CIP-0077? | Verified Stake Pool Identity

[Maetti79]

The current CIP ID is set to 0071, but this can be changed.
(in accordance with CIP0066)

[rphair]

thanks for submitting @Maetti79 - looks good after a light read (more than enough to be sure this is distinct from #241).

The current CIP ID is set to 0071, but this can be changed.

Our policy (in the process of being better documented) is not to assign numbers until confirming CIPs as candidates. In the meantime it will help readers if the number in the current subdirectory CIP-0071 and the number currently in the header 57 are made consistent... preferably by removing both numbers (with a ? in place of a number in the header, and a short but unique & descriptive subdirectory name beginning with CIP).

[Maetti79]

Thanks for changing and the clarification, that helped me a lot.

[KtorZ]

May you give perhaps a use case / concrete example of what "the verification process" looks like at the moment and who are the central authority doing this? (I am genuinely not aware of any?)

[SebastienGllmt]

Currently CIP6 is kind of a verification scheme: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0006

[KtorZ]

There's no 2.

[SebastienGllmt]

It's probably good to specify this is specifically referring to CIP6

[SebastienGllmt]

I would say there are to ways to do this:

1. Have the metadata specify the identity
2. Have the identity specify the metadata

I think this CIP is aiming for (1), but maybe it's best to go with (2)

[KtorZ]

The proposal seems to have some degree of overlap with CIP-0006. It'd be good to reach out to the authors for feedback.

Also, this is clearly a proposal which will demand adoption amongst stake-pool operators; having it reviewed by a few SPOs is therefore expected. Adoption by a variety of SPO is seemingly a requirement to appear in the 'Path to Active' section.

[rphair]

As a current SPO I would rather state more generally that this is a "proposal which will appeal to a subset of stake pool operators."

[rphair]

So far by authors & reviewers we have different permutations of the canonical term stake pool as "staking pools", "stake-pool(s)", etc. It should be spelled everywhere with the canonical term, unless anyone can find it spelled otherwise in a more definitive source than this document: Cardano Docs > Stake pools

[rphair]

Great job @Maetti79 on recent round of changes & the candidacy of this proposal in general.

Editorially I had to submit IAMXID#1 to correct the misspelled term "stake-pool" which has no hyphen. In assembling these documents we can't indulge spelling mistakes which will lead to other spelling mistakes by imitation. The same applies to the commonly accepted but incorrect term "staking pool". (Technically this term shouldn't be capitalised either, but punctuation mistakes are less likely to be imitated than spelling mistakes.)

[Maetti79]

Further and recent information about how and why is available here:

https://medium.com/iamx-own-your-identity/blockchain-compliance-proof-of-stake-regulation-9a4b6490448a

[rphair]

@Maetti79 now that official number 0077 is assigned, please also rename the proposal folder in your branch from CIP-0071 to CIP-0077 😎

[rphair]

@Maetti79 also: after the last round of commits, is this proposal up for editorial & peer review again? There are some organisation & formatting issues apparent, but if you had further work planned and/or were going to collaborate with authors & advocates for CIP-0006 as @KtorZ suggested then I would happily wait before listing them in detail.

Some tentative feedback, without a full code review:

• The points in "High-Level Overview" alternately apply to Motivation, Specification and Rationale and should be moved into those sections.
  • Some if not all of those abbreviated / bulleted points should be filled out into explanatory text.
• Since references to regulatory sources seem to be in the works (from your recent comment above) it will help to either spell the terms Know-Your-Customer and Know-Your-Business correctly (no hyphens) or eliminate them from the unnecessary Glossary.
• Unofficial sections Cross-Chain Compatibility, Backwards Compatibility, and References should also be subsumed into official sections (probably all parts of Specification).
• Path to Active needs to have 2 sections for Acceptance and Implementation as described in latest version of CIP-0001... I think @KtorZ 's suggestion is a good one: to have SPO interest and adoption appearing as items on the checklist(s) here.

The technical part of the Specification seems (to me, not a metadata expert) well done: we just need to make sure it's bracketed with writing that puts this into context as a potential standard.

[rphair]

(following on #361 (comment)) Pending an official presentation to SPOs on the Cardano Forum (which @Maetti79 I would recommend), I've attempted to bridge the existing SPO participation here, with hopefully some interest & review from SPOs here on GitHub: https://forum.cardano.org/t/contingent-staking-how-is-this-not-censorship-how-is-this-not-permissioned/114435

If discussion develops here or in a more focused thread, it can be included in the CIP preamble, and hopefully inform the preparation of a Path to Active section that includes the SPO community.

[rphair]

@Maetti79 this proposal is on the agenda for the CIP Editors' Meeting today... if you can be there please do (and post if you need directions; it's in less than 90 minutes). I'm marking "Waiting for author" because there's been no response yet to the feedback above & no comments from the SPOs who would be the mainly interested parties for this.

Personally I think it that having this CIP on the books would be an asset in the "Contingent Staking" dialogue that flared up in the last month. If you can continue the work on this proposal I feel sure the community would welcome it. (cc @KtorZ @Ryun1)

[Maetti79]

I am available, where should i go/be, is there a meeting?

[rphair]

@Maetti79 CIP Editors Meeting Discord invite: https://discord.gg/kyaTyzkBqd
Meeting link: https://discord.com/events/971785110770831360/1078617056754286632

[rphair]

@Maetti79 thanks for coming to the CIP meeting today & please, as we said in the meeting, respond to the feedback above and we'll review it on GitHub in the meantime and progress it more at the meeting. Attendees agreed that this would be a timely proposal given the current issues of proving identity & uniqueness.

@gufmar we also were hoping (suggested by @KtorZ at meeting today) you can interface with the SPO community and get some operator discussion on this? I asked for this on GitHub itself above but the reach was pretty small & we only got 1 response... can we get this in the SPO call agenda?