My original understanding of ATOM2.0 after a brief convo was this: that the inflation’s 7% minimum bound would be removed, but that otherwise the 2/3 bonding ratio would be preserved. What I’m seeing here is WILDLY different. Inflation should stay below the dotted line.
2/3 of inflation, in the first year 70M ATOMs going to treasury is honestly ludicrous. We barely have an accountable/transparent ICF with a fraction of 2/3 x 70M in its treasury, let alone good DAO tooling for public funds management. The notion that any initial inflation will be offset by new deflationary mechanics is as faulty as a drug addict taking one final hit to “go out with a bang”. It’ll happen again & again.
Treasury DAO should have some requirements: it should be funded solely through the 2% tax (or by increasing that tax, or by donation). It should experimentally support multiple DAO frameworks built on various systems (inc. SDK/WASM/GNO based systems) over next 2+ years. In fact, the ICF should be the initial significant DONOR, as the ICF was created with a mandate to support Cosmos without regards for its own profit potential. Moving its own treasury to a chain DAO system should be the next step. To propose for more inflation rather than donating its own treasury is a breach of mandate IMO, or at least a failure to progress logically.
Any new inflation beyond the default inflation to target 2/3 bonded tokens should have to go through a higher bar; 2/3 should vote YES rather than 51%, the minimum quorum might be higher, the proposal should be a specially marked as an inflation proposal, and it should be a minimal proposal that sends new ATOMs to some treasury DAO or multisig. While we’re at it, the governance voting period should be extended if necessary to ensure sufficient time for voting after the quorum is met.
Liquid staking is really easy to solve minimally: simply allow the unbonding destination to be permanently set to any interchain address, esp one in a zone that supports smart contracts. That’s all the hub should do regarding liquid staking. Liquid staking somewhat usurps the point of bonded staking, and thus by nature its utility is limited.
Interchain staking should be the ATOM token’s SOLE revenue model, allowing “consumer zones” to be run on behalf of other projects. But no existing functionality should be affected by this final feature. For the hub to be viable as a hub, and to retain its Schelling point and identity, it should not compete with other chains/tokens that are maximalists for their tokens in their own way. Otherwise, those other projects will choose a different minimal hub.
Anything else should be a fork of the hub rather than a modification to the hub, or a new zone that might have ATOMs IBC transferred onto it. In general we should ALWAYS prefer forking (like http://gno.land independence day) or “budding” (new zones) over changing nature. Especially if it involves major tokenomics or functionality changes, it should first be proven in a zone before becoming integrated into the conservative hub. Litecoin proved that this is a viable model for a new chain. We should go further and make this the main path to innovation, and allow people to vote with IBC token transfers rather than force features upon everyone via governance.
Treasury DAOs should be judged based on how accountable and functional they are; “real” people should hold roles (1 person max 1 role) including possibly 1,2,3 executive roles, and be fired by the DAO’s oversight committee (or hub gov) for failing their job description.
The hub should not have any VM functionality, but be plainly implemented in a single garbage collected language as reference (namely Go; and other clients can implement it all in another language like Rust). See prop69 and gno.land independence-day.
New updates to the hub should be broken down into independent components and discussed/proposed separately with adequate time between, regardless of any omnibus whitepaper like ATOM2.0. There should even be some system of checks to ensure that proposals are well factored. Anything else will result in “pork barrel” corruption, which is how governments are corrupted today.
The salient points here (and from other proposers) should be drafted into an ATOM ONE constitution proposal to compete with or restrict the ATOM2.0 proposal. Please propose modifications or more points to be added in the comments below. ETA for proposal submission: 1~2 weeks.
(originally from Twitter: https://twitter.com/jaekwon/status/1576869177796620290)