For me this is the highest priority item here, is dealing with the multi-signature situation.
I think that tomorrow I should be able to have a forum post up that does that and I also just want to let everybody know that whatever governance decides governance decides and that that is okay.
For whatever reason, it has been presented to the community that 104 is half of notional’s income and well it is simply not in fact it is I believe below 20%. It’s a cool proposal, I want to keep working on it because I really like the hub but if the community would not like to see our team working on it we should follow the communities wishes
Can you show me PRs that have been actively merged as a result of proposal 104?
Or relevant issues?
And something I also would like to know is who was working on proposal 104? Was it you or your team?
So it sounds like you assigned the work to other people? Or how did that work?
Something I would like to add to this discussion are the Notional transparency reports, which I found after Lit sent me them:
I looked at the linked PRs and mostly found PRs of version updates, Dockerfile updates, etc.
While thinking about the situation I was wondering, why didn’t Notional create a patch for P2P-Storm?
There are multiple keys involved here. Because we are talking about the wallet keys here, not the validator key.
In theory a key is linked to the person. At least that’s the case with personal wallets. Now are these wallets the personal wlalets of these people or wlalets tied to their position at Notional. Latter would raise the question why there was a multisig in the first place. If the company can just claim these keys back.
Well other thing that I’d like to let you know is that I don’t actually think that @jtremback I really meant for this particular proposal to be a ton of code and quite frankly neither did I.
The only time that we would like to write tons of code as a part of 104 is chain upgrades.
Additionally, Felix due to the fact that you have for a very long time been contributing to Cosmo security, as we go through this redesign give your thoughts. I Don’t necessarily see a problem Even was involving you in it from a payment perspective let me get into that you are the discover P2P storms, but definitely of banana King and that’s freaking amazing.
So if it’s something that interests you, along the way of this formulation, I would like to cordially invite you to participate in like the next version of 104.
The final thing that I would like to make clear with you is that I think that in its current state, given that KVL wish to leave notional, we can safely say that 104 at least from a key management perspective is quite broken.
Thank you so much for your feedback and contributions over time
We wrote the entire IBC version 8, with the exception of the field length limitations and a couple of other quality of life improvements and I would say that for this period of time that is our largest contribution. You might want to check out the code comparison for the PR that brings IBC current. It is in my opinion very large and important.
I mean I guess that you do I’m going to just treat this like you’re not being facetious and I’m going to ask my colleague Robin to provide you with the necessary information to prove conclusively that that’s simply is not the case.
yeah and also the lead engineer of Dig rebirth, of Eve, of Danger Zone, what else?
you should re read 104.
this whole thing is a joke. i have respect for Jacob even if we often disagree, but here now, you’re clinging to this funding in a way it’s like you just say fck to the community.
We have voted YES on Prop 860, on the basis that the funds need to go to a new wallet due to 3/5 of the multisig departing Notional. We do NOT see it as Notional or @jacobgadikian being delinquent in duties.
They have a contract with the Cosmoshub and should be given ample opportunity to succeed or fail on their own terms. The multisig members (and co) departing Notional does not nullify the contract.
edit: extrapolating a bit, regardless of the departing employees feelings on the matter (whether they’re willing to continue to act as multisig signers), from a liability perspective that’d put them in a gray area and I’d bet their lawyers would absolutely not support continued multisig membership.
It needs to of course go from the multisig → community pool. And even assuming this signalling prop forces 3 of the multisig to sign a transaction, can the tokens in vesting be moved in such a transaction?
Thought the whole point of the vesting function is that the tokens can be staked - no movement allowed?
No, mintscan isn‘t ideal to check that. Because it only shows the initial vesting amount (and the parameters used to start the vesting) but not the current state.
This requires a software update proposal. Because even if all multisig participant would want they wouldn‘t be able to do.
Because unvested coins are not transferable. I guess we would need some sort of state update. I am not sure how to completely implement it though.
If this goes through, what I think it will given Notional itself recommends to vote yes, I will open a Github issue for this. And then we will see there how this gets executed
