Hi everyone,
As a result of the Validator Survey and multiple Governance call discussions, I’d like to present the first draft of the signaling proposal for the Secret Network Charter & Code of Conduct:
Any and all feedback is appreciated! In principle this will be submitted on-chain as a single signaling proposal, however if the community would prefer to vote on individual paragraphs, please say so below.
Best,
Mook
Although this is but a signaling proposal, its easy to see a slippery slope in this matter. The language of III.a is subjective enough to cause problems. Some are more sensitive to banter or jockeying than others and could misconstrue intention. Caution is warranted with passing a charter without also mentioning the methodology for handling breach of conduct i.e. judge, jury and perhaps executioner.
We also don’t want a small set of people having full autonomy in making these decisions, removing people at their own whim. We should always aim to decentralize the governance decisions.
These are good points, and warrant discussion from the community.
My aim with this first version of the charter is to get the currently accepted processes verified by on-chain governance.
The code of conduct is definitely open to the most interpretation, but most likely always will have to be to some degree. Do we want a short list of desirable behaviors, or do we want a 10 page list summerizing what we don’t want to see? Ideally III.b would never have to be employed against high level contributors or community veterans, but having a CoC without potential repercussions seems counterintuitive.
How to best arrange ‘judge, jury, and executioner’ for the CoC is a tricky question that the community needs to firmly stand behind. Not everyone will agree, how do we handle that? Currently channel admins have large autonomy in their decisions, but are reflected upon by the community. Do we want to change this? Do we want to keep bureaucracy to a minimum? Do we trust our admins? So far, I don’t recall a situation that has not been resolved in a way that all parties feel satisfied.
“For time-limited proposals, such as those of committees, the funding duration can instead be adjusted to prevent ‘proposal fatigue”
Unless the opposite will happen too, that is that committee funding duration will be extended should price extend above the initial ask, I find it a cop out only meant to circumvent governance.
This is indeed probably the biggest point of discussion in the charter (next to the volatility buffer). I included this since we had the discussion for the edu proposal which depreciated below the 10% threshold, and it seemed like the majority was in favor of this alternative solution.
Regarding the upswings, that is a good point that was also made by Tor. We didn’t arrive at a solution to it except that the community (that was present at the gov call and in the forum thread) seemed to prefer taking away the downside to stimulate use of the pool, and there is no way to guarantee funds are returned.
Perhaps the easiest solution is to break it away into its own paragraph and submit it as a separate signaling proposal?
Probably needs a more exact definition of what is breach of conduct. Instead of having a committee, there should be a way for everyone to see if said action is a breach or not.
I added this the recent validator survey that went out this week but I’ll post it here too :
Is this a charter, or is it more of a ‘best practices’ that will be submitted on-chain? Is there a difference? I image charters have more about the functioning of the network as a whole, but this is more of a governance and community best practices?
I would also recommend changing the language on III.a to “All community members are expected to be respectful, to display integrity, and to be as objective as possible.” This makes it more clear and recognizes that humans are not objective humans."
Based on the feedback from validators some changes are made to the Charter & Code of Conduct linked in the first post.
Changes:
As it currently stands most respondents preferred an all-in-one approach for the on-chain proposal and section II.c not be splitted into two seperate sections.
This document is intended to be a living document which will continue to evolve over the months and years to come with any changes needing to be confirmed by on-chain governance.
Why does code of conduct contain data about funding and how it is implemented?
Code of conduct is one thing, how proposals are funded and calculated is another. Separate the two, and then we can evaluate them separately.
You’re confusing the Network Charter and Code of Conduct, they are seperate. Validators have reported a preference for a combined proposal.
Why? There is nothing to gain from combining these two.
At least have a separate document. This is so not finished, it’s ridiculous.
You say Network Charter & Code of Conduct, then the document starts with Code of Conduct, just a few meaningless lines, then, I guess, it’s Network Charter. Which is basically just an example on how to re-calculate losses.
I thought we are preparing for SUPERNOVA, and scrt is going to the moon. Apparently we will have to recalculate ridiculous 150$/hour maintenance fees every second, because for sure SCRT is going down.
Hmm.
You’d have to ask the respondents for their specific reasons. I assume minimizing the on-chain proposals is one of the reasons.
The Network Charter & Code of Conduct will never be finished, it’s a living document. This first proposal is supposed to be a starting point for future discussions listing the current procedures.
It starts with the Network Charter (II) and is followed by the Code of Conduct (III).
You seem to zoom into one specific section, II.c. Again, I can’t speak for others, but one of the reasons for this section is to reduce the chance of proposers getting a (lot) lower USD value than they asked for, this has occured several times before. Volatility is going to be a thing in this sector for the forseeable future.
And I assume it’s because it’s easier to hide inflated prices and cash grabs behind unassuming titles. See, that’s the problem with assumptions. We can both be wrong. Let’s have them chime in with some real reasons, if they have them.
This first proposal has already been used as a reference for a funding of 20%, without it even being voted in. And how about implementing some and really discussing some of the issues, such as separating code of conduct from network charter?
Yes, we are in crypto. That’s how crypto works. A few days up, a few days down. If we refund all the down days, and keep all the up days, that’s a tremendous deal, isn’t it?
This is a signaling proposal and the charter specifically states that all spend proposals should be listed in USD. So how does that make it easier to hide inflated prices and cash grabs?
The volatility buffer was indeed first proposed to be 20%, but after discussion in amongst others the governance calls and feedback received from the validators that has been reduced to 10%. An analysis by Orageux and Paul suggests a 10% volatility buffer should lead to roughly 1 in 10 proposals going back to the chain for a secondary proposal due to the ask going more than 10% below original ask in USD.
The volatility buffer was indeed first proposed to be 20%, but after discussion in amongst others the governance calls and feedback received from the validators that has been reduced to 10%. An analysis by Orageux and Paul suggests a 10% volatility buffer should lead to roughly 1 in 10 proposals going back to the chain for a secondary proposal due to the ask going more than 10% below original ask in USD.
And then the first proposal out of 1 immediately asked for 20% instead of 10%, with an unvoted proposal.
So how does that make it easier to hide inflated prices and cash grabs?
Referencing an obscure document with a deceiving title. They present the math, and then they present the charter document as a justification. That’s how it has been done on proposal #77. Giving the impression that this has been decided, when it was far from it.
Any and all proposals up for voting on-chain should be individually judged on their merits. If there are aspects you or anyone else disagree with, please do vote ‘No’ and explain your vote on the forums. Ideally that already happens during the community feedback period so it can be taken into consideration by the proposer.
I agree that the wording to describe things in a proposal should be carefully considered, especially if something hasn’t passed on-chain governance yet.
Now in the on-chain voting period until March 18th 11h00 UTC.
Link: https://secretnodes.com/secret/chains/secret-4/governance/proposals/81
If anyone reaches this, the furthest part of proposal 81, you should note that this should NOT be allowed to pass. At least not in this form.
This is just a step in the future draining of community funds. If you follow the other proposals, you will notice a worrying trend. The why’s and how’s are in this thread. Feel free to ask questions if you need clarifying.