Hey everyone,
I wanted to float the idea of making a change to the CPS so that validators elect a fund manager to make decisions on their behalf instead of doing all of the voting themselves. The fund manager would also create and promote RFPs.
At least initially, I would be the fund manager to establish cadence and how to operate, and then on some interval (ie bi-yearly or yearly), election takes place.
Here is my reasoning and perspective on why I am proposing this change:
- Validators role is to secure the network by confirming whether transactions are valid according to the rules of the network. Approving / rejecting proposals and progress reports is not associated with securing the network.
- I believe that allocating some of the ICX emissions to on-chain grants is at the very least an interesting idea, and can see why it is potentially a good idea. However, I feel that its potential is limited because the decision making power is open to an unrelated role and suffers from the pitfalls of design by committee.
- Proposals are open-ended, but in reality the ICON network has a very targeted set of goals. This became significantly moreso the case after the network proposal, Balanced Enshrinement for ICON, passed.
- Currently, the CPS has many voters involved but no unifying plan or vision. I believe that currently outcomes of the CPS are the responsibility of no-one and the ICON network would benefit if instead outcomes are the responsibility of a leader. I believe consensus makes sense in the context of validating a network but does not fit well in the context of managing a fund because network validation is decided on a closed set of rules whereas fund management is not.
- It would alleviate validators from having to review and vote for proposals and progress reports each month.
Validators that participate in the CPS, please let me know your thoughts.