Sokol Testnet - On Boarding Procedures

If it was never in question, why the requirements for Sokol validator were changed without voting?

I would like to know that as well.

A Sokol validator never had to jump through any hoops / requirements.

However, what’s done is done. I think that we need to move forward in the interest of the group, so I’m willing to discuss this. Make no bones about it though, I’m of the opinion that a testnet is completely open - that’s a silicon valley lens, I know, and if the rest of the current group wants to limit validator membership… I suppose I’ll support reasonable limitations.

Again - limiting a testnet invites for a brittle system. But that’s just my two bits.

I disagree. The change was made without holding a vote and we cannot determine what is in the interest of the group without holding a vote on-chain. The change can be easily tracked on GitHub.

Just to be clear - we both agree that creating requirements for becoming a sokol validator broke the spirit and intent of the system? Furthermore:

Looking at the forum postings and wiki - it was seen that a mistake was made (and then corrected rather quickly - just wasn’t carried over to github’s wiki). Then people ran with it, telling others that this was ‘canon’.

My chief concerns are: 1) lack of critical thinking / reading completely of a forum post and 2) no one individual can nor should be allowed to make rules for others.

#1 is still on the table for me.

#2 not so much. I understand we are figuring things out, mistakes can happen. And even for the best of us, we must recognize that we haven’t the tools (yet) to come to consensus for ‘real’ topics. We have discussed rule for on boarding on Sokol (Only) - and I would like for us to now vote something in - so that we can move on.

However, we don’t even have a ballot designed / built / etc to do this function. We have three ballot types - all around key management basically.

So we need to design and get built such a tool. I’m suggesting that we table our concerns about what happened, and build these tools. Believe me, I’m really upset that we are adding limitations to Sokol Validator membership - but we need to move on. But I do appreciate how you’re feeling.

Posted Sokol requirements were seen as a mistake by whom? The GitHub wiki is the only place we clearly stated and published the requirements for Sokol and Core validators. The page remained unchanged for a long time until 12 validators were selected by MOC. We were given the project with the constitution and a set of rules and requirements we should strictly follow. All the changes we want to make to the constitution or the rules from this time on should be decided by on-chain vote. I believe this is very crucial to the project success.

1 Like

Link to constitution please. We don’t have one (if you have a link - I’ll change my position)

As for the github wiki - this should not be used for the following reason: there is an issue to permissions resulting in a problem with people wishing to do a PR.

But more to the point - we do need to come up with tools to arrive at and solidify ‘rules’. But that is outside the scope of this post. If you could create that post and link here - that would be swell

1 Like

Could you point me to any other place where requirements for Core and Sokol validators were transparently published?

Whitepaper and our wiki pages are the rules that were given to us. If you think they are not correct, it should not be up the individuals to change them without the on-chain vote. What if one of the validators decides that having Notary license for Core is too strict for a requirement and changes the wiki?

General purpose on-chain ballot would be an excellent start.


I believe you keep referring to the fact that Sokol validators had pending Notary license. (Correct me if I am wrong)

  1. It was stated on the forum where we had set of rules for Sokol that pending notary license is acceptable for SOKOL
  2. Several validators with pending notary licenses, but actively participating in several activities and meeting all requirements (including pending notary licenses) were selected by MoC (BEFORE it was 12 validators on Sokol)
  3. All keys were added via governance and 24 hours ballot
  4. Like Jeff said, it would be good to see what constitution you’re referring to… I don’t think it is available yet.


I really admire your commitment and all the great work you do for POA. I understand that requirements were not clear for everybody. However, the wiki page is the only place we have them published publically in a structured manner. You and I were voted in by existing Sokol validators. It was up to existing Sokol validators to decide how they interpret the requirements. My point is that if we want to make a change to the requirements we should vote. It should not be up the individuals to decide to change them.

1 Like

Agree on that Henry!

1 Like

I agree. The Wiki and the whitepaper are our founding documents. Founding documents for all governing bodies are subject to change via the rules as presented. Any proposed changes to those documents can be put forth in a debate subject to existing rules. We have an existing, well thought-out ballot system. These are our rules; these are the rules we must follow. This is governance.


1 Like

The wiki has issues (both technical and governance related). As for the ballot system, we only have key management ballots.

Back to the wiki/forum - there was a question regarding sokol validators. A member suggested that to be a validator requires a cert. Then a discussion emerged, and the person that suggested a cert requirement changed their mind. They forgot and added this to the wiki, but it is clear from their forum postings that they did not intend. We haven’t a clear cut system at present - the rules are basically being formed at this time.

It is not clear cut, and so I’m of the opinion we need to apply critical thinking at all times.

The Wiki page is a much better and cleaner place than a public forum to publish requirements. Yes, we have the rules and people followed them! I agree we need to apply critical thinking at all times and then vote on-chain if we want to change the rules.

1 Like

Totally agree with you on this. A wiki page is awesome at communicating information.

It is not at all appropriate for policy making/governance. For example (and I’m simplifying) Congress makes laws that are then codified into the Code of Federal Regulations that are then … One would not look at the CFR for a framework for the creation of law. We got a If -> Then issue, you can’t go backwards (typically).

(github is the CFR…)

This is a bit outside the scope of this particular thread, and I ask that you create a more focused thread for discussion.

At this point, I think we all agree that the whitepapers and the wiki are the foundation on how we should treat the sokol testnet process. However, I still don’t believe we have addressed “how” we plan to make any changes to any governing documents going forward.

I think what I am seeing is that ALL changes must go through a vote. However, the current system does not necessarily support complex ballots regarding governance changes but in the progress of being developed by the dev team. My concern comes back to how we track and ensure all changes are actually being voted on-chain? If a similar situation occurred unintentionally where a member changes part of the governance procedures, do we have a mechanism on catch that and vote every one of these in?

@jflowers I like your idea of a google doc to get everyone to participate on what they want to see on this complex ballot - once we have a good idea, we can then move it to on-chain so people can finalize the voting there.


We can have something like for our governance page. I believe to change validators metadata other validators have to review and approve the changes. If we have a similar page for governance when the majority of validators has to sign the page with their voting keys we kill two rabbits with one shot. We will have a web page with all our rules and requirements available to anyone and validators have to vote on-chain to make a change to it. I wonder what everyone thinks?

Thanks for your comments, Sherina. Yes, well said, we can all agree that the whitepapers and the wiki are the foundation, the rules we as Validators are bound to abide. Sherina also makes a great point that the the current ballot tools available to Validators limit us to a specific set and form of governance. I believe this was the intention of the POA Team, and I think it was well reasoned.

Perhaps we should all step back a moment and consider a few things. We are all lucky to have the opportunity to be Validators - FOUNDING Validators - what an honor! We know there are a lot of people right now doing their best to satisfy the criteria so they can apply to become a Validator. We should welcome and support this. We first few in particular were given an opportunity without a vote, as will all POA Clone network Validators selected by their Master of Ceremonies to kickstart their new networks, if they follow the vision of the POA Core team.

We are Validators - all Validators today are Sokol network Validators, many of us are POA Core Network Validators. As such we are simply a unique subset of the POA Network Community, along with the thousands and thousands of others who observe or participate in this forum, the POA Network Telegram Channel, the POA Gitter Channel supporting Token Builder, and the POA Network Github repository. As Validators we have volunteered for and accepted certain extra responsibilities to help maintain the health and well-being of the POA Core and Sokol Networks. We are not part of the POA Core Team. We don’t make the rules, we abide by them.

We have only the authority granted us by current rules. Basically, we are the equivalent of an ‘event’ committee in a non-profit organization. We aren’t owners, we aren’t on the board, we happen to have been allowed to participate in leadership roles for specific duties; we get to pick the decorations and invite others who also meet specified criteria to join our committee, so they can pitch in and help; that is all. We must fulfill our roles within the scope and rules as granted.

When the POA Core Team decides to provide new or different tools because they believe it will help improve the POA Network, that is great, and we should do our best to use those tools. We should help spread the word about POA Network and its compelling advantages that can help millions of people solve giant problems, and help a mom let her kids pick up some milk from the corner shop on the way home from school, because this network is blazing fast and ridiculously inexpensive, and every participant in this economic system has to spend less to have a little more. And if someone wants to copy this network, let’s make sure we do the HARD work now of following the POA Core Team vision, building a bedrock blockchain base, and encourage other communities to Clone POA and Bridge to POA Core so their network is a little simpler; maybe even a little less expensive for their local community. And we can be a part of that.

It’s breathtaking, in a way; heady stuff. I am happy to help and serve in the role as provided, and it is my pleasure to support and encourage everyone else to do the same to help our community.

Jim O’Regan


@1proof well said. From everything I’ve seen, validators are stewards of the POA Network.


As a a candidate currently in the process to be a Sokol Validator, seeing the requirements is very helpful in knowing how to best participate and contribute to the community. I enjoyed listening to this dialogue and found it very helpful as a candidate.