I 100% encourage this initiative. We should definitely find a fast solution to having no financial incentives for builders in the ecosystem when every ecosystem is inflating non-stop, running low float/high FDV scams, and managing to suck up all the talent pool and attention. I think the elephant in the room is CKB price in and its volatility, we’re talking about an inflation which is equivalent to 5min implied volatility and doesn’t hurt decentralization from a node requirement POV. Tbh it feels like the whole discussion about decentralizing the treasury is premature optimization that’s more likely going to hurt than not and waste precious dev time that could be used elsewhere. Ethereum’s ecosystem is 1000x bigger and they still have the foundation basically using the equivalent of this treasury with ICO tokens. We could just use similar design and the day where the ecosystem is mature enough we go back to a burn model with the ecosystem acting as a treasury. Transparency matters more than decentralization IMO.
That’s the current system we have, but I think there would be some pretty complex regulatory issues with the Secondary Issuance being used in the same way as the ICO tokens, controlled by the Foundation or any other organisation.
I agree though, that it would be way easier and probably even way more productive to just let the Foundation manage the secondary issuance in the beginning and distribute funding to the DAO/s, but I just don’t think that’s possible.
fyi Ethereum Foundation aspires to what we are doing here.
Decentralization doesn’t matter, until one day it becomes of the utmost importance, I hope you can understand this.
我同意。至少应该有不同的轨道同时进行，nervos dao treasury治理显然很重要，但它应该是远期目标，中短期需要有其他dao做事情，不应该干巴巴等着。如果没有其他dao的治理经验，nervos dao treasury治理也很难让人有信心。
I do understand this and it’s why I am here and not in some other forum. But I am also pragmatic and I believe this is premature optimization in this case because the worst case scenario is the foundation gets “captured” and someone makes money off of the emissions, this is even better on PoW vs PoS chain like Ethereum where holding the token allows you to participate in consensus. Decentralizing the treasury could be as easy as killing it/switch back to burn letting the ecosystem handle itself without emissions when it’s actually profiting from the chain and the incentives are aligned. I see the treasury more as a bootstrapping mechanism than something that should exist long term. We can save the smart solutions and decentralization for where it’s actually needed, which is clearly the case already and that’s what makes Nervos special, and just have a pragmatic solution which is to just go ahead and spend money on good projects instead of giving a measly 24k$ to ideas that can be easily funded for millions elsewhere (assuming they could be built there). Maybe there’s something I am missing but this seems just like a smart solution for a non existing problem. I’d rather have some more developed argument than “We are decentralized and Ethereum wants to be like us”. It should be more like “These ecosystems are 1000x bigger, we should be like them” and clearly overengineering a treasury isn’t it.
Can you share what this means? The protocol treasury is distributed directly to recipients, there is no foundation in the middle to control this.
Regarding being like another ecosystem, this is difference in opinion, CKB is a unique chain, it will have a unique ecosystem.
The protocol treasury is in the positioning paper, this is an unquestionable step in the implementation of CKB.
I was explaining the attack surface of having a centralized treasury and that it is not as bad as you make it sound just by glorifying decentralization where it does not matter. The most decentralized treasury is a non-existing one, which is what we have currently, but that’s clearly not working (I believe it just won’t work rn but could work when the ecosystem is mature enough and interest as aligned, funding doesn’t have to come from the protocol). And any voting mechanism introduces some level of centralization risk because of voting (ironic giving how much you critic PoS systems).
When I was talking about the ecosystem, I wasn’t referring to its nature. On the opposite, I agree that CKB is a unique chain and will have a unique ecosystem. I was rather referring to it’s size and how many people know about it’s existence, and that’s just data not an opinion of mine.
Is the positioning paper a bible I wasn’t aware of?
it is a social contract.
Ultimately it is up to the participants in the network to activate it, however it needs to be built to fulfill the social contract that’s been created, this is just the nature of doing something without a central party in charge.
Documents such as the positioning paper do take on a certain higher quality like what you refer to. In this way, participants (new and old) can know what they are getting into, without putting any trust in anyone else.
It sounds like an appeal to authority, and a centralized one with the way you’re unwilling to discuss and provide good arguments for.
Where is this “social contract” so I can read it, do we refer to some prehistorical 2019 paper? my question was half sarcastic half serious, can I get a link to this paper?
I’ve read the RGB++ social contract, the UTXOStack social contract (tho yes this doesn’t belong to the L1 luckily) and I thought that was what I was getting into yet here we are prioritizing “decentralization” of the treasury, instead of doing more impactful stuff like perhaps making sure these efforts go all the way.
Why are none of these efforts going to fruition and keep becoming failure after failure even tho the L1 is one of the most powerful ever created? The answer is surely not “the treasury is not decentralized”.
If we could get off our “we are the best L1 that figured everything out” high horse/cope for a minute we could maybe to catchup to these ecosystems in terms of reach and impact. And don’t get me wrong I am here writing these words because I truly believe this tech is superior so there’s no need to hit me with the “I hope you understand we are superior” from the initial response.
4.6 Treasury
The portion of secondary issuance that doesn’t go to 1) miners or 2) long-term holders with tokens locked in the NervosDAO, will go toward a treasury fund. To demonstrate: if 60% of issued CKBytes are used to store state and 30% of the CKBytes are deposited into the NervosDAO, miners will receive 60% of the secondary issuance, the NervosDAO (long-term holders) will receive 30% of the secondary issuance, and 10% of the secondary issuance will go to the treasury.
The treasury fund will be used to fund ongoing research and development of the protocol, as well as building the ecosystem of the Nervos Network. The use of the treasury funds will be open, transparent and on-chain for everyone to see. Compared to an inflation-based treasury funding model, this model doesn’t dilute long-term token holders (who have deposited their tokens into the NervosDAO). Funding of protocol development is strictly derived from the opportunity cost to short-term token holders.
The treasury won’t be activated immediately upon the main-net launch of the Nervos Common Knowledge Base. With the community’s approval, it will be activated with a hard-fork later, only after the Nervos Foundation has exhausted the Ecosystem Fund, included in the Genesis block. Prior to activation of the treasury, this portion of the secondary issuance will be burned.
the solution I am proposing is to activate the treasury and just make it centralized and focus on high impact projects. Taking a year of work to decentralized a treasury is resource mismanagement.
The whole dilution thing is a meme, I was diluted 95% at least in usd terms by holding from top to bottom, it’s not a 3% which is as a said compared to 5min implied volatility that’s going to save me from dilution. It only matters for CKB because its directly linked to node size and decentralization otherwise I would have preferred even higher inflation. Unless we start paying bills in $CKB we need to stop pretending the price in $usd doesn’t exist, and don’t get me wrong I am not saying we should be discussing price targets, but discussing inflation in a vacuum without consideration of volatility is just burying our hands in the sand.
I think the tokenomics are exceptionally well designed especially with how they solve the state rent issue. We should just go ahead and make the pragmatic solution of the leadership taking responsibility and having a centralized treasury. A voting system won’t change much anyways because they probably hold most of the token (Hello PoS). A truly decentralized treasury is a non existing one.
appreciate you engaging in this discussion, it seems like you have been around a while. It might be better to move to Nervos Nation or another chat forum to debate the merits of this work.
This is not about being the best L1, it’s about fulfilling the expectations that were created many years ago. It is not up for debate. It would be more productive to focus on other things.
If we are allowed to share our opinion, I think it would be a good idea, at least initially, to have a council made up of fifty members responsible for managing the DAO until the ecosystem matures, after which the transition toward decentralization can begin. The council could include a number of CKB team members, a number of active forum members, and a number of CKB holders. We should agree on and define what ecosystem maturity actually means, then use that as the starting point for the transition. During this period, the DAO system and all its details can be developed.
Best regards.
do the council members have decision making authority? Even in Community Fund DAO v1 it is governance by community members/token holders
رسالة
It is simply an idea. You may develop it further or reject it entirely. The intention is only to help manage a temporary phase and allow more focus on what is currently more important. CKB’s decentralization can continue progressing toward its full form at the appropriate time.
I would argue this is a regression not a progression towards decentralization. The current system is the most decentralized. Adding a sub PoS system/voting in the L1 is what I would call centralization.
It’s a fair critique, however as I have said many times on this thread: We are bound by social contract on this. The treasury needs to be implemented and available for stakeholders to activate if they see fit.
I actually wouldn’t have too much of a problem with the Foundation managing the treasury in the early days, but that was never the plan and I don’t think this can even happen.
But even if it was possible, I doubt they would even want to do it, you can imagine how every single CKB they spent would be endlessly questioned and argued about by everyone, it would be a nightmare.
I don’t think anyone is even talking about or worried about the dilution, it’s not even a consideration imo.
The only downside to activating the treasury is that most of these extra CKB emitted every year will also be sold immediately upon being paid out, so there will be a constant sell pressure on the price that hopefully will be offset by the positive things that the treasury funds will achieve.
Also, the Foundation funding the development of the treasury system with some of their remaining funds is part of the deal I think.
If they weren’t doing this then treasury itself would have to fund this development in the future, then we’d all be complaining about spending the treasury funds on something that should have been developed with the ICO funding.
Call me toxic, but I have hard time seeing this..