Ratification Doc 005 - ANO Election and Demotion System

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factable Solutions Factable Solutions Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Nic R Niels Klomp Nolan Bauer Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority Tor Paulsen VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


All votes are in

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#31
Jason Gregoire said:
2.1 If they move back above 40% during the 90-day period and drop down again thereafter, they once again have 90 days to improve.

If continual voting remains and this language remains, we may want to add some qualifier such as ”If they move back above ##% during the 90-day period for ## days…”
I think we might want to add some kind of time period here to protect against "finger troubles"; i.e that an ANO might click the wrong button by accident taking an ANO one the limit for only seconds or minutes before switching it back again. I'll let @David Chapman chime in, as Factomize will be building the actual implementation and might have ideas around this.
A solution does need to be built into the system, but I don't feel it needs to be defined in governance.
 
Secured
#34
I first would like to say sorry for not joining the discussion before. This is maybe the most important move for our protocol from M3.

Thank you for working on this document. It is really an important step forward for our protocol. It can improve many aspects: new ANO candidacy, increased competition between ANOs and first implementation of the on-chain vote.

I have 2 questions / concerns about it. Maybe this has been already answered. Sorry if this is the case.

About section 2.8 and the ability of the Guides to decide twice a year what number of ANOs is needed.
This section gives a new important power to the Guides, which is something we have always tried to avoid. A safeguard should exist. Objective criteria based on price or at least a minimum number of ANOs should be stated. This is something absolutely needed in my opinion. Actually, it is not the only one extra power the Guides are going to have: they will have an extra opportunity to vote on the ANOs. Let's not forget that the Guide role was initially here to facilitate human processes, not to be a power position.

A second concern is about the impact of non anonymous on-chain vote. Here again I am not sure whether the technical details have been discussed or not. How do you (David/Factomize I guess ; maybe Valentin too?) see things going on this side? Would this first implementation of the on-chain voting system use the homomorphic functions specified by Valentin in his document to keep the votes anonymous? If not, I am wondering what will be the impact on our ecosystem. I would not like to come to a situation where the ANOs blame each other for not supporting them. This will be endless.

Again sorry for these late questions. I clearly see that process as an improvement. But wanted to raise my concerns.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#36
About section 2.8 and the ability of the Guides to decide twice a year what number of ANOs is needed.
This section gives a new important power to the Guides, which is something we have always tried to avoid. A safeguard should exist. Objective criteria based on price or at least a minimum number of ANOs should be stated. This is something absolutely needed in my opinion. Actually, it is not the only one extra power the Guides are going to have: they will have an extra opportunity to vote on the ANOs. Let's not forget that the Guide role was initially here to facilitate human processes, not to be a power position.
I agree with you. Specific criteria should be determined and codified so that it can be automated in the future. However, I ask that we make that a separate thread and we either amend this document in the future or have it be a separate document referenced by this one in the future. Determining the exact criteria will be a bit of an undertaking. Would you like to lead that initiative?

A second concern is about the impact of non anonymous on-chain vote. Here again I am not sure whether the technical details have been discussed or not. How do you (David/Factomize I guess ; maybe Valentin too?) see things going on this side? Would this first implementation of the on-chain voting system use the homomorphic functions specified by Valentin in his document to keep the votes anonymous? If not, I am wondering what will be the impact on our ecosystem. I would not like to come to a situation where the ANOs blame each other for not supporting them. This will be endless.
In my opinion, they should not be anonymous, but in the end, consensus rules. This document is not yet working to determine specifically how we're going to implement on-chain voting. It's simply the end goal.
 
Secured
#37
I agree in principle about this
About section 2.8 and the ability of the Guides to decide twice a year what number of ANOs is needed.
This section gives a new important power to the Guides, which is something we have always tried to avoid. A safeguard should exist.
However I do like to make everybody aware that this is what the guides have always done and is actually part of the mandate of guides to begin with (being responsible to expand standing parties). So it is definitely not something new, and with the rest of the standing party types only being ANOs, right now it is good to have the guides making that call IMO. Yes it should be taken away from guides, especially if we have more standing party types.
 
Secured
#38
However I do like to make everybody aware that this is what the guides have always done and is actually part of the mandate of guides to begin with (being responsible to expand standing parties)
I agree with you. Some complements on this :
While till now the Guides have been in the position to expand the standing parties, this new document give them the ability (explicitly) to decrease the number of ANOs required (after some are removed);
(EDIT: I have read again the doc and I am wrong : "decide if the number of default ANO positions will stay the same or increase ". No mention of decreasing the number of spots.)
Moreover, it is not because things have been realised this way that we should not define an ideal target. IMO the exact mandates of the Guides should be to set up the conditions to expand/adapt the standing parties; For technical and governance reasons we have left the Guides define this number by themselves (we needed to be fast and pragmatic). With this new automation system (continuous vote) there is maybe an opportunity to work on this and implement objective criteria.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#39
I agree with you. Specific criteria should be determined and codified so that it can be automated in the future. However, I ask that we make that a separate thread and we either amend this document in the future or have it be a separate document referenced by this one in the future. Determining the exact criteria will be a bit of an undertaking. Would you like to lead that initiative?
A new thread has been open here to discuss this point.
 
Secured
#40
2.8 The Factom Protocol Guides will, twice per year, in week 5 and 31,decide if the number of default ANO positions will stay the same or increase (to a maximum of 65), using a vote during a Guide meeting.
The Guides should retain the ability to decrease the number of ANO positions. Decreasing the number of positions below the current size of the authority set would have no immediate impact on the authority set. However, if an ANO loses its position, it would not then be replaced by an applicant.
 
Secured
#41
Suggested revisions in red:

2.8 The Factom Protocol Guides will, twice per year, in week 5 and 31, decide if the target number of default ANO positions will decrease, stay the same or increase (to a maximum of 65), using a vote during a Guide meeting. They will announce their rationale for this decision on the Factom Protocol forum and Factom Discord server.
2.13 In the event that the target number of ANO positions is lower than the current size of the authority set, no new ANO position will be made available to Candidate ANOs by the demotion of an ANO.
 
Secured
#43
I do agree with you that we should have some metrics defined, but they should go in Doc 001. I suggest we bring that point up when drafting v.1.6 of that document. @Nolan Bauer do you mind? :)
Just wanted to respond to you on this @Tor Paulsen - Yes, I will work to incorporate this into the Doc 001 ratification. We can focus discussion surrounding which metrics to use there so as not to derail the intent of this thread/ratification.
 
Secured
#44
Imo allowing Guides to decrease this number should go along with strong safeguards such as defining a minimum number of ANOs required in the pool (to ensure decentralisation of the protocol) or even better a clear process to define the slot target.
Well we are here amongst others to make sure the ANOs do not start defining that amongst themselves. If you look good at our governance everything suggest that guides always have to have the best interest of the protocol in mind. I agree guides need to have this type of "power" removed over time, but that has to go hand in hand with more standing parties and more standing types. But doing that soon without any additional standing parties will get some fierce pushback from me, as it does the opposite of what you describe IMO. It is not so much about the power of guides, since they have had it from the start and this is one of the reasons guides are in the system. It is more about giving ANOs more power without further decentralization if we go down that route.

ANOs deciding by themselves alone how much competition they are gonna get is not the way to go IMO
 
Secured
#45
If you look good at our governance everything suggest that guides always have to have the best interest of the protocol in mind. I
To be a bit provocative : so because the governance say so it is enough to trust any future action of the Guides? ;)

It is not so much about the power of guides, since they have had it from the start and this is one of the reasons guides are in the system.
Just to make things clear and not to interprete things a posteriori. The Guide role was initially not 100% defined precisely (particularly the type of power). It was initially there because the community envisioned the need for human interactions for some processes.

ANOs and Guides are currently the 2 types of Standing. Any of them is subject to see its own particular interest, not only the ANOs. Let us not be naive, this is human nature.
I agree, onboarding more different standing parties is the good way to decentralise the protocol. And I agree too that before it arrives I will not promote a strong reduction in Guides responsabilities. BUT we are speaking here of a new Guide ability which is being able to decrease the number of ANOs. Because it is a new responsability, it should come with a safeguard. That is my only point.

I am fine with the current version of Doc 005 enabling only stability or increase in the number of ANOs. Should we go further (authorizing a decrease by the Guides) I think transparent and objective criteria are needed. I am not asking in any case here for more power for the ANOs.
 
Secured
#46
To be a bit provocative : so because the governance say so it is enough to trust any future action of the Guides? ;)
To be provocative. Yes, unless they have made grave errors in that regards, that warrant a removal initiation. Especially when the amount of standing party types still is at 2. I still take the role of making sure ANOs are not deciding what is best for the entire ecosystem very seriously. Yes ANOs have a very vested interest in the well being of the protocol, but that certainly doesn't 100% correspond to the interests of other (future) types of parties we have in the system.

Just to make things clear and not to interprete things a posteriori. The Guide role was initially not 100% defined precisely (particularly the type of power). It was initially there because the community envisioned the need for human interactions for some processes.
The guide role has never been changed in governance and has always been exactly as in governance 001.

ANOs and Guides are currently the 2 types of Standing. Any of them is subject to see its own particular interest, not only the ANOs. Let us not be naive, this is human nature.
I really take offence by these types of mentions. Look at any single vote I have done as a guide and look at the complete differences with for instance votes by BIF. I take completely different points into account when voting as guide, that certainly aren't in my own interest. Actually I have never voted on anything that would be in my interest as I have always abstained and/or made any conflict of interest clear. It is too easy to make these types of statements, because people have a "feeling".

I agree, onboarding more different standing parties is the good way to decentralise the protocol. And I agree too that before it arrives I will not promote a strong reduction in Guides responsabilities. BUT we are speaking here of a new Guide ability which is being able to decrease the number of ANOs. Because it is a new responsability, it should come with a safeguard. That is my only point.

I am fine with the current version of Doc 005 enabling only stability or increase in the number of ANOs. Should we go further (authorizing a decrease by the Guides) I think transparent and objective criteria are needed. I am not asking in any case here for more power for the ANOs.
We are in agreement on most of it to be clear. Just like to make everyone aware that right now having a bit of counterbalance against only one other type of standing party is very much needed. After all guides mostly have social power only as it should be.

(I think the above better fits in the other started thread, because this one obviously is about the ANO doc)
 
Secured
#47
The guide role has never been changed in governance and has always been exactly as in governance 001.
At the very beginning of M3, the exact scope of the Guide role was not defined. Again the principles was there sure. Time after time, the Guide role has been defined by the Standing Parties. That is all I wanted to say.


I really take offence by these types of mentions. Look at any single vote I have done as a guide and look at the complete differences with for instance votes by BIF. I take completely different points into account when voting as guide, that certainly aren't in my own interest. Actually I have never voted on anything that would be in my interest as I have always abstained and/or made any conflict of interest clear. It is too easy to make these types of statements, because people have a "feeling".
You should not Niels, really not. I am well aware of the time you dedicate to the protocol. I am not speaking about any individual here, just about the game theory behind. Everything is ok for now, we have good-will people, the balance of power is adequate... But we need to consider selfish agent at a certain point in time if we want to be robust over time.


We are in agreement on most of it to be clear. Just like to make everyone aware that right now having a bit of counterbalance against only one other type of standing party is very much needed. After all guides mostly have social power only as it should be.
Yes we are.


(I think the above better fits in the other started thread, because this one obviously is about the ANO doc)
Sure.
 
Secured
#48
As the document ratification vote is getting close we will not have the required amount of time to properly rework the document with Alex/Matthias suggestions so we will let the document stay as is for this inital v.1.0 ratification.

We will be able to grow the Authority Set to be operated by 32 ANOs for now, and when updating the document to allow for expanding it past that number we can also include text that enables a reduction of the authority set if necessary.

I would also like to have metrics that we agree about for expanding the authority set, and using PegNet for this is a great idea. If it could be automated into the system so we are not dependent on guides gatekeeping this even better.... But again, that will be an issue for future us to handle.

I have updated the document to 1.0, and the document is now ready to be voted on by the standing parties when the discussion period ends in a little while.

A big thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion!
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Secured
#49
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.