xDai Stable Chain xDai Stable Chain BlockScout BlockScout TokenBridge TokenBridge

EmissionFunds #2 distribution proposal to distribute funds to POA R&D team

Dear POA Core Validators,

POA Core is requesting your support in the upcoming emission funds vote. In order to grow the community through funding initiatives, maintain our infrastructure demands (keep the lights on!), and support our small group of dedicated developers, POA is asking you to consider distributing funds to the POA Foundation during the next emission funds vote.

The date of EmissionFunds voting #2 is on 2019-05-19T07:00:00Z

As designed by the protocol you will have three options:

  • distribute the funds to a single proposal in full;
  • freeze all funds until the EmissionFunds #3 vote in full;
  • burn all the funds.

The POA R&D team is advocating that all funds be distributed to the POA Foundation multisig wallet: https://blockscout.com/poa/core/address/0x517f3acff3afc2fb45e574718bca6f919b798e10

This needed funding support will be used to increase POA reach and also support the current infrastructure demands, which are significant. Funding will go towards several high interest projects including:

  • Support and promotion for the second POA Games Fund #2 to bring more games and developers to POA Core;
  • Launch the new POA DEX Fund #1 to bring a DEX (decentralized exchange) to POA Core;
  • Subsidize current infrastructure needs such as API, Bootnodes, BlockScout, and other hosting expenses.

Thank you for the work you do to secure the network and maintain constant uptime, 5 second blocks, and thoughtful governance. POA network is a unique blockchain, and we look forward to growing the ecosystem in the coming year.

Sincerely,
POA R&D

12 Likes

Jae Kwon recently mentioned in the podcast the following thought:

Blockquote If you get the governance right, in theory, everything else is should be waterfall down from there. Application developers can find many ways to monetize. Core and infrastructure developers need on-chain support.

As an owner of the validating node infrastructure company, I know how costly it is to run your own infrastructure. I totally support POA’s vision and needs to keep the network running and would encourage everyone else to vote “YES” on a fund distribution to POA Foundation ballot.

3 Likes

On the 26th of May 2019, 14 POA Core validators unanimously voted to send the emission fund to the POA Foundation (4 voters abstained). This result allows POA’s model of self-sustainability to be put into action immediately. The current collected emission funds - 3,170,268 POA (which includes 1,661,469 POA frozen on the previous vote) - have been distributed to the POA Foundation Multisig wallet.

The emission fund proceeds will be used by the POA Foundation to support the ongoing sustainability, promotion and user adoption of the BlockScout explorer. This includes the funding of new grants and initiatives to support the ecosystem of access to open data. The first recipient will be the BlockScout Fund. This is a community initiative designed to implement features, patches, and infrastructure for BlockScout. This initiative will help BlockScout become a fully-featured explorer and challenge proprietary explorer dominance in the space.

Additional initiatives will be announced as needed, and we are excited for what the future holds for POA network! We want to thank all the POA Core validators who voted on this emission fund and who continue to dedicate themselves to the network.

Emission Ballots Stats Votes

POA on-chain governance allows the validators four options when voting on the emission fund.

Send: Send the emission fund to the POA Foundation’s Multisig wallet.

Burn: Burn the POA tokens from the emission fund, thus removing them from the circulating supply of all POA.

Freeze: Freeze the current total pool of POA in the emission fund until the next vote.

Abstain: The user does not select an option, thus abstaining from the vote.

Here are the results from the latest emission ballots vote:

POA’s on-chain governance has been working for nearly 18 months, with over 50 ballots that validators have participated in! To the validators, we want to say thank you again for supporting POA and proving that on-chain governance can work to support a sustainable network. We look forward to growing POA over the coming months as we advance our initiatives with the help of the emission fund!

6 Likes

I think the voting really demonstrates a key differential (and strength) of this Network.

With that said, I think that showcasing* votes is not great in the long term. Research coming out of http://congressionalresearch.org/ (https://youtu.be/1gEz__sMVaY) and others really brings home (for me at least) the perils of the practice.

I even think showing the number of votes during the voting cycle is highly problematic, as one can readily ‘see’ and then start a Hold-Up Problem potentially. I mention the displaying of votes in the dApp, as I suspect removal of this information would be ‘easy’ to correct (programming-wise)… i.e.: not having the votes/percentages shown during the process. Again - if you see that the current vote stands at 50/50 and you have the power to then push the process around (or stop it)…

*Whilst I completely understand that on-chain governance means, at the core, everyone can view actions (via the transactions carrying these intents) - this information has the real possibility of resulting in some negative unintended consequences.

One idea - partition ballots into ‘types’. Perhaps two ‘types’ could be: 1) In order to assuage possible future conflict within the validator set over the addition/removal of validators and how emission funds are used - these votes/ballots could be obscured wrt how people vote. 2) Whereas, votes to perform actions on behalf of clients would be in the open.

RE #1: This would lessen the future possibility of groups/sub-groups forming. Eg: Suppose Validator A advances a future validator candidate to the network. Validator B does not feel said candidate meets their personal standards for whatever reason(s), right now they vote ‘NO’ and the possibility of tensions exist. We see this in other systems currently.

RE #2: One of the greatnesses (sp) of this network is in the fact that the project is made up of Interested and Interesting Peoples. So a company using the Network can have greater confidence in being able to ‘reach’ the network using a variety of tools and pre-existing external systems. For my example consider NewCo A and NewCo B are using POA Network as a DLT layer of sorts. NewCo A undergoes a re-org and forgets to revoke Department 101’s ability to create transactions as they are now under Department 202. NewCo A and NewCo B both agree and are able to present legally recognizable evidence to the need of reversing these transactions (and willing to pay for the total costs for such a forking event.) Validators vote and it does not pass, the companies ought to be able to know who voted and how - as they are ‘paying’ for this service and being able to then reach these individuals via traditional means is what makes this project more appealing to this type of user.

Just my two bits on the matter. Again, on-chain governance with real people is powerful idea and opens up this technology to a number of real life use cases not served by other projects currently.

1 Like