Sub P-Reps not running a node vs. ICONstitution

Governance
#1

According to the ICONstitution, these are duties of a P-Rep:

Screenshot_2019-11-01%20ICON_Yellowpaper_ICONstitution_and_Governance_EN_V1%200%20pdf
Screenshot_2019-11-01%20ICON_Yellowpaper_ICONstitution_and_Governance_EN_V1%200%20pdf1029×315 35.9 KB

They’re discussed in more detail on page 14.

If the ICONstitution applies both to Main and Sub P-Reps, then Sub P-Reps not running a node are avoiding their duties. I suppose in that case they should be warned and requested to fix the situation either by setting up the node or deregistering if they do not plan to contribute. If none of those actions within a reasonable time frame would be taken, disqualification vote could take a place.

What do you think?

1 Like
#2

Main P-Reps should vote for their disqualification. If you are here and can’t even run a node with at least $20 per month than they should be warned and disqualified by main P-Reps.

#3

I totally agree that all P-Reps should run and take care of the nodes they are managing!
This is the first and most important step for each P-Reps to have a stable and secure node!.
If you missing step 1, then it is obvious that this P-Rep is not here to support and help ICON grow, but only expecting to benefit from it.

I understand the cost of running the servers we all need for our node to operate properly and I understand that this becomes not profitable for those P-Reps with not enough votes, but this is the role of all P-Rep to manage the cost of running the node and to put effort to bring their proposal in place and to convince people why they should vote for them.

This is a business like any other, so who is selling more is the winner! :grinning::v:

#4

From the beginning and still, our team has been very vocal and proactively bringing P-Rep disqualification proposal to the table. But I feel like the majority of the P-Reps are too lenient and avoid talking about it. Well, it’s time to bring P-Rep disqualification up again and this time I will register on-chain P-Rep disqualification proposals in next term and 66% of Top 22 just need to vote.

#5

I think we need longer time for these votes. 24 hour is mostly going to fail because of coordination or cause issues for important votes.

#6

please check my latest post It's time for action, the following P-Reps should be disqualified

#7

It’s tied to 1 term, because Main P-Reps can change with every new term.

#8

I know that’s why I wrote that comment. Also these voting being binded to terms doesn’t make sense. For i_rep value, only mains got calculated but for votes, sub-preps should be in it. Then why people vote for sub preps if they will not have any effect on governance. Right now every vote on sub preps equals to 0 if we consider 1 icx= 1 vote