I voted no on this proposal and highly advise increasing the threshold of the active and owner permission.
I think it would be very unwise for the community to approve Vlad’s current proposal with the active permission only requiring 4/11 signatories and the owner permission only requiring 5/11 participants. This would put the community in an unstable game theoretical position whereby small groups can exercise too much power over everyone else.
You can imagine the hazards that would arise if only 9/21 BPs could make any change on EOS and consider the similarities of this situation. We need greater security to provide a stable foundation for growth.
I agree that the people in the MSIG have god intentions to contribution and collaborate, but the game theory is bad.
Imagine if the EOS MSIG only required 9/21 BPs to make any changes on EOS. It would be much less secure and trusted than the current arrangement of 15/21. EOS wouldn't be here if it only required 9/21 BPs.
That's similar to having only 5/11 MSIG participants with owner permission in Eden Fractal. It's a very risky arrangement for the community and we should absolutely not do that.
Bad system design incentivizes good people to do bad things and reduces the community's ability to collaborate for mutual benefit.
I agree that it’s not necessarily bad and can be a good option in some situations, but it can also be bad in many situations
About Moving too fast
I’d much rather not risk the delegates approving a proposal that could create big detriment for the community. Sometimes people want to make a quick change without thinking everything through clearly and I won’t necessarily be able to convey to everyone why I think it’s such a bad idea in a few minutes of speaking time during the meeting.
If we had another week then I could share the thoughts in a document that people could read and deliberate, but as it is delegates might just want to make a quick decision without fully considering the implications and I see that as a risk for the community.
It wouldn’t take much energy to agree on increasing the thresholds. What is the benefit of having such agility where 5/11 can control the owner permission without community consent?
. We can approve a proposal that was not previously proposed on Consortium and you can use your speaking time to introduce an alternative proposal
I initially supported it too because the beginning part is great, but saw flaws after thinking about the thresholds more deeply
I think the initial support did not think very deeply about the implications because other people aren’t as invested in the community
The status quo should be difficulty to change unless there is wide consensus. If only 5 people can change the account, then the system becomes less stable and easier for a small group to make big changes without community consent.
It’s the same reason why we require a supermajority of 15/21 BPs, 3/4 councils, or 2/3+1 agreement during fractally sessions. There should be a supermajority, not a minority, of consensus to make changes for the community.
ESPx Analogy
Yes it makes the community more vulnerable to forking, which isn’t a good thing. What would have happened with EOS if we only required 9/21 consensus to make major changes last month when people were discussing the ESPx?
I imagine it could have caused a much larger riff in the community and may have split the community apart because each side could reach the 9/21 threshold. Because the 15/21 threshold is a supermajority, it provides incentive for the community to work together, collaborate, and find consensus in some mutually beneficial and cohesive manner.
Liquidity Example
What would have happened with EOS if there were ESPx
One example that I can foresee is token liquidity. Many people in the community want the token to be liquid and many others do not want the token to be liquid. The stakes are high because it could create a lot of value for people or put people in more legal risk. If 5 people on the msig need money
What is the role of a signatory?
Permissions Article
Original Configuration
Add here
Add discussions from previous meetings
Role of MSIG
TP34- Do you agree to configuring the eden.fractal account MSIG as follows?
1. Create custom permission for submitranks action. 2. Add accounts to all permissions: 2luminaries1 (Sebastian), machwireeden (Marco), grahappaaaaa (Perry), crypt.gm (Gavriel), cacedenoneos (Chris), gm3dgobzgage (Andrew). 3. Remove the following accounts from all permissions: chuckcd.gm (Chuck), edenmsig1111. 4. Set owner permission threshold=8, Active permission threshold=7, Custom permission threshold=5. Details in spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16HY618Jkv3Uzu9xjgmRy_Gli6cIlq8hUHp0BU_AbSEM/edit#gid=0
TP34- Do you agree to configuring the eden.fractal account MSIG as follows?
1. Create custom permission for submitranks action. 2. Add accounts to all permissions: 2luminaries1 (Sebastian), machwireeden (Marco), grahappaaaaa (Perry), crypt.gm (Gavriel), cacedenoneos (Chris), gm3dgobzgage (Andrew). 3. Remove the following account from all permissions: edenmsig1111. 4. Set owner permission threshold=9, Active permission threshold=8, Custom permission threshold=5
Details in spreadsheet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iFaR4lDGs&t=5332s
No, it should be done at the same time. I am not comfortable with Vlad’s proposal and we did not agree to having a low threshold like that. There’s no reason to risk using such a low threshold.
Marco
Gavriel
Eric
Perry
Sebastian
CAC
https://discord.com/channels/916846690626052146/987107305051029565/988450562074890330