Major Points of Clarification for the Community

Some things I’d like to clear up for the community.

  1. The team did not give validators anything. All current SCRT poofed into existence when the Genesis block was signed. In the future, any new distributions of SCRT are only possible if validators all agree to mint new SCRT in a decentralized manner. This is what is planned for the community-driven swap, without consensus between current validators a swap is factually NOT possible.

  2. SCRT has NO value (yet). It is not ENG, ENG must be swapped to be useful for staking and governance on the Enigma protocol.

  3. Just like other cryptocurrencies, essentially whatever is decided at the genesis is what poofs into existence. All validators had the opportunity to see the parameters and any of them could have refused to sign, ask for adjustments, etc at any time. No one rejected the parameters, no one was forced to sign.

  4. The enigma team at no point promised me that I would profit from this at any time during the process. There was no ICO, IEO, or any kind of offering. The SCRT tokens that exist today exist because ALL validators agreed on parameters.

  5. As it stands the enigma team cannot do a swap. Ironically it also seems we would all prefer that they could but the US government will not currently allow it. Even if it hurts the people who have ENG (including myself and other validators). The government is to blame for any current or new difficulties related to the swap.

  6. The validators want a swap and are working on a compliant way to achieve one independently of the team. If at any point I no longer believe that a swap is possible, I will say so publicly and explain why no matter what the reasons are.

  7. Shutting down the community channel on Telegram was a group decision and NOT exclusively my personal decision (though I DO agree with it). That may change in the future if the community can prove able to effectively moderate itself. We all want a place to speak, there are places to speak, the admins have lives and do not want to spend all their time doing admin responsibilities.

  8. None of us were entitled to the new governance powers afforded to those who obtain SCRT. With ENG you have no say in the parameters of the network, it was mostly a take it or leave it sort of situation. Once you have SCRT then you will have a real vote to change things including but not limited to inflation, max supply, and use of community pool funds to achieve collective goals.

I hope this clears up the major questions people have. If you want further clarification on any of these points then feel free to ask in this thread. Remember I cannot speak for the Enigma team and they have already said they will not comment on the swap.

6 Likes

@moonstash

Thanks for more details.
My question that i come with are,
Who are the initial validators if NOT the team? Because only validators have the right to vote to make changes on-chain.
If its a community decision then why dont we redeploy a mainnet with new token parameters/economics and then make the enigma team deploy secret contracts on top of that, since the current mainenet is just a Cosmo one. Who gets to decide how many original tokens were minted if not the validators.

My only point is that the team is trying to push this to a community network, which i like but who gets to select validators should be also decided by the community as the SCRT tokens were minted by the validators at the moment.

Anyways do bear with me if I have something wrong, due to the limited information available.

If the validators are planning on subtracting what they already received from the amount that they will receive from the swap, then I can agree that validators were not given anything other than the privilege of being one of the first validators. Otherwise, to literally say you weren’t given something because it “poofed” into your pocket instead of being physically handed to you is laughable

1 Like

I think you underestimate the threats out there to launching a decentralized network. Take a moment and look how many projects from 2017 are on mainnet and you’ll start to put the pieces together. In my view, this needed to happen immediately or it would have never happened. Launching with 20 validators independent of the team is a great start, any more than that and we would have taken even longer to launch as consensus on parameters would have dragged out the process.

Also while validators are pushing for a swap to give ENG holders a voice on chain, it’s already the truth to say the enigma protocol is run by a community and not by Enigma since 20 of the 22 validators are in fact independent of the team. We all want to unify the Enigma Community here.

1 Like

The validators are not planning on subtracting what they already received. If you disagree you are still obviously free to voice it.

Personally, I’m ok with it. Although I have seen validators talk about how they don’t want to dilute the supply, but by being given an additional 100k over what they will get from the swap is by definition diluting the supply. My comment was just that to claim that you weren’t “given” anything although you will end up with 100k more than you would earn from the swap just because it “poofed” into your wallet instead of being sent in a transaction is a joke

1 Like

Any attempts to dilute the supply also hurts the team and it’s unlikely you will be successful at expecting the validators to do a swap while also telling them to give up their SCRT. It doesn’t make any sense. Personally If I thought anyone would take it away then I’d just leave and give up on the swap immediately.

I agree. Once you hand the keys of the city over to a general without placing guidelines on how they should rule, they will always act in their best interest. I’m just saying that by being honest at least you can earn respect. If you are getting an extra 100k, say yes I’ve been given 100k, but I feel I deserve it for the work I’ve done. Don’t try to claim you were not given anything. If you want to say dilution concerns you, say yes it concerns me as long as I’m not the one making the sacrifice, so I’m ok with diluting the supply by 100k * # validators, because that cost will be shouldered by everyone else having a smaller % of the supply than the ENG would dictate. Since you’ve been GIVEN the voting power, you’re in the driver seat, just be honest about it

3 Likes

I won’t argue semantics here… The genesis block poofs coins into existence through consensus of the operators of nodes. That’s how it works. You can feel how ever you want about that and you can continue to drive away large supporters of the swap if that’s what you want to do.

I agree there is no point in arguing semantics. Everyone else can say you were given an extra 100k and you can say you were poofed an extra 100k, and we can all live happily with our word choice

1 Like

I’m sorry you feel attacked. As I stated earlier, I’m ok with validators being given the extra 100k, and I’m ok with the dilution that creates. My comments were just saying it is always better to just call a spade a spade when speaking publicly

I still disagree with you but it’s semantics mostly. I’m okay with disagreeing. There is no path forward where everyone agrees on everything. Such is the nature of decentralization.

1 Like

This is inherently incorrect. I’m sure you know $SCRT is not worth anything (as admitted in your original post) and would return no ROI without a community attached to it that are willing to use and spend it. We unfortunate non-validators are not “lucky” the current validators are doing anything. The validators need to make the community at large content here or else the community will simply create $SCRT2 with it’s own set of validators chosen through another process. It would be simple and is entirely on the table, such is the nature of a truly decentralized network. No one needs the validators to approve or authorize anything, as the network is nascent and empty with no traction. If the validators would like their network to be “the one” they must appeal to the community.

I urge you and the rest of the validators to consider all options the community puts forward for the sake of keeping the network together. Whether that includes a personal benefit or not is a corrupting aspect. As a validator I would personally not be considering my stake in $SCRT but rather what would create the least divide.

That said I’m personally ok with either the validators profiting or not, it really is of no matter to me. If the rest of the community is strongly opposed, I am opposed. I simply want us all to be aligned as much as possible.

This topic should be voted on by the community, including the validators, and the validators should represent the vote on the network whatever the outcome.

5 Likes

My thoughts on this are as follows.

  1. We are absolutely considering all options that do not threaten the future of the Enigma protocol.

  2. In your scenario of forking the enigma protocol and recruiting validators, I am curious which developers you plan to have and how you will motivate them? The Enigma team is committed to developing the enigma protocol powered by SCRT, I prefer the real thing.

  3. The community at large understands the task at hand and the fact it will require a lot of time and effort to achieve a swap by any party. Where are the hands up from people offering to do free high-quality code audits for enigmachain, or build and or audit swap code, or pay to make sure that we independently do a legally compliant swap, or test the swap on a testnet to make sure it even works correctly, or spend their time being bombarded by hundreds of people online while trying to get all this done? Where are the people raising their hands saying they will do these things just because? I don’t think those people exist. Please prove me wrong, gather them together, and I’d be happy to explore the options they help enable. We will welcome any legitimate help.

Again the community, validators, and team are already aligned. Consensus is, in fact, forming around a 1:1 swap. I see a loud and vocal few demanding anything else. If you want something else then please put in the time, legwork, and effort yourself to sway the 3 stakeholders (Team, validators, and the community). It’s both impossible and exceedingly unreasonble for me personally to hear everything and put in the time to develop all avenues.

Once the swap happens then you don’t need to speak to node operators with your words, you can speak with your stake.

  1. Glad to hear.

  2. I’m sure the community has plenty of developers. Also, please do not speak for the Enigma team. From what I’ve read, they are committed to furthering development on Secret Contracts and the Engima code, whether that exists on $SCRT or $SCRT2 is just a matter of which succeeds at large after this turbulent time (please see my posts in the other thread). If this is wrong and the team would only contribute to $SCRT in any scenario then I’d love for them to state that here.

  3. One of them here, trying to get a concrete swap proposal (codified) out ASAP, but I reached out to you and you never responded… The validators are 20 people and I assume most of them would be on board with a different chain after it succeeded. They all have a stake in $ENG. Are you saying these 20 people are the only ones that are interested and capable of doing anything for secret contract networks?

If everyone is aligned there should be no opposition to a community vote.

Like I said, I personally have no problem with the $SCRT validators received, actually. But I do represent the community here first and foremost, and I do have a problem with validators using their position to call the shots right now.

1 Like

The enigma team has publicly recognized this chain as the one they support. Where have they indicated they would support a fork?

I don’t see any reason the team would choose to move to a new SCRT2 unless the validators chose not to do a swap. If that happened it is very likely the project would die since no one would buy SCRT after seeing ENG getting denied a swap by SCRT validators. It’s highly unlikely that any validators would vote against a swap knowing it would likely make their SCRT worthless

1 Like

Where have they indicated they wouldn’t?

All their signaling has been: This is in the communities hands, we did our best to start a community version, we look forward to contributing code but it’s out of our hands. We don’t control what happens going forward.

That doesn’t read like: $SCRT is our new project, we’re only on board with it, we’ll only support it if it’s the one that succeeds.

Again, if this is wrong I’d like to hear from the team.

In any case, this is a simple topic. The only point of this hypothetical $SCRT2 was to demonstrate that it’s wrong to act as if validators can hold any decisions over the community. The validators depend on the community to not dispose of them entirely. The community makes the coin. This is how it has always been.

I am very concerned about this turning into an us vs them scenario simply because the validators want to profit from this mess. I value the validators and think we have a good thing going right now. In fact I’ve held off on gathering momentum around my own swap proposals simply since it looked like you were gaining some momentum and did not want to cause divide or confusion.

But I don’t like to see these influences creeping into the decision making. We need alignment.

3 Likes

Put together a plan and share it on the git repo or continue to add feedback there. We would use this form but I worry about that given enigmas inability to be involved.

The voting period will end on the initial discussion soon. That is not where the discussion ends.

https://explorer.mainnet.enigma.co/proposals/2

We are working on another proposal based on info collected on the git issue. You will also be able to comment on the next proposal. Make sure you participate to be heard. We all want this to be fair and enigma to be successful.

Fixed typos

1 Like

Are there any clarity around why the initial validator SCRT simply “poofed” into existence? Is there any governance in place here, who decided that 100k token would be minted per validator, why wasn’t it 100kk, 10k or zero?

Becoming an initial selected validator sounds to be an honourable position similar to a board member given the Enigma press release stating; these initial validators now govern and operate the Enigma main-net. This raises some further questions:

• Is it validators that are responsible to propose changes around the ENG to SCRT swap?
• Has validators been selected with care?
• How does it work in practice? Following what has been written here, are validators supposed to interpret public opinion expressed on the forum and decide what, how, when and what ratio will be adopted when converting ENG to SCRT?

Personally my perception of the communication used in this thread seem to be rather autocratic where the tone seem to be “get inline” and if you don’t like it find another chain or project to get involved in. I find this rather alarming, it also raises questions around validators credentials, personal motive and credibility. Is there governances in place to tackle the current situation, is it too early to separate governance from the Enigma core team to 20 selected people; selected on merits unknown to the community? Is it practically to hand over governing tasks to the community without any governing structure in place?

Privacy is likely to be one of the utmost key components in the future of a decentralised web, however like taxes, no one will like or be supportive of a project if it doesn’t achieve transparency and if it isn’t perceived as fair.

Apologies if I am missing something, but I suspect I can’t be the only one not having found answers to these questions?

4 Likes