Minor Modification to the Contribution Proposal System

During development of the Contribution Proposal System with the iBriz team, we decided to make a small change to how teams can participate in managing the contribution proposal system.

As opposed to snapshotting the top 22 P-Reps and forcing all Main P-Reps to participate in managing the CPS, we are instead allowing any P-Rep in the top 100 to register to manage the CPS. If you drop out of the top 100 you will not be able to participate until you are back in the top 100. The registration will be on-chain and recorded in the smart contract.

Also, since the CPS is smart contract layer and there is no bond currently, teams that miss a vote will be unregistered from the CPS and added to a blacklist. To be removed from the blacklist and re-register the node will need to pay a 2,500 ICX fine, which will be burned. However, there is no upfront cost to register and no bond requirement to register. The only requirement to register is to be in the top 100.

There are a few reasons to go this route:

  • We are trying to grow the main p-rep set over time and it seems a bit harsh to force all nodes on the network to participate in managing a decentralized grant fund
  • This is easier from a development standpoint
  • This is much more inclusive for those that want to participate and are not Main P-Reps
  • Should be more efficient since everybody that participates has chosen to participate
2 Likes

My suggestion was on having all preps since it’s vote weighted old way was disregard huge amount of voters.
While that change is great in a way that was going to be job for main preps considering vote weight. Maybe top 10 prep or some number like that should be forced to participate imo I just check over my phone foundation have 15.5 if you count preps under 30 70 prep total not making up to 15.5 with high ranking avoiding it can totally drop it to what foundation and station vote on

@Benny_Options Just 2 questions for now.

  1. With this new proposal it seems Main P-Rep are able to opt out of participating in the CPS, is that correct?

  2. Once a P-Rep registers are they able to unregister for participation without a penalty?

Happy to answer:

1.) Main P-Reps don’t actually opt-out in practice, because it’s actually an opt-in process. But yes the end result is the same, Main P-Reps do not need to run the CPS as a requirement by the network. No slashing or anything. But there is still mandatory governance for Network Proposals because these are essential to continue upgrading the network / economics over time.

2.) Good point here. We will include the ability to unregister with no penalty.

1 Like

I am curious why the task of managing the pool to main preps idea shelved? I am curious since mandatory governance for Network Proposals are literally dictated only one way.

mandatory governance for Network Proposals are literally dictated only one way

I’m not sure what you mean by this so can’t really comment, but if you try to explain again happy to offer a comment.

I am curious why the task of managing the pool to main preps idea shelved?

Here are the primary reasons as mentioned above. Let me know if you are confused about anything specific or would like me to expand:

  • We are trying to grow the main p-rep set over time and it seems a bit harsh to force all nodes on the network to participate in managing a decentralized grant fund
  • This is easier from a development standpoint
  • This is much more inclusive for those that want to participate and are not Main P-Reps
  • Should be more efficient since everybody that participates has chosen to participate

Yes and I was talking about including subs since cutting them out was not looking well considering their vote total and advertising people about spreading their votes. What I am saying is from the first plan and cutting a lot of element out the preps function become just running a node even though some subs are running node while having near to 0 functions. With the update, we enforce every sub into more commitment in every way considering under some point (as a ranking) it’s nowhere near feasible with server bill. While we are doing that nothing done for main preps that’s my point. What I mean by below quote is the governance proposals developed by the foundation and proposed. Main prep votes on it while at a core level the only action they take is creating a transaction to vote. I don’t expect all preps to audit what foundation did or review their code but in the end, the work is near to none.