Summary
As recent events have shown, the current governance model has proven to have a misconception on how a real decentralized system is supposed to work .
The current structure has a large number of validators (150 by the time this proposal was written), but only four of them control more than 41% of it.
While the system appears highly centralized, it is clear that there is no leadership neither a management group who could give a clear direction for future goals.
In order to fix the highlighted above paradoxes, that is, to have a small group of validators controlling the blockchain, and a community which seems not to be really aware of what proposal-votes are about,
*it is proposed*:
to establish a “Validators chamber”, an assembly in which existing validators participate.
------------------------------------------------Validators Chamber Articles----------------------------------------
- Art. 1
The Validators Chamber is a closed public space on which validators having voting power above 0,11% are entitled to access and vote -currently 50 validators out of 130-.
The Validators Chamber takes place in a special section of the portal “Classic agora terra money”.
Everyone can have access as a viewer. However, only those validators that exceed the threshold of 0,11% can be entitled to participate actively in it. The validators admitted to the room, accept and undertake to respect all the constitutive articles mentioned here.
- Art.2
The Validators Chamber evaluates and gives a “binding opinion” on all the proposals having as object:
- changes in the current burning/minting system;
- USTC repeg
- merging/hard forks;
The Community is always entitled to reserve additional matters as well as to remove some, without obligation of prior opinion by the Chamber itself.
- Art. 3
The Chamber expresses on all the proposals submitted by the Community on any reserved subjects mentioned in Art.2.
Each validator, as a member of the Chamber, can express it’s personal will through voting power. The voting power inside the Chamber is quantified on a criterion “per head”: each validator admitted to the Chamber counts “as one”.
The deliberative quorum shall be calculated on the basis of a simple majority expressed on the number of voters. Abstentions therefore do not participate in the establishment of the quorum.
- Art. 4
Validators belonging to the Chamber shall issue a prior opinion on all proposals relating to the reserved subjects. Only with the favourable opinion of the Chamber of Validators, proposals on reserved matters can be then submitted to the Community will.
- Art. 5
All proposals concerning reserved subjects that have not previously received a positive opinion from the Chamber -eventually, also those coming from members of the Chamber itself- must receive a “No with veto” from all the members belonging to the Chamber.
Serious failure by one or more validators to this rule will automatically lead to the exclusion of that validator from the Chamber, for a period of one year.
Serious failure shall mean:
- any vote other than “no with veto”;
- failure to vote on proposals which have then passed, if it is proved that the validator’s veto would have prevented the adoption of the proposal.
- Art. 6
Validators admitted to the chamber might designate one or more subject to filter all the proposals on reserved matters.
The individuals designated by the Chamber must have requirements of integrity, professionalism and competence. Individuals appointed by the Chamber may receive an appropriate compensation, if the Community agrees on it.
The Community, as well as the Chamber, can always remove for any reason the individuals entitled to filter the proposals.
The exclusion proposed and voted by the Community inhibits the re-election for the following 3 years.
The exclusion proposed and voted by the Chamber inhibits the re-election for the following year.
- Art.7
The chamber designates its own President.
The President is not allowed to be a validator nor a subject directly or indirectly connected to one of them – also considering those validators not admitted ex Art.1. The violation of this constraint causes the President to lose his office, and the validator to be excluded by the Chamber -if member of it.
The President shall remain in office for one year, at the end of which he may be re-elected without mandate limits. In the event of prior revocation by the Chamber or in case of resignations, the President may no longer be appointed for the following year.
The Community can always vote to revoke the president’s mandate. The exclusion proposed and voted by the Community inhibits his/her re-election for the following 5 years.
The President shall be appointed in accordance with the same criteria as those laid down in Article 3.
The President can receive an appropriate compensation for the work done, if the Community agrees on it.
The President must:
- encourage discussion on the proposals accepted and submitted to the Chamber;
- establish a deadline for each validator to gather information and any legal/technical opinion before calling the vote;
- call the vote.
- prepare a governance proposal on which the Community will express itself.
-
Art.8
In cases of extraordinary emergency, the Chamber may vote directly on matters deemed to be of extreme urgency, without setting a minimum period for debates.
In cases of extraordinary emergency, through the binding opinion of the President and the subjects responsible for the prior assessment, any proposal on reserved subjects can be immediately submitted to the Community will. -
Art.9
The Chamber can be equipped with any other internal rule not in conflict with the previous articles.
The Community shall request the suspension at any time of those internal rules deemed to be ineligible.
- Art.10
Any change to these articles shall be approved by the community.
Pros
-
The introduction of Chamber aims to protect the collective interest in the presence of malicious actors who could significantly influence the Community. The Chamber is a safeguard and should not be understood as a place where to centralize power. By introducing so far reserved subjects, drastic changes which might cause serious damage are unlikely to happen.
-
The indication of a President and of one or more subjects who may filter all incoming proposals stimulates the formation of leadership and of a management group of people.
-
Compared with the actual influence some validators have, this new mechanism aims to make the decision process quite more balanced and fair.
Cons
- This new mechanism could slow down the decision-making process and the reactive power of the Community in front of sudden market upheavals.
Any suggestion or comment will be very appreciated.
Also, any lexical improvement is highly appreciated, not being English my native language.
P.
