Respond in Interim Consensus Protocol proposal group

First

• Listen again to Fractally meeting 26 first 20 minutes dan explains the new addendum to interim consensus process
• Reread Dan’s new proposed interim consensus process
• Share in interim consensus protocol video with timestamp in Eden Fractal proposals group https://youtu.be/4TVUdeh4GTU
• Screenshot everyone’s messages below
• Organize the notes below better

Future Plans

• Eventually add this or parts of this to notion.
• Some may fit in the:
• Eden ƒractal Social Media Page
• Eden ƒractal Tooling Page
• Interim Consensus Process Page

Questions

Another variable to consider is attendance. If it’s only 50% of attendees or something, what happens if they don’t show up? Or only 2 show up?

Respond Tadas

Respond Tadas - would Tadas solution scale well? Ie with 15 voters if there are more people joining? Though I suppose we could increase the number to over 4 at some point…

Two points about the proposal process:

Increase security for sensitive proposals?

It may be helpful to create a higher level of security for sensitive proposals. For example, perhaps we should require a two week approval process to change the interim consensus process. This could protect the group from making an unwise decision rashly that is difficult to reverse. Too complex? Or good to say?

What does the interim consensus process govern?

What does the interim consensus process govern?

What does the interim consensus process not govern?

What are the limitations of the interim consensus process not govern?

What is the jurisdiction of the interim consensus process?

Clarifying the Jurisdiction of The Interim Consensus Process

We should aim to make the limitations of the interim consensus process and proposal system clear. Let’s set expectations properly.

For example:

Anyone is free to leave if they don’t agree with the opinions or proposals of the community.

Proposals are not legally binding in any sense. Proposals are simply an on-chain expression of the opinion of the community. . Proposals are not enforceable in any way except insofar as the community respects the community’s process and wants to comply on their own volition. No one is obligated to comply with proposals except insofar as they want to continue playing with the community.

The same is also true for the community as a whole. The community . Jurisdiction over its opinion and ability to govern the community

The msig signers can do what they want and are not beholden to the interim consensus process.

The code and data is all open so if anyone disagrees then they can fork.

Owners/creators of related assets, such as websites and social media accounts and zoom accounts are not obligated

Developers creators and builders are not obligated

Necessary to say? Yes much is very helpful

Enabling all members to participate in voting?

Anyone who has participated in at least 50% of meetings or level 4,5,6 this week

Don’t want to exclude lower ranks from participating in website collab decisions. Ie Marco Duane jiyon Chris… idk if they’ve got over 3 avg but they shouldn’t be excluded bc lower level. They’re adding huge value by joining. Over 3 avg creates misalignment bc incentive to equalize to give voting ability

5 or 6 that week enables any eos stars who Join to vote

Half of meetings gives barrier to newbies that is overcome by just joining and learning more

Would informed voters get overwhelmed quickly by new participants who have rational ignorance?

* I don’t think so. If the level is counted in sum since the beginning, then the informed voters who have been joining since the beginning will have lots of level built up.

* It would take a while for people who are rationally ignorant to catch up in level, and they would become more informed by doing so by joining meetings

*

Consider - maybe we should use the vote weight formula in the social media rewards section of the Fractally whitepaper , page 30

Vote weight can be automatically calculated in a spreadsheet like jiyon made

We can pin updated spreadsheet onchain every week

Avg level over past 12 weeks , but idk it seems that favors new people who join once like Domenic ?

Multiple people can review to confirm it’s correct

Then the formula decides the vote weight each week

Voting during meeting could be on excel or Notion database to automate calculations in real time

Actually maybe the best and most simplest option is to give everyone a vote and measure the weight of votes by total levels over all time. Or perhaps over 20 weeks of some other time frame.

This can be easily calculate with a SUM function in excel. Then this can be linked on spreadsheet where people vote yes or no.

This is inclusive and enables everyone to participate in community consensus

, it gives more power to people who contribute more

Power is determined by level, not respect

Power is not fibanocci distributed - more equal with only 6x between bottom and top

This is far more responsive and precise and fair for the community. It is simple and Provides a much tighter positive feedback loop where everyone can participate and everyone is directly rewarded with more Power when they help the community more.

Perhaps ask Vlad if he can create a new token - Eden LVL - non transferable and will never be transferable. Could just be in a table and not a token, maybe best that way . Can vote in consortium polls. Airdrop retroactively and then add to new distributions 1-6. Then we could use consortium for the entire process, do it more trustlessly and automatically, and not need to rely too much on google spreadsheet manually

Consider - perhaps it is best to use a similar or some formula in whitepaper

Upvote squared minus downvote squared . Seems helpful?

Who can make a proposal?

Anyone who has joined a meeting can make a proposal is better for now. You can’t make a proposal if you haven’t joined but you can make proposal if you have joined. Simple and easy. And already built on consortium. Community is small and respectful now. No need to exclude community members who participate.

Off-Chain Influence

People like James mart or Yves would not have much formal governance power in these decisions, but they are greatly respected off chain and would have off chain influence to guide votes. They can get more formal power by joining last 12 meetings.

Native Ephemeral Respect

The Loss of Respect if Proposals Are Not Approved or Rejected?

The Third Rule in Genesis:

I think we should remove the third rule about people losing their respect if no consensus is reached. I’m not sure what the intention is of this rule. It seems technically difficult for us to use in the blockchain and unnecessary. Andrew made a decent point about the word ‘reject’ and if the community doesn’t have time to approve or consider it in one week then i don’t think that deserves punishment. By default all…

I think there should be a minimum threshold for voting power to pass proposals. For example, at least 50% of voting power should be used. Perhaps also a minimum quorum.

Maybe the idea of square of yes and no votes is overly complex and it’s better to use a quorum? Not sure, consider….

Consortium

Interesting,…. thank you.

Maybe test this first by making some sample polls

Questions for Vlad

• Does Consortium (still) have a feature whereby total amount of votes across all proposals can be limited each week by the amount of tokens?
• For example , if there are three polls in a given week then if you vote with 80% of respect tokens in one poll then you’d only have 20% to vote on
• Could the timer of proposals be reset every Wednesday at 13 utc?
• How easy or difficult would it be to tokenize level in addition to respect?
• It seems that a retroactive airdrop to 40 people would be quite easy and its simple for new token distribution with James’ eden fractal smart contract

Advantages of Eden Level Token

• Voting with a level has unique advantages.
• Less Pareto, more distributed.
• Aligned with the intention of social media rewards in Fractally white paper
• Less potential legal risk since not using the token that will eventually be transferable. Level will not be transferrable
• It’s good to have level on-chain for other reasons eventually anyway, such as social media integrations or ‘respect/level earned’ quantification after respect is transferable. Gives us more options in future designs
• Enables respect as purely signaling throughout the week, and level as a the vote that matters but only counts during the meeting.

Priority of Proposals

Using respect or level as signaling helps solve Tadas concern about the priority of proposals

Is it possible to vote with two different tokens on the same poll?

(Or automatically create two proposals… one for level and one for respect. Two tokens on one poll would be way cleaner and better though)

Eden Level Token Details

Token logo for Eden level can be the pentagon with fractal swirl

The ticker could be EDENLVL

Social Media Rewards on Consortium

Consider - can we enable a basic form of ‘social media rewards’ on consortium, in a similar way to the Fractally whitepaper?

Vlad has already built much of this functionality and we may be able to do this simply, smoothly, and fairly seemlessly alongside implementing the proposal system for interim consensus process

We could do it where there’s a weekly respect distribution of 20-50 EDEN for participants in polls.

Perhaps we use similar algorithm as Vlad has for poll creators to earn most and participants to earn a bit too

We could us the upvotes squared minus downvotes squared formula in the Fractally whitepaper

Consortium Proposals, Polls, and Social Media

Maybe actually there should be two different pages/communities on consortium. One is for signaling throughout the week and earning rewards for participating in polls. The other is for officially voting on proposals during meetings. They each use Eden level rather than Eden respect. That’s more aligned with whitepaper. And simpler to program. And less legal risk perhaps.

Test Consortium UX on Phone with Custom Permissions

Test- can I easily use consortium on my phone for ‘dan’ account by setting custom permissions for all consortium actions?

Test this.

Also try setting custom permission for voting on the Eden fractal web app

Proposals Can Only Be Passed By Live Participants During Meetings

It def makes sense that people can only pass proposals officially while on meetings. Requires attendance to participate in governance. Much more transparent, human, trustworthy, and simple process. Enables discussion during time of voting. So much better than asynchronous voting at this point.

Quorum to Pass Proposals

It should definitely be over 66% of level during the meeting to pass a proposal. This is most similar to current genesis consensus process. No confusion with the yes and no votes squared during the Meetings.

The ‘level counted’ should only be the ‘level present’, so that way there should never be any issue where people can’t reach consensus because not enough people are in attendance.

Draft Proposal 1

We propose the following:

We create two communities on Consortium: Eden Polls and Eden Proposals

We tokenize ‘Eden Level’ on the eden.fractal account. Eden Level will never be transferable and is only intended to show the level earned by participating in Eden ƒractal meetings. Eden.Fractal will retroactively send total amount of level tokens earned according to the tallies in the spreadsheet that Jiyon created (after several community member double check the numbers). Eden Level will be added to the automatic token distributions for each weekly meeting in the future.

We

[image:7E9B31C7-2051-49D6-96D6-73BD1AE92201-619-000A8CF09C479029/20FCCB2C-80BB-44FA-AED2-9DDB1D2BC3EC.png]

[image:9EEB7746-FF79-430D-B452-E19212C0AB44-619-000A8CF2F076D5A0/9B4BB4F0-9D5C-4D4B-9D92-F542E9450EFD.png]

[image:9FF766B7-0F0B-4BCE-B009-87419AC16F4D-619-000A8CF5D58712C0/917BEB07-A34A-4700-959F-F28B748499B4.png]