16 August 2023 / 09:00-11:00AM (UTC-5)
Council: Bocheng, Elation Studios, Gelaxy, M&N, Sash, H&4, PG Bao, Song Sjun, Strawberry Council, Sai, Tyrolee
- BPoS consensus – M&N (guest: Su Yipeng)
- MM activities update – H&4
- Destiny Calls suggestion – Fakhul
1) BPoS Consensus
- Two proposed changes in the suggestion
- Inactive – Active – https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/64d60988d7fcf20078fdc1f2
- Active – Active – https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/64d60b9a1378850078826cb7
Su Yipeng – It’s a good suggestion that will improve BPoS. Most of the points are great.
- 14 day cool down period – will the voter receive rewards? In my opinion the stakers should still get rewards as they are still contributing to the blockchain. (For both circumstances. If the node becomes active during redelegation then voters will receive rewards again. And for active-active redelegating the voter keeps receiving rewards throughout.)
- After redelegation, how much of the lock time will apply for the new node? E.g.
- 100 days votes staked
- After 30 days a redelegation is made
- 14 days cool down
- Leaves 56 days on the new node.
- Is this 100 days weighting or 56 days vote weighting?It needs to be clearly decided in the proposal
Nenchy – If inactive to active there is no problem because the inactive node isn’t earning rewards. For the active-active the cool down can be any time or can keep receiving rewards.
Gelaxy – Suggest that the original voting time is used for calculating voting rewards. 100 days in the above example if inactive to active. But for active-active then the reduced number of votes should be used to calculate rewards.
2) MM activities update
- How successful has it been?
- Do they share profits?
- (Detailed information shared in NDA-covered MM report to CR members – Fakhul)
Fakhul – Will there be a new proposal for increased liquidity supply? Not until there is sufficient positive sentiment about whether this would pass. Another attempt via a DAO proposal that fails will look bad. Optics are important.
Sash – Is liquidity compounding over time?
Fakhul – A small amount, yes.
Nenchy – Once demand is sufficient for ELA can more liquidity make a buffer?
Fakhul – Not quite. It would allow them to MM in a way that is more price discovery model as the spread can be increased to attract demand. The spread is tight right now so they can maintain the market-neutral strategy to cover the retainer.
The original deal was to cover two exchanges but now we’ve added twice the exchanges including Coinbase – a big one! The liquidity they currently have is used to buy and sell so they can’t let it run too fast with the liquidity at hand.
3) Destiny Calls suggestion
- Released last week – https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/64d508c113788500788261ef
H&4 – Is the Alphagrowth partnership agreed or pending the DAO proposal.
Fakhul – Any projects they source who receive a grant will earn them 10% of the grant. They’ve adjusted their model to accommodate us. They’ve already started to work even though the deal isn’t finished.
All marketing/BD costs are for new DC-specific costs for website-making/advertising as there is no budget for this from anywhere else.
Cassie – What is the ELA that can be returned from Alphagrowth?
Fakhul – If they don’t find enough projects that win grants then Alphagrowth won’t get their %-based fee.
H&4 – How does this link to Bocheng’s gas fee suggestion?
Fakhul – It is separate but complementary. Developers coming to Elastos through the DC campaign will also be able to benefit from the gas fee sharing mechanism. It’s an added benefit!
Nenchy – How is the funding being spent? Are there milestones for releasing the 50k?
Fakhul – It’s a lot of admin work and the grants will vary. And they are determined on criteria that includes speed.
Nenchy – Who judges the winners?
Fakhul – AG, Elevation will vet teams. The judges will be from the following:
- Soong Bao
- Elastos Partners (Tencent/Alibaba)
- EF members
- CRC members
Nenchy – Maybe we can put all funds to one big project, or many smaller projects.
Fakhul – Applicants will be: potentially exciting dApps needing a home and medium or small dApps. The latter will likely dominate the application.
H&4 – Where will the ELA come from that the EF will provide? Buyback ELA?
Fakhul – From their reserves. Or maybe they’ll buy ELA. Probably not from buyback. That’s for them to decide.
1) Developer incentive program
- Released last week – https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/64dc962260cec9007c786d35
Nenchy – How will the rewards be disbursed?
Bocheng – Centralized to start then decentralized method will be added afterwards.
Fakhul – How much ELA will this generate?
Bocheng – 1000ELA annually, but if the fees increase 10x this would increase too, obviously. But 50% would go to developers.
Fakhul – how much to increase it by?
Bocheng – Increase by 30x now. ELA price determines this moving forwards though.
Fakhul – Is the approach more dynamic (ELA price-dependent).
Bocheng – The suggestion doesn’t specify how much to increase the gas by.
Fakhul – A guide table for gas price increases vs ELA price would be helpful for DAO voting decision-making.
Gas fees all go to Council Nodes right now. So increasing the fees could look like the council is increasing their revenue. This wouldn’t be a problem if the ESC validator nodes were open to the public too. The optics could be poor if it’s seen as a way for the Council to earn more, even though it benefits the ecosystem by attracting developers.
Bocheng – This suggestion is based on the assumption that the CRC rewards won’t be decreased by the change. The fees received are really low. So it is not really a significant issue to worry about. The proposal serves more as a way to add infrastructure features to the blockchain so it’s there ready for use in the future. It’s preparatory.
A new proposal will be submitted that will permit infrastructure that allows for the CRC to define the gas costs for ESC that can be changed automatically by DAO voting from the CRC.
h&4 – The 30x increase alongside the developer incentive would look like CRC are increasing their fees by 15x. An ecosystem fund would be better for most of these funds, not the CRC.
Fakhul – Maybe 90%/10% would be better if a 30x increase happens.
Sash – CRC could have a revenue mechanism from this. It would help the council build a war chest.
Conversely: This year we only just had enough candidates for the council. That could be due to us not having incentive for anyone to join CRC.
So increasing the rewards like this could be a good solution to attract council candidates AND set up an ecosystem funding solution beyond emissions for CRC from ELA inflation.
Bocheng – We do need to ensure that no corruption accusations come from the community. The two phase approach that CR has means that the community can always veto things if there is a problem.
h&4 – MAke it live in March then the benefits are not for the incumbent council. That will also allay fears of corruption.
Bocheng – This would be September if it happens.
Fakhul – Can this be raised with the community? The veto mechanism has never been activated – maybe an awareness or community size/votes available issue. Can Guardians in Telegram/Discord and those running the Chinese communities ask the question about this suggestion?
h&4 – A fully-formed plan should be determined before making a proposal and asking the community. The current plan is half-baked and not ready for voting.
Fakhul – 90% of the community probably wouldn’t even think about the CRC benefitting from extra gas fee rewards. As a suggestion it’s good to ask the questions in public because it’s in the discursive phase. Exactly what the suggestion/proposal/vote/veto mechanism is for. An ecosystem fund pot is kind of interesting but also we do have the treasury for this.
The CRC proposal system has been tricky to get funding out of, perhaps less so now.
Sash – Revenue generating options are worth looking into as we spend more than we earn or bring in through inflation (halving will deplete this income further).
Example: Maybe we can use the CRC treasury as collateral and earn income from lending platforms (FilDA). Taking loans against our ELA in stablecoins so we don’t have to sell ELA which can be repaid from ELA income from gas fees and other sources. This form of active management is missing and would be beneficial.
h&4 – Insurance funds for developers and users could be attractive.
Sash – ELA demand can be driven by the CRC. More locks, more buying, voting, veto. The council raising revenue would make it more exciting which, in turn, would drive ELA demand. Five years out this can be relevant.
h&4 – One of the factors to win a grant is to run a BPoS node. Is this using the grant funds or prior to deployment.
Fakhul – There are some good incentives available and discussions can be had. We’d rather see it happen rather than rely on promises.
- All – CR Members to discuss BPoS further in Telegram.
- All – Let Fakhul know if you want to be a judge for Destiny Calls.
- Cassie – Find out whether all Mainchain gas fees go to the voters/node owners or does CRC get a %?