The Secret Accords Proposal

The Secret Accords Proposal

These changes modify the minimum & maximum inflation rate to 12%, makes the inflation change rate 0% so inflation is static, and changes the community tax rate to 20%, leaving 80% of rewards to validators. These changes are intended to make inflation easier to understand and staking more attractive. These changes are not necessarily intended to be permanent, we suggest future amendments to the Secret Accords follow the suggested process outlined at the end of this post.

Note : These settings were inspired from the following discussions Discussion: Community funds / inflation in Secret network after secret contracts

Future Changes
Future changes can and will be made to these parameters. I am making no assertion these are going to be, or should be the settings forever. A recommended way to change the parameters is to make a new proposal with the changes as follows.

The Secret Accords Amendment A
Description of all amendments, link to post in this thread for amendment.

1 Like

Thanks @moonstash. Great to see thinking around longer-term parameters moving forward. I have a couple questions that would help clarify some of the current thinking around inflation / network sustainability. I’m sure you have some considered answers ready; just hoping to see them articulated here.

  1. What are the benefits gained from a static inflation rate? What will we lose or what are the threats in moving away from a dynamic range? The inflation rate could of course be re-adjusted by an on-chain vote, so it’s not as though it’s permanently set by this proposal.

  2. What’s going to be the projected impact on staking rates (% of total supply staked)? Is fixed 12% inflation enough to incentivize the staking rate we desire for the network? (Also in your opinion, what is that rate?)

  3. How do you see the on-chain pool being used primarily? If this isn’t clarified well, I think closer to 10% of rewards being directed towards the pool would be appropriate.

  4. Perhaps out of scope but - how else can we use on-chain parameters to better incentivize a) higher staking rates, b) higher participation rates in governance? What you’re proposing here has more direct impact on a), but I am always concerned with b) as well. Some off-chain governance mechanism could help maximize on-chain governance participation, or off-chain governance can help support on-chain governance in other ways…

Happy to answer your questions. I just want to add first that these changes are not intended to be forever, they are intended to give us a better baseline from which to modify further.

  1. There have been a few voices around 12% from multiple parties in the other thread, I think cashmaney describes why a flat rate makes sense here Discussion: Community funds / inflation in Secret network after secret contracts

  2. Further discussion needs to be had around target rates and I fully support those discussions being had and future amendments to The Secret Accords being made. I’m hopeful that using the process I outlines makes it easier for the network to track any changes around ROI, Tax rate, and any other block reward related parameter changes.

  3. My personal stance is that the on chain pool should be exclusively used for required infrastructure and collectively agreed essential initiatives. Examples: wallet integrations, testnet, block explorer, liquidity deposits for exchange listings, and anything else that can fit into the categories of required infrastructure and essential initiatives.

  4. This last question is a bit out of scope but I think we should explore a small inflation bonus and or SCRT payment for those who vote. It would have to be fleshed out quite a bit more and the functionality would need to be added for this to be possible but It seems possible to add with work.

Thanks for the quick reply. I’d like to see @dbriggsie, @Cashmaney, and others weigh in here as well.

For 3) essential initiatives is indeed broad. We will need to do some work as a community to codify the different primary types of initiatives - infrastructure, application-level, governance, education - and see how these should be prioritized in the context of the network pool. We’re effectively creating a communal roadmap for resources.

For 4) I’m interested to explore this and see how it’s been handled in other networks. It would be interesting to benchmark staking rates in other networks. One of my primary goals is for Secret Network to not only be differentiated by its privacy solutions, but by the full engagement of its community in the network’s governance and growth. No one has yet accomplished in the blockchain space what I believe is still possible for us here.

1 Like

Its nice to see the block reward being rectified to a more attractive amount which is a huge incentive for new holders of SCRT to bond on chain (they delegate to validators thus the delegators earn rewards on their SCRT holdings). This makes it attractive enough to decentralise the entire token economy & governance weight from the get go. Those who choose to swap using the community swap, will be rewarded with decent stake weighted earnings. is happy to support this proposal.

1 Like

For 3) @tor

  1. It is necessary to make a full list of the primary types of initiatives: infrastructure, application-level, governance, education, marketing and other. At the same time, will need to provide extended information for each type of initiatives (description, value, examples etc.)
  2. Prioritize in the context of the network pool. To do this, can use a questionnaire / survey of the community: each participant will have to put from 1 to 10 points (for example) for each type of initiative, depending on importance / priority. (can also select from the community a group of experts with competencies for accurate analysis)
  3. After counting, different types of initiatives will have its own rank (A/B/C etc.)
    This will help community rationally use resources (network pool) and direct them to the right things.

Should also be criteria for teams. For example, 3 teams can claim the same initiative. How to choose?
Therefore, the community needs to make criteria for selection of teams for specific initiatives - team competencies; previously completed projects; previously completed projects directly in the ecosystem secret network; degree of elaboration of the development plan, etc.)
For example, if a team has already successfully completed a project in the secret network ecosystem for this type of initiative, then it may have an advantage. There are also more complex initiatives/projects (infrastructure) that will require high level competencies from teams.

This is pulled from an old versioned Foundation proposal. It was drafted by the community.

Proposal Set:

  1. Must be compatible with the broader mission surrounding privacy and data ownership as a human right

  2. Is a catalyst for greater adoption, usability, sustainability, or capabilities of the Secret Network

  3. Designed such that the Secret Network is the primary beneficiary

  4. Constructed to have a lasting impact on the success of the Secret Network

  5. Transparent with clear milestones and plans

  6. If software is part of the project, the code must be open sourced using a license deemed acceptable by the Secret Foundation. Sufficient technical description of what will be build.

  7. If the project is educational, the educational goals are clearly defined and the means to achieve them are laid out in detail.?.

  8. If the project is awareness based, (such as graphics design), the process must involve a certain degree of collaboration with the community

In response to the feedback given I have decided to change my Yes vote to a No vote. I think it’s been made very obvious this proposal came out prematurely and while I don’t see drastic disagreement with the proposed parameters, some changes will likely be made. Please continue to share thoughts on this, we will be resubmitting a proposal that encapsulates peoples desired param changes around inflation and community tax once the discussion matures to a better point.