I propose there to be a formal collective established within the LUNC validator set. The objective of this validator collective would be to discuss and provide public opinion upon each proposal.
The workflow would work in the following manner.
-
Proposal is submitted to “purgatory” within Tera Station - It is during this time (first 7 days) validators of the collective must hold private internal discussion circles.
-
There would be 10 discussion circles with 10-13 random validators in each circle.
- Discussion circles would be hosted by a rotating set of validators who have opted in to the collective. Discussion circle Host would rotate by sets of 10 on a per proposal basis and in order of voting power, from highest to lowest.
- The validators in the active rotation who lead the 10 discussion circles would then be Co-host in a chain wide internal validator discussion group. The Host of the chain wide internal discussion would be the writer of the subject proposal (or representative).
- During this chain wide internal discussion the 10 active set of rotating validators would voice the narrative of their individual circle discussions. There would then be opportunity for the remaining collective of validators to voice their individual thoughts. This prevents any miss representation by the 10 rotating co-host.
-
The 10 validators (host of the circles and co-host of chain wide internal discussion) would rotate upon each proposal. This will ensure no bias/manipulative activity within meeting circles, promote equality throughout the validators list, and encourage unity through collective discussion.
-
Upon completion of chain wide discussion the writer of the subject proposal can choose to modify based on validator feedback or choose to move forward with a public AMA and make no change.
- If they chose to modify, re-writes must be done within 5 days and resubmitted to purgatory - for every day past this 5 day threshold the writer pays a 5% fee based on the proposal fee cost structure. This ensures an expeditious flow of proposal governance. If the writer chooses to withdraw due to not being able to adhere to the 5 day window they must pay a 25% withdrawal fee equal to the cost of proposal submission. - All fees are paid into the oracle pool.
-
-
Once the validators have held their 2 internal discussions, the writer of the proposal (or representative) is to host a public AMA on their platform of choice. This AMA is made up of One Host (The writer of the proposal) and 10 co-host (The current set of rotating validators).
- The public AMA is processed in this fashion; The host presents the proposal → each of the 10 validators are given 2 minutes to voices their positions/recommendations → It then opens up to a 20 min max open discussion within the validator set and host → Upon this 20min set ending the AMA is opened to the public → each validator as co-host may bring 1 speaker to the panel to ask a maximum of 2 questions, the speaker is not removed until the co-host which brought them up feels as though their questions are effectively responded to, this prevents underdeveloped responses from happening→ Upon all ten speakers having the floor the 10 co-host make any closing remarks. → Public AMA ends.
-
It is at this point the writer of the subject proposal can choose to move out of purgatory and into an active vote or retract their proposal from Terra Station altogether. They have 72 hours to make this decision. If they fail to make a decision the proposal will by default be removed from Terra Station.
- If they decide to retract or fail to move the proposal into vote for any reason they forfeit 50% of the fee to the oracle pool.
- If they choose to resubmit after retraction or removal, the proposal begins at the beginning of the process.
-
Conditions for quorum and passing of vote, and veto remain the same.
Note: If a validator fails to be involved in the process when it is their rotation, it is noted within their profile engagement log - similar to the vote log. If they fail to engage during their rotation their duties are passed to the next validator in line, in order of voting power. Validators are not mandated but encouraged as their involvement will empower their voice. The workflow however is manded and would be a structural change to the proposal submission process.
Establishment Of The Collective
The validator collective would be formed on an opt-in basis and entry would be open to the entire chain. There would be a recurring 6 month timeline where validators can opt-in if they haven’t done so prior. Any new validators would fall in line to the collective set in order of voting power. Any validators who opt to not participate will not be included in the validator meetings.
Public Monitoring
A list of the validator collective would be published in terra station and the current active set would be highlighted.
Benefits Of This Process
- Opportunity for validators to provide opinion via mass public AMA
- Creates opportunity for proposals to be better developed through collective feedback
- Empowers the community to make a better informed vote
- Creates opportunity for unity and collaboration within the community
- Streamlines the proposal process through an enhanced process
- Symbolizes a controlled structure to investor base
- Potential to eliminate all spam proposals
Development Requirements
Changes to the proposal process would have to be made within terra-station. This is to accommodate the purgatory process and execute smart contracts based on prior mentions of delinquency or retraction fee structures.Preformatted text
