[ZIP-12] Standardisation of ZIP processes

112 voters and 2 more days before close.

1 Like

i know governance participation often i low so it would seem that a 20% quorum makes sense. Given that what counts is the number of gzil though (at least i guess) i’m a little bit concerned whos voice will actually be counted because right now the top 15 addresses or so already hold 20% of gzil supply. the top address mints 30 gzil a day, maybe the gap will grow even greater and allow basically 5-10 addresses to reach the 20% without a lot of actual community participation in voting. i dont know how i feel about this and if this even can be considered problematic or if a higher quorum would actually change this situation. i imagine some kind of sneaky voting here where some whale proposes a change and gets it through with their votes alone. judging from national votes 40% could be expected but i know from blockchain governance thats a little too ambitious

will their be a mechanism where onchain parameters will be changed automatically after voted yes for or will the implementation lie with the zilliqa team. does the team have a veto if an implementation doesnt make sense from there pov or do they own that much gzil that they can vote and decide beforehand anyway?

maybe increase voting to 7 or 10 days or have a period between the signaling/discussion and voting phase that gives the community more time to learn about the proposed changes and allocate their time to voting


I’m concerned about the whales as well. Seems like a small consensus considering its actually only >10% of the quorum to carry a proposal. 50% in favour of the 20% minimum seems like an easily achievable number to swing a binding vote.


I understand the contentious part, however, it doesn’t seem like 25% ‘FOR’ vote meets the burden of contention you’re aiming for. Couple that with the low binding vote of >50% ‘FOR’ at a minimum quorum of 20% and you could have a governance portal that is run by the few.

On the other side though there is a risk of non technical members voting for or against proposals that they have very little understanding of, so I suppose it’s a fine line between giving members a say and also maintaining the integrity of the Zilliqa platform.

The 2 points above is why I have voted in favour of this proposal as it strikes a good enough compromise between those 2 competing issues.


I would feel better about a slightly higher percentage in favor during the snapshot, say 55%, as well as making the zip author only a sponsor of the proposal, and thus only receives a single “for” vote towards consensus. This would be to prevent a large gZil holder from being both the author and majority vote of a single proposal. However, I am for this proposal as well, as I think larger holders have more vested interest and risk in the stability of the platform, and thus deserve their input hold more weight.


Where can I find a comprehensive document stating clearly what is up for Governance and whats is not? Said document ought to lay out all different - if multiple - entities exists and there role(s). E.g. we have Zilliqa the Singaporean for profit company I guess? It was incubated as part of Anquan I guess? We have Aqilliz (Zilliqa spelled backwards) which is a collaboration partner (its own privately owned for profit company)? But does any non-for-profit organization exist? Like Linux Foundation? And any plans to migrate Zilliqa dev team members over to said foundation? And we have the Zilliqa network (with some nodes owned by the Zilliqa company?) and the (open source) code.

I believe knowing about the entities and roadmap of entities within the Zilliqa family is needed before we layout what parts are under governance?


Definitely valid concerns. Voter participation is one of my worry which is the reason the initial quorum is set at 20%. I think we can increase the quorum % after we get some data from the first few ZIPs votes, by initiating another ZIP specifically to address the issue you are indicating.

There is no on-chain mechanism to switch parameters like in Compound. The implementation currently relies on the Zilliqa team to execute, all off-chain. As things mature, we can slowly think of transitioning to on-chain governance in the future. It will take time for both the community and the tech to catch up imo. The Zilliqa core team does not have veto rights in this governance process.

Voting period can be increased definitely. Suggestion was to put it as 5 days for now. Happy to change this ZIP if the community members think it is too short. How about a poll to understand what’s the optimal voting period?

How many days should the voting period be?
  • 5 days
  • 7 days
  • 10 days

0 voters


Agree with your analysis. We can start small with regards to quorum needed, and once the community mature, we expand it to say 40%. In the early days, I think it is better to have a more flexible governance process, else I am afraid it might stifle technical progress.


Zilliqa Research is a for-profit company that currently maintains and optimise the Zilliqa blockchain, while building services (Consulting and ZILHive programmes) and applications on top of it. There is no foundation involved here and there will not be one set up.

Anquan and Aqilliz are not involved in this picture. They have no say over what happens on the Zilliqa blockchain, other than with $gZIL they might own if they decide to stake.

Currently, things up for governance are ZIPs that involves changing technical aspects of the Zilliqa blockchain. These include staking parameters, consensus mechanism, mining algorithm, block rewards issuance schedule, maximum supply and so on…

What is not up for governance is how the treasury will be spent. That remains part of Zilliqa Research, but we are exploring how a small portion of this capital can be delegated to the $gZIL holders to allocate via the grantsDAO model that we are currently working on.


Initially people will not be aware of the governance through this site…so a longer period makes sense 7 or even 10 days…to have a higher involvement and participation we could capitalize by integrating governance from within the Moonlet or zilpay mobile wallet in the future …bringing different points of access within the ecosystem to the governance model


I think this is a good approach Snowsledge. Even if not completely dialed in, this still implements a standardized process to ensure consistency in making any changes to itself as further data dictates.

1 Like

All voting for new ZIPs should start on Monday and end on Sunday, so that everyone would be on the same page without the need to guess the start and end date of voting.


I think 10 days are more appropriate.

I second that and that is why I voted for 10 days, too.

Based on feedback so far, 7 days wins out. Will wait a few more hours before changing the ZIP-12 proposed voting period.


Greetings Zilliqans!!

Excited to see where Zil takes us

1 Like

Well, if majority wants it then why not. Still think 10 days are better though.

Thanks now I understand.

Is there a minimum amount of time before people can decide to make changes to something that has already been approved, or is it a permanent thing? Let’s say the community voted to reduce the unstaking period from 24000 blocks to 12000 and a couple of months later people are not happy with it. Can someone make new post to make it higher again and change it or do we have to wait a minimum amount of time before a change can be made again?

No, there is no minimum time proposed currently. Maybe we give it a try first and then see if people really abuse the system or not.