We’re aiming to solve this with a governance proposal that commits the interchain foundation to a specific set of policies, but the previous proposal really wasn’t fit, and didn’t have enough input. As can be seen in the document above, which is not a complete list of ICF delegates, but is a complete list of ICF delegates that match two conditions:
- ICF delegate
- sold 100% of commissions for a year
key to this proposal is to flip the narrative from delegation with sales of icf delegation permitted, to an endorsement model, so that those with delegations from the interchain foundation are subject to the market, like all validators
Context to this is available here:
But most important, is this:
That is what the interchain foundation endorses in a validator. Totally silent, no known code contributions, no governance participation and most importantly-- compliant. And who wouldn’t comply? The rewards are incredible. But we could flip this.
I’m putting Ignite out of scope for this document. Notionally speaking, their position seems to be that they’re a private company and not subject to the same stictures. Since the ICF delegation situation is genuinely bad, I’m taking action here first, but welcome defined commitments and poicies from aib/ignite/newtendermint.
---- Proposal Text with options
Vote YES to request that Gaia, mother of chains and cosmos, politely request that the interchain foundation follow the validator endorsement policy document found at [ipfs cid pending development of policy]
Vote NO to request that Gaia, mother of chains and cosmos, NOT request anything of the Interchain Foundation.
Vote ABSTAIN to express that you’ve no opinion on the matter of ICF validator endorsement policy.
Vote NoWithVeto to cause Notional to lose the deposit on this proposal and contribute to a tally that cancels this proposal if the NoWithVeto is over 33% at the end of voting.
The evaluation period is quarterly, to ensure that founding organizations do not delegate to validators who have overstepped boundaries, for example firestake. Should any validator take actions that are actively harmful to users, like firestake, both founding orgs are not required to wait until the evaluation period has completed to remove delegations, but if this is done, they should communicate the reasons for that:
- in this forum
- in the cosmos discord server
- on twitter, in a tweet tagging @cosmoshub and the other founding org
If an org doesn’t change delegations during an evaluation period, that is fine.
ICF loudly endorses all validators that they delegate to, and promise to never delegate to validators that they wouldn’t publicly endorse.
validator use of commissions from icf/ignite delegations
These commissions should be delegated by the endorsed validators, to themselves. This is a filter for long-term orientation, and to ensure that validators do not harm the hub community by using a founding org delegation as their sole source of delegation. Enforcement of this is delegated by the hub, to the hub’s community. Founding orgs are expected to reply to community concerns on this. This is to reduce their compliance time burden. This also economically reinforces intent: these are endorsements, not grants of money. Should a validator stop validating the hub, they could use earnings from their founding org delegation, so economic benefit could exist, but is very meaningfully deferred.
Validators who relay should be endorsed, and should also apply for an interchain foundation grant.
Notional, and historically several other validators, used to do unpaid software development work at GitHub - cosmos/gaia: Cosmos Hub . It is Notional’s view, as a validator who contributes software development work, that there absolutely should be a differential for validators who contribute to Gaia’s codebase, but not for their economic benefit. It is instead a signaling mechanism, reinforcing the intent of endorsement by the founding orgs.
Validators who contribute code to the cosmos hub can do things for Gaia that non-contributors cannot:
- participate directly in gaia’s design
- identify and fix bugs
- assist in emergencies
Therefore, the more VotePower that lies with them, the better. This can also create a better culture around software contributions generally-- whichever founding org happens to control GitHub - cosmos/gaia: Cosmos Hub recognizes that code contributions from validators are preferred.
Gaia decrees that there is presently a disincentive for validator’s to contribute code and demands that this be used as a key signaling mechanism in the determination of founding organization delegations.
Gaia envies osmosis. The founding individuals and orgs behind osmosis have created a friendly, fun environment for validators and Osmosis validators — any who attempt to, are actively and kindly assisted in learning even arcane aspects of osmosis code.
Good documentation is code, and that documentation should live in the same repository: GitHub - cosmos/gaia: Cosmos Hub
Reporting should be designed around reducing compliance burden. Reporting should be done using a spreadsheet that can only be edited by the founding org and should only be edited after a founding org has made adjustments to delegations. The ICF is proud of their future delegates and endorse them strongly as responsible validators. Endorsed validators participate in governance, and lose their endorsement after two successive missed governance proposals.
codes of conduct on software repositories
Need to be tuned so that there’s known individuals responsible for their enforcement. Otherwise, there’s wide scope for abuse. The contributors covenant is an awful document. The right code of conduct is just a sentence or two long and states clearly who enforces it.
I have proposed one, titled Jacobs tiny CoC. Unlike a big CoC, it respects that contributors have lives and differing points of view, while setting the tone for productive work between diverse groups.
validator pump airdrops
NFTs and token promises have been used to launch validators high into sets giving them the kind of control that can harm networks. Out of protocol payments by validators to delegators should not get delegations from icf.
We should take responsibility here. We love to go aggro on them but our users clearly love their services. We should make very sure that we are publicly guiding them towards successful outcomes, like the recent huobi proposal on evmos.
I think that is a very good second draft. Now I need help from the validators, founding orgs and community members concerned with gaias long term viability and meaningful decentralization to help me finish up.
In my second pass, I removed any mention of ignite and AIB, as well as some “flavor text”. I kept the section about Gaia envying osmosis because I think that osmosis development processes and validator relations are truly impressive and special.
By the way I did not get into numbers for the like what should the differential be if you’re a code contributor I have no idea how to quantify that and I’m going to try to roll it around in my head a bit before having another stab at it. Better than nothing though I think