Fortifying Governance: Scalable Consensus & Forfeiture Mechanism

Proposals
1

Summary:

To enhance governance, this proposal aims to introduce a scalable consensus mechanism and a forfeiture system to deter non-serious proposals. By penalizing frivolous submissions, we ensure high-quality proposals and meaningful voter participation. These measures will strengthen the governance model and enhance the overall value of the governance token.

Justifications :

As of writing 7-Oct-2024. Total Final Supply of 559,970 Gzils have been minted. Total Holders: 66,926
Top 3 Largests Holder accounts for 2.68%, 1.78%, 1.48% share of total Zils respectively. This makes Gzils widely and evenly distributed across numerous holders.
https://viewblock.io/zilliqa/address/zil14pzuzq6v6pmmmrfjhczywguu0e97djepxt8g3e?tab=holders

In snapshot: “The proposal to lower the governance quorum to 8%” was created because of a decrease in voter activity
https://governance.zilliqa.com/#/gzil/proposal/QmXCTSFwyXDPb7pPa6VtT43wkLv4uiA6eYJ89uhdotHdyY

The previous proposal above was incomplete due to the following;

  • When voter turnout is exceptionally high, the low consensus requirement turns the process into a race to see who can act the quickest
  • Potential of Abuse: May lead to mass acquiring of Gzils by a single individual/group to “forcefully” push through proposal quickly

This current proposal serves to enhance the spirit and security of the governance by allowing;

Scalability against the activeness of the participants

  • The subsequent quorum will increase by 10% for every successful submission to Snapshot with a ceiling of 48.92% against total quorum
    eg. Current approval requirement of 8% of total circulating supply of Gzil will be 8.8% for next snapshot.
  • The subsequent quorum will decrease by 10% for every successful submission to Snapshot but failed with a floor of 8% against total quorum. Eg. If current quorum is at 30.37%, it will reduce to 27.61% for next snapshot

Forfeiture Mechanism

Under ZIP-12, for snapshot to happen, it only requires the person who proposes to hold at least 30 Gzils in their wallet address. As there is no penalty, this would not discourage poor proposals or spams from happening. Therefore, the proposal also introduces a forfeiture mechanism.

  • Increase Gzil requirements for Snapshot. Gzil had a market high of USD 657.90. 30 Gzil = 19.7K USD.
    current price (7-Oct-24), this equates to USD 3.20 or 30 Gzils = 96 USD.
    Propose to pegged Gzil requirements to snapshot to 1K USD Fiat.
  • To prevent spams of proposals, this proposal also suggests to introduce penalties for failure to reach 15% of required quorum for “FOR” proposal. If proposal is weak, the 1K USD Fiat worth of Gzil will be forfeited and burnt.

Summary:
Overall, the following proposed changes will strength the seriousness of proposals and dilute weak attempts to disorganise or take up unnecessary resources to maintain good governance. This will also bring more value to Gzil holders who are vested in the success of the chain.

For: Implement Scalable Consensus & Forfeiture Penalty

Against: Current Quorum mechanism is sufficient for now

Poll: Yes / No

2
  • You do not have voting in your proposal, you should insert it correctly. Creating and Managing Polls – you can find this info here.
  • I like the idea of a dynamic quorum, but I would add a minimum and a maximum range, for example, 8-20%. Why? In the end, we will reach an unrealistic quorum percentage that will be impossible to achieve. This would guarantee that one of the votes will fail. If a vote fails, the next one might succeed, but we will lose time. Then the quorum will rise to an unrealistic value again, causing another failure. This process will repeat endlessly.
  • I do not like the idea of increasing the minimum requirement to 1000 USD; 100 USD is enough.
  • I do not like the idea of burning gZIL.
  • I would also suggest a simple discussion on a forum without a poll because it can be manipulated – we can’t verify whether one person holds one account or many.
1 Like
3

Ok. i have created another one. since i have trouble editing this one. but thanks

1 Like
4
  • I suggest dividing your ideas. Even if people are against one part of the proposal, they might support another.
  • I would recommend starting with a smaller quorum range to ensure it works effectively. Later, we can gradually increase the maximum value if it proves successful. I’m concerned that 50% might be too high.
1 Like