Skip to content
Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
132 lines (85 sloc) 12.9 KB
PIP: 0007
Title: Peerplays Decentralized Proposals
Authors: Jonathan Baha'i
Status: Draft
Type: Protocol
Created: 2019-10-10
Discussion: PIP-7-PDPROPOSALS channel at https://discord.gg/GTuEuDt

Abstract

Peerplays currently operates without a community consensus system for funding development of the blockchain and other requirements for the success of Peerplays.

The objective of this high level specification is to introduce a system which is optimal for both PPY holders and for those seeking to support the ecosystem with proposals that develop the various aspects of the DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Cooperative).

Decentralized consensus is achieved by taking a similar model to how a typical committee would operate on behalf of a voting community. By enabling a specialized committee which has all its funding and reporting functions derived through blockchain smart contracts, PPY voters can enable the allocation of necessary expertise to oversee the particular sector.

The DAC community of voters can then be freed up to be more dedicated to other matters. The ongoing funding of these committees will require certain ongoing reporting to the DAC and thus provide a consistent and concise update on progress of each sector to the community.

A type of counter balance or regulatory body is created through the Advisors to these new committees. They help ensure that in the event of an emergency situation the funding and reporting mechanisms are not abused against their intent to serve the DAC.

This PIP will open up a world of possibilities to professionals from all business arenas who will essentially be able to effectively interact with the DAC in a more efficient and meaningful fashion.

Some may call this ‘mining Peerplays via services’, as the rewards which are delivered from the blockchain are done in exchange for the services rendered to it. For others, this will simply be ‘working for the Peerplays blockchain’.

Motivation

BitShares was the first to introduce a Worker Proposal system with the introduction of 2.0 in late 2015. While the concept itself was revolutionary at the time, it essentially was unused in the beginning of its life cycle. Later it gained traction as community members started to come up with escrow arrangements and converting to bitassets as a means of payment in attempts to try and make it more attractive.

Other communities such as Dash, EOS, and soon Steem will incorporate similar methods of funding work for the blockchain which can be voted in by the token holders of the chain.

While the innovative idea of being paid by the blockchain has its merit, the mechanics it utilizes puts more emphasis on the protection of the token holders while giving none to the worker. The theory goes, that if the worker is doing what they should then they will continue to have voter support.

However, where tokenomics are involved, this theory fails in the face of downward pressure on price with large token holders wanting only upward movements and beliefs in austerity start to emerge. The Worker, having no rights, is left powerless in this scenario and loses its funding, which will happen.

In addition to these issues, the mechanics of the systems did not do well in attracting scalable numbers of Workers. This lead to many Workers being supported which did not possess the level of expertise that was desirable for the tasks that needed to be fulfilled.

The lack of community wide consensus and/or understanding of the needs of the blockchain in order to grow its user base was not fully realized due to the lack of leadership. Through massive proxy voters, some Workers gained favor only through nepotism, and not by merit. This has often lead to many community members feeling disenfranchised by the process, and frustrated overall by the decentralized nature of Worker Proposal systems.

Rational

A Peerplays Decentralized Proposal system should provide the verification levels necessary in order to maintain a firm but fair system for Proposal funding from the Peerplays blockchain.

In order to remain scalable, the mechanism would have similar characteristics to the current Worker Proposal system in Peerplays which was inherited from BitShares, but with some modifications.

These functions help overcome the various issues illustrated above by providing an added layer of check and balance against the Workers, while also incorporating a proactive element that is directed by committed individuals, companies, NGOs, and/or government agencies which are experts in the respective sector in which they are serving the Peerplays blockchain ecosystem.

All elements are required in order to have a balanced game theory which is meant to illicit transparency and growth to the Peerplays ecosystem.

Many people and companies around the world are eager to participate in blockchain technology. This will present an easy to understand and attractive way for them to now ‘work for the blockchain’ directly supported by the Decentralized Autonomous Cooperative of Peerplays.

Specifications

Subject Matter Expert Committee (SMEC)

SMEC does not complete the work themselves, they simply act as a committee made up of members who have expertise within the field which they oversee. When created, they have both the job of assessing incoming proposals, while also reaching out for the necessary expertise to submit proposals based on the overall strategy and objectives required of their specific SMEC to bring to the blockchain.

Prior to any proposals, a guideline should be created by the SMEC in order to give guidance to potential proposals that will be submitted to the SMEC sector.

SMEC can earn a portion of the multiple proposals they advise and report on. Similar to the Committee account, all funds for a worker will be cosigned by the SMEC which can be made up of 3 to 9 members per SMEC sector. Some examples of needed SMEC sectors would be:

  • User Experience and Support
  • Blockchain Development
  • Security and bug bounties
  • Marketing and Public Relations
  • Business Development
  • Product Development
  • Legal Matters
  • Partner Relations
  • Executive Management
  • Esports Leagues
  • Brand Development
  • Business & Strategic Analysis

Advisors must vote unanimously on a proposal to create a SMEC sector which would include parameters for

  • Duration
  • Number of members
  • Overall budget daily
  • Private Staked Backing enabled/disabled

Note: An Advisor account cannot register as a SMEC for security reasons.

Members of the SMEC would only be compensated from the projects they help oversee.

They will be required to maintain ongoing relations and reporting to the community on the status of all Proposals they oversee and make recommendations that could include:

  • Increase/Reduce Budget - limited to recommended 30% (maybe adjusted by Advisors)
  • Suspend/Unsuspend Budget - cause project funds to burn until unsuspending
  • Terminate Contract - premature ending of contract from set out term due to extreme poor performance or other circumstances.
  • Performance Bonus - discretionary one time payout to the Worker for exceeding expectations parameter

When operating a SMEC sector a report that is signed by 2/3 members of the sector must be submitted within the 30 day GPOS timeframe to receive the SMEC payment portion from the Proposal. Should it not be submitted in time, all funds that would have been sent to the SMEC for the given GPOS period are burned back to the reserve and cosigning permission on Proposal funds will be suspended until report is provided funds will continue to be burned until depleted.

SMEC members will rely heavily on their reputations both professionally and within the community in order to fulfill their roles. Their pay rate is recommended to be 10% of all Proposals which are active and funded. This can be adjusted by the Advisors with each SMEC sector to address the needs of the given sector. Where in some industries 10% may be acceptable, in others 2% would be the standard to match.

Every SMEC will have a 6 month term when they are voted into existence. This means that once PPY token holders have supported a SMEC as part of a sector they will not be removed except by their own neglect of participation, or by the Advisors under certain circumstances. Eg. Fraud, criminal charges etc. SMEC members have the ability to self remove their position after 1 GPOS period of 30 days has passed.

Having this 6 month term will provide a minimum level of stability to those that work with the SMEC to know that they have their support during that period of time. This enables Workers to interface primarily with the SMEC rather than the voting community at large bringing higher transparency, efficiency, and expertise into the execution of the Proposals.

Proposal SMEC Tagging

Every proposal must provide a tag which categorizes which expertise the proposal will fall under. This tagging will be made available based on the availability of the SMEC sector. Until a SMEC sector is available for the appropriate tagging, such proposals will need to be deferred until the blockchain as established one. SMEC members will have discretion over the applicability of accepting Proposals for appropriate tagging. For example, a social media Proposal depending on the nature of the work offered may fall under either sales, support, marketing, or even public relations. This will be better defined over time.

Pre-Proposals

A SMEC sector likely in formulating an overall strategy to what is needed for the blockchain will create Pre-Proposals which potential Workers can apply to fulfill. In order for a Worker to qualify the SMEC sector members must unanimously vote for the approval of the Worker.

This means that the community at large will only seek to know and vote for SMEC members who are experts in their given sectors and it will be the responsibility of each SMEC to provide guidelines on requirements through Pre-Proposals and also review Worker submitted proposals where their SMEC sector is tagged.

It is HIGHLY likely that SMEC members would be among the most qualified within their sector to provide services to their own Pre-Proposals. While this can create a conflict of interest, this can be managed by requiring the following parameters:

  • Only SMEC sector of 5 or more members may at any time have 2 of the SMEC members engaged in providing services to a Pre-Proposal.
  • No Proposals involving a SMEC member can be voted for by them.
  • Any attempts made by a SMEC member to operate a Worker through another user providing false identification, or collusion with other Workers will result in immediate termination action by the Advisors. This can result in suspension of an entire SMEC sector until new members are voted for.

Multi-Cryptocurrency Support

Reserve pool funding in Peerplays clearly would have its dominance in PPY, however in order to support the use of other types of funding it is necessary to specify source funds that have an available reserve which may be from a sidechain or another Peerplays native tokens.

Each SMEC sector when creating Pre-Proposals can select from a list of available tokens that are in supply. Source of funds would be derived largely from ongoing operations of the blockchain. For example, a BTC reserve pool could build up through a portion of feeds from running Sweeps draws. The size of the reserves available in these assets will be determined by how much the Advisors elect to have directed towards SMEC sectors for Workers.

Private Stake Backing

While voters can provide funding from the blockchain and reserves from game activity, there is also an open option to provide backing from individuals who want to invest in specific areas of their interest or which to sponsor such sectors.

Other tokens that are native to Peerplays may have their own tokenomics which will be of value to the Workers for their given sector. For example, a famous user on Peerplays may have a following who uses their assets to buy/sell/trade attention space within their profiles. Having certain value among industry participants, some SMEC sectors may opt to work with such assets as a source of value for the Worker.

This mechanism would require the Private Stake Backers (PSBs) to participate in providing the assets to the reserves which the SMEC sectors will have access to in order to create necessary Pre-Proposals.

With this option enabled, a sub-virtual account specific to the SMEC sector is created

Conclusion

By providing the Peerplays Decentralized Proposals system to the Peerplays Blockchain, a new method of working for the blockchain can emerge that will fulfill the various needs that the Decentralized Autonomous Cooperative require in order to advance the provably-fair Peerplays blockchain.

Discussion

Further discussions and review on this topic can be had on the Peerplays Discord server in the Improvement Proposals Category in the PIP-7-PDPROPOSALS channel at https://discord.gg/GTuEuDt

Copyright

This document is placed in the public domain.

You can’t perform that action at this time.