[DISCONTINUED PROPOSAL] Direct the founding orgs delegation policy via governance

Context to this is available here: ICF Harming Gaia Competitiveness Conversation Hi I just wanted to drop in with a quick update, Here is a document listing interchain foundation delegates who sell 100% of atoms earned for over a year I find it incredibly interesting that instead of an apology and recognition, I continue to be criticized as a loose cannon and rude by individuals who are paid directly or indirectly by the interchain foundation. In fact, I don’t think anybody else has questioned this information. But most important, is this: mintscan.io Mintscan Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. 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. Ah I wouldn’t because I like cosmos. the goal of this proposal is for Gaia (the cosmos hub) to direct the cosmos founding orgs— allinbits and the interchain foundation to have an effective and sensible policy on delegations to validators. I am seeking…

Excerpt (1199 of 7890 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I largely agree with the intention behind this proposal.

1. Interchain security is a huge driver of excitement for Cosmos, and yet the Nakamoto coefficient of Cosmos is low: nakaflow [dot] io (unfortunately I can’t link yet). Having a delegation program should consider this, and likely would aid in making it more reasonable. For reference - the larger the value, the better.

2. Setting clear expectations for how validators can contribute, and therefore be “rewarded,” is a good thing. People want to contribute, but don’t know how - why not make it more clear?

3. I believe IBC Relayers should absolutely be rewarded in some fashion.

My cardinal push back for the proposal as-is would be on the monthly iterations. That’s too often, I’d advocate for quarterly.

Thank you so much for your thoughts.

I’m good to agree to quarterly, especially as this is the first interaction from a validator-- and because I genuinely want to keep the reporting burden as low as possible and quarterly will reduce it.

Regarding relaying, given the expense of the task, I agree. do you have any specific recommendations on what policy for a relaying differential might look like?

Pls keep in mind the reality that all validators shouldn’t relay unless we fix the bits that would reject duplicate transactions, in which case it won’t bloat the chain.

I’ve updated the document to reflect quarterly, and thank you so much for your contribution to the design.

Due to feedback from

https://twitter.com/krisis2021

I am no longer going to make a separate gov prop requesting payment.

This is now entirely about service to Gaia, the mother of chains.

I believe you absolutely should still pursue funding for work done, however I do agree with Kobos that it diluted the message of this proposal.

I was worried about that and that is why I have now changed it. And thank you so much for your feedback, lavender five aka “the bee validator team” whom notional endorses strongly and Kobos the Twitter user (who… I mean he is complicated but nonetheless loved) are now literally the only ones. Honestly I wish that was surprising.

NB:

2/175 validators
1 community member
0 founding orgs

Yeah I’m aware they’re both powerful in cosmos, have lots of stake and lots of connections

But honestly the value of words matters to me

Sure I shouldn’t get hurt doing this

But I’m sure I already have been because I dare tell folks my opinion.

Otherwise how to explain Pull requests · cosmos/gaia · GitHub

Interesting thread and o so necessary.
Delegations from projects are very much required to be transparent and adding value to a project. They are not something to be given away for free.

I have been following BitCanna for a while and they have a clear distinction who is getting a delegation, the size and the why (docs.bitcanna [dot] io/token-chain-parameters/validator-incentive-program).

One thing to add in this draft is that adding value for a project does not only come from the technical perspective. Running relayers, adding code are needed, but so is participating in governance discussions, helping the community out and raising brand awareness. If something like that can be added in the proposal then it would become a lot stronger imo

Thanks so much Lenoor.

Do you think that you can suggest draft text?

I’ve … I strongly suspect I’ve been retaliated against already on this and am kinda tired out. BTW I should introduce you some as I hope that you end up as a cosmos hub validator soon.

Letter%20to%20the%20cosmos%20ecosystem%20concerning%20the%20care%20and%20maintenance%20of%20the%20cosmos%20hub.pdf

3.34 MB

Lenoor is one of the most participatory osmosis validator’s. She works on governance very consistently, and was behind the badly needed proposal 191 which of course would not solve the cosmos James problems, but if the cosmos hub had somebody working as tirelessly as Lenoor, I think things would go better.

She is also a nurse and powerful advocate for cannabis as medicine. As I understand it, she follows a common pattern in validator teams-- Lenoor is doing a great deal of gov and outreach work, and has a technical partner-- her “Cryptoman” – running the nodes directly.

I’ll print your draft letter and read it carefully.

I’ll get back on it. I very much love the whole Cosmos-ecosystem, with the value adding projects as well as the necessary shitcoins for a healthy Cosmoverse. (and yes, we have been thinking on running a Cosmos validator as well, but I am a bit scared of the required investment to get into the active set. I don’t have 33k+ ATOM lying around lol)

Leonoor and myself are not the powerful coders as some other validators are, but we can contribute on other fields. Having a nice mix between (let’s put it bluntly) nerds and people who are able to glue communities together makes us stronger in the end.

Let’s see where we can take this.
I think team delegations are a nice way of rewarding validators who add value to a project, without having to spend funds destined for development of a project. But delegations have to be done properly in the end with a clear set of guidelines and they must abide to that. No politics involved, just pure business-view on how things work out.

totally agree with the standpoint that code isn’t everything.

Look at cryptocito.

Just my opinion, I think there should be separated roles here: Network Validator, Developer, and Community Contributors. These roles might overlap on one entity, but benefits from the network to them should be separated. A validator participates in running PoS consensus and validating blocks. He/she is rewarded by block rewards and transaction fees from the network. That’s it. Whether a validator is more favored than another is depending on delegators. Whatever you do for your delegator to make them like you and trust your service, you do that. It is marketing. A developer contributes code. An open-source project welcomes contributions from developers. How they are rewarded is, unfortunately, not clear and people are free to do whatever they want. There are lead developers for a project to make sure things don’t turn into chaos. But whatever it is, there is no guarantee that the code contribution is rewarded by any mean. If you contribute code to Gaia, of course you will have edge in marketing for your validator. Interchain Foundation have their own rules and decision to encourage people through their grants. I don’t know if they have rules about delegating to validators, but…

Excerpt (1198 of 2206 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

There are a number of problems with this proposal including lack of participation from either founding organization. More worrying is what’s been discovered mintscan.io Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. mintscan.io Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. mintscan.io Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. I feel like stuff like this is so easily solved by setting policy. I don’t have issues with icf writ large, please let’s be nuanced. Seems to me that their delegation policies harm the value of the atom token. Harm to Value happens in a few ways, first of all there’s just direct sales that lower price. Second, unique in cosmos, the hub doesn’t use its validators to any strategic end. I think that for now I’m going to take the original proposal and remove most of it. Please keep in mind that this is ultimately…

Excerpt (1185 of 1865 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I am pretty confused. I am only discussing in the context of the proposal your wrote above that:

1. Delegation is purely a decision of the delegator. Whether the delegator is a representative of a community of not, they have their rules.
2. Code contribution doesn’t always mean you are rewarded. It is open-source world. Apply for grant or something. Contributing to a good project gives good reputation and that alone can be used in a lot of other places.

The current proposal has too many side information that is not really confirmed by any reputable third parties so it WILL create confusion / FUD for readers. If you only focus on writing the policy for the interchain foundation delegation policy as in the proposal title, it will be much better. But again, I am not sure whether the ICF “has to” follow ATOM holder governance or not. Do they ?

Clarity and process around delegation grants on cosmos hub is needed. I think projects like UMEE and Osmosis have done a great job standardizing strategic delegations. I don’t understand why `validator use of commissions from icf/ignite delegations` needs to be dictated by any proposal. validator use of commissions from icf/ignite delegations These commissions should be redelegated by the 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. It is really up to the validator and their company how those commissions should be used. If a validator has 1 million ATOM in delegations from other…

Excerpt (1194 of 2410 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why would I want a grant of atoms when it’s value is being undercut by the foundation that is supposed to support its growth and value?

These are primary issues.

Thank you, so I just wanna make sure that you believe that the following information represents false hoods:

Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.

A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It's the all-in-one workspace for you and your team

Just like the lead of the Gaia repository, you are saying that I am distributing fear uncertainty and doubt and inaccurate information.

what is inaccurate about the above document?

Please if you find any in accuracies whatsoever do not hesitate to let me know and I will check and wetogether will make it more accurate.

Hi I just want to let you know that I appreciate your participation in this conversation and that I fully agree with you that it is 100% up to the validator what they do with their commissions. This entire discussion is about problems with a delegator. It is also an invitation to ignite to be more transparent. The reason that I took the approach of making a governance proposal, and I must say that I am in fact going to retire this governance proposal in favor of one that attempts to define what a validator should do, is that there have been six months of empty promises about allegations and I have been repeatedly told that these conversations are best had in private and I do not agree with that point of you. I believe that forcing these conversations into private spaces, when the information is publicly available to anybody willing to take the time and energy to put it together, increases the likelihood that the situation will continue, reduces transparency and causes difficulty holding the foundation accountable. Ignite was mentioned in this proposal as an invitation. I am actually not aware of any egregious issues there, the way that we can easily find if we do even a cursory…

Excerpt (1198 of 1611 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

There is only one chain in Cosmos where people are arguing that these roles should be separated, and that is the Cosmos hub. Additionally, there is only one chain and Cosmos where there is no strategy around delegations. Additionally, there is only one chain in Cosmos where the foundation does not care about governance participation by validator‘s. That is the cosmos hub.

One thing that I do not understand is if I am wrong, or the ICF is highly content with their choices, Then why are they not here right now telling us how great their delegate choices truly are. Aren’t they proud of them?

Hi Jacob. My name is Maria Gomez. I work at the ICF.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to come up with this proposal. We are working on the ICF delegation policy. I know this has been said already and I understand your frustration. But, we hope to be able to share some information in this regard soon. We will take the opportunity to take into account your input. We may not be able to incorporate it all but we will explain/ground our position. Thank you again.

Hi, what I was really looking for was your input and participation My input was just my spitballing my ideas resulting in contributing infinitely more to this than the interchain foundation has in the previous year because there’s been nothing literally zero

Initial input here from myself: It seems to me that issues are arising throughout the Cosmos where transparency is lacking. Everyone looks to the Cosmos as leaders in the space and at this moment, a strong stance for clarity and transparent policy must be established. As validators, it’s very confusing to see a delegation to a validator which has no security contact, website or discernible history in the space. It is equally frustrating to see jailed validators with significant network stake retaining their delegation. I’m certain that the ICF is a large vessel which moves slowly and carefully (and perhaps that’s a feature and not a bug), however this is something which has been discussed for many many months now. If immediate action isn’t possible, we need to at least understand the ICF’s intention to solve, so we can discuss it. Cosmos Hub should be a bastion of hope for decentralization and transparency, and that must be absolutely evident in the public eye if Cosmos is to succeed through Interchain Security. We do agree that delegations for coders is an imperative initiative, as we must encourage a community of builders. Jacob is only one example - but a great one.…

Excerpt (1197 of 2240 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Noob question: Is the community and users funding the ICF and/or the grants? (i.e. with fees)

If true, I would say those funds should be spent with consensus of the community.
If false, then it’s just some people’s money, and I don’t really have a say on that. IMHO.

This is a nice topic showing where we as Cosmos-ecosystem can improve. As ecosystem where interoperability is already a standard, each project can have its own chain to be able to determine how they want it to work and all the freedom and cooperation which exists we are in the driversseat in terms of becoming one of THE ecosystems of the future. Along with that potential comes the “responsibility” to live up to the intentions why blockchain was started in the first place; namely transparency, control over your own funds and decentralisation. On all fields we can improve. Some chains already show that when shit hits the fan your funds are not necessarily your funds anymore. Decentralisation is a topic discussed by other initiatives. For this specific discussion I think it is best to focus on the transparency part, since that also limits the pros and cons. With respect to the validator commissions I agree with the majority here. What a validator does with the commission is something to be decided by the validator her- or himself. But with respect to transparency how commissions are distributed is desired / a must-have. But is must also be actively managed. Remove…

Excerpt (1189 of 1829 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗