ICF governance x cosmos hub constitution

Text is undergoing drafting here

ICF governance x cosmos hub constitution

Draft ICF Governance x Cosmos Hub Constitution We the Community of the Cosmos Hub, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish cohesion, ensure standardized IBC adoption, provide for the commons, promote and lead the general multichain thesis,...

Agreed. To add - orgs like AADAO’s members should also be approved by governance.

AADAO members were approved by governance.

So that’s kind of the thing everything is approved by governance, except of course for the things that are not approved by governance, which typically go through the ICF.

What I meant was… the members were pre decided. There wasn’t a choice or an open forum where people could apply.

That’s not really a problem.

See the thing is that group of predecided members they passed through governance. If people didn’t like it they had the opportunity to vote no. So I really don’t have a problem with how the members for AADAO were selected .

The rules that you’re describing would stop any self-selected group from putting up a governance proposal to fund their efforts, and I think that there is no need to dictate the individuals that people work with, particularly in a close knit group like a AADAO.

alijnmerchant21:

What I meant was… the members were pre decided. There wasn’t a choice or an open forum where people could apply.

Agree with this, for the dYdX grants program for example, both for the trustees and the grantors, it was required to make public applications on the forum. Then, there were votings by committees to select the trustees and grantors. It was not like someone came with his list of trustees and grantors already decided, without any public forum applications, as in the case of the AADAO. It doesn’t look professional or free from conflicts of interest to just pick by personal decision some grantors, this is not right, an application process similar to dYdX grants should be done, those interested to be grantors should present their application publicly in the forum, and the community could vote for the decentralized committee to evaluate and select the grantors/reviewers

Hmmmm

I’m beginning to understand

Hey we are discussing this and other accountability measures in this telegram:

CosmonautHQ

Cosmos Hub governance and policy discussions. We are committed to fostering an inclusive and diverse discursive environment. Invite Link: https://t.me/+hXY0su-fuhQwNzM1

Draft ICF Governance x Cosmos Hub Constitution We the Community of the Cosmos Hub, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish cohesion, ensure standardized IBC adoption, provide for the commons, promote and lead the general multichain thesis, and secure the free passage of liquidity to ourselves, our industry, and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Cosmos Hub. We the Community of the Cosmos Hub do form the true Foundation of our grassroots movement to properly and effectively steward the direction for the Cosmos Hub, Cosmos ecosystem, and deliver us to the promised land of a free and open Internet of Blockchains. [This is an open document that welcomes your input/feedback. None of it is concrete until sufficient thoughtful discussion has been had before processes/rules are ossified into the Official Constitution that should/will eventually be put immutably onchain.] Proposed Process: Voting/Passing Foundation Council Candidates: • Cosmos Hub stakers nominate some names for candidacy. Candidates will accept or reject (hopefully with rationale) before moving on to the next step of the voting process. • [OPTIONAL] Candidates can…

Excerpt (1193 of 9928 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@chjango , thank you so much. Dreams of a more perfect union. Let’s go. We urgently need: • transparent ICF governance; and enforce foundation accountability via hub governance • hub constitution Re: hub constitution, a solid starting framework for the constitution exists in code. Would be great to have a group begin transcribing the mechanistic reality of cosmos hub (in code) to English language, with elaboration of param logic when necessary. Re: ICF Governance The reason why Switzerland is a desirable domicile for foundations goes beyond tax reasons. Swiss foundations kinda have immutable and persistent attributes once created. It has no “owner/s” or “shareholders.” Once it exists, it’s mainly accountable to one thing – its charter. Even a founder has very limited rights once a foundation is established. I believe the ICF will use the relative immutability of its charter to resist our ask for changes . Non-trivial changes to charters are notoriously difficult to make. Amendments are allowed under rare and extreme circumstances – which is why Switzerland remains the preferred destination for marrying serious money with a serious mandate. While we do not…

Excerpt (1196 of 2969 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is something I can relay to Brian Crain and see what he responds with.

Good morning, I think that there is one other matter to relay to the foundation council:

Jacob Gadikian 🐳⚛️⚗️

Title: New Interchain Foundation Council Members to be “Confirmed” via Cosmos Hub Governance Type : Signaling Proposal Introduction : This proposal, collectively submitted by the Cosmos Hub community, is intended to introduce measures aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and community engagement within the primary governance organ of the Interchain Foundation (ICF), the Foundation Council (FC). Furthermore, this proposal seeks to institute a requirement for all prospective FC members to disclose their financial/commercial interests and report any known/potential conflicts of interest. Purpose : The purpose and objective of this proposal is to define a structured process by which any prospective member(s) seeking inclusion in the Foundation Council (FC) must undergo nomination facilitated by the FC itself. Subsequently, these nominees shall undergo a phase of public consideration, followed by formal confirmation via the governance mechanisms of the Cosmos Hub. By establishing a more participatory and transparent process, the community ensures that FC members are selected and evaluated with fairness and integrity. Additionally, the introduction of mandatory…

Excerpt (1195 of 4594 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Any fb for language above?
Anything need changing? Cause the little feedback received is “slam it on the chain.”

chjango:

Solving for the economic sustainability of running relayers. We should seriously be exploring charging fees for relaying IBC packets. Without solving this critical unsolved problem, it’s difficult to imagine a future where IBC becomes de facto standard.

Staking to run relay nodes to secure transport of transactions makes perfect sense. I suggest you look at the Solace Systems EDA Event Driven Archirecture as a baseline reference though to get things to scale and support multiple interfaces to existing pub/sub brokers like solace which are already in place supporting the biggest financial transaction systems in the world…, that creates an event stream market for COSMOS ATOM Relay Nodes among existing ISPs.

kr R2

It seems that solving relaying is rather simple. A given chain should introduce inflation rewards for (successful) relaying (easily measured on-chain) (reward pool capped per % of volume or something along the lines of it). This will create a competitive market, flowing more relayers to those chains that offer higher rewards and have stronger macros.

Relaying should become part of the logic of all cosmos chains and shouldn’t be left to voluntary validators individual decision, if cosmos is going to scale to thousands of chains or more we cannot have manual relay management.

If the relay node operators earn rewards and the validator nodes must have multiple relay nodes attached as a mandatory requirement, then it works, especially if the relay nodes also stake a reasonable fixed amount to operate and are subject to future earnings ‘slashings’ drop in rewards percentage for a period of time for poor performance and downtime.

If the poor performance persists the validator node affected publishes an IBC msg request broadcast for new relay nodes, which should also carry a reputation score for performance requirement and the node autoselects and connects on a First come First Connect basis.

aetherevm:

Relaying should become part of the logic of all cosmos chains and shouldn’t be left to voluntary validators individual decision, if cosmos is going to scale to thousands of chains or more we cannot have manual relay management.

I would suggest that you study ibc.

@jacobgadikian thank you for initializing this
Last comment posted Nov 2023 - late to the party.

Curious if this prop ever got resolved or what the current status is?

(edit) Sincerely,
a constitution enthusiast