals presented in this process were signaling proposals, that is, they were created to help define consensus and formulate direction and strategy for the network. None of the proposals resulted in immediate changes to the network, either online or offline. Rather, these proposals form the basis for taking further action to accomplish the strategic goals defined by this vote. Given that, it is hard to categorize any of these proposals as winners or losers; rather, they all served as indicators of future direction and required significant additional effort from the community.
Stepping back a moment and looking at the sum of the proposals on the slate:
- Despite some controversy displayed in the discussions around the Final Supply proposal (Proposal 2210-01), the vote revealed a clear mandate to move forward. The proposal was sweeping in its proposed changes and included (1) stopping issuance, (2) rebasing the token, and (3) creating the Infrastructure Escrow Fund. Implementing these changes would represent a significant change in direction for the tokenomics of the project. This is our strongest indication of direction from the community and therefore deserves to be prioritized.
- Given the results of the votes on the four parts of the Infrastructure Escrow Fund (Proposal 1022-08), the re-basing should result almost exclusively in the dilution of Validators and Community Wallets, with only a token contribution coming from the Carpe Miners. Basic Wallet holders (i.e., workers, other token holders) would not be impacted.
- Two of the proposals aimed squarely at our validator operations, Proof of Fee (1022-02) and Musical Chairs (1022-03), gave us more ambiguous results and better reflected the divided discussions that occurred in the run-up to the vote. Though both of these changes passed, it seems clear that there should be further discussion and perhaps refinement of these proposals to achieve better consensus.
- The question of what to do with the Carpe app in light of the changes proposed above also remains open. While the proposal to repurpose Carpe (1022-04) passed, it showed a lack of commitment, which may reflect the fact that while the community recognizes that Carpe has value and that we should do something with it, no one is exactly sure what the best course of action is for the future of the app.
- The remaining three proposals (Revenue Binding Primitives, Faucets for Workers, and Donor Directed Community Wallets), were all non-controversial, and the results were consistent with that. The low levels of commitment on proposals 1022-05 and 1022-06 would indicate that these matters, while non-controversial, are also not priorities. In contrast, the higher levels of engagement on 1022-07 (Donor-Directed Community Wallets), would indicate that this proposal should be moved forward more quickly.
At the end of all this, the answer to the question “where do we go from here?” depends on whether the individual members of our community can move forward with collaborative action. The successful completion of this community strategy development process, while meaningful, is all for naught if the community does not step up and commit the resources needed to operationalize the strategy.