Hi all, we’re here again to share an update about the tokenomics rework. Related threads on the topic can be found here.
Where are we at?
The exciting news is that we’re at a stage where we feel comfortable to start the official governance process on the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework.
This has come after a period of outreach, seeking feedback from stakeholders, discussing alternative directions, and polishing the RPIP specifications. More information on this proposal can be found at rpl.rehab. This rework includes an informational overview in RPIP-49 as well as a number of RPIPs (42-47, 59, 60) used to specify the various aspects.
Sentiment Poll
The headline item here is that we’ve posted a sentiment poll below where you vote on whether to move the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework to a snapshot vote.
The snapshot vote would be a vote on the tokenomics rework package as a whole. This means you will be voting on the direction and general contents of the rework, and the specific contents of the included RPIPs as written.
However, we think it’s valuable to keep the RPIPs in a Living state rather than Finalized at this time. This will provide the flexibility to make minor adjustments in response to any issues discovered by the core team during implementation.
There are several specific items we are intentionally leaving flexible at this time, these items will be ratified prior to the launch of Saturn 1. They are:
-
Saturn 2 Surplus Share Strategy - Determine how to manage surplus share in Saturn 2: Buy+Burn, Buy+LP, or higher voter_share?
-
Deposit Strategy - A small amount of UX and gas research to help determine if we want a 2TX or 3TX deposit strategy for validator creation
-
Penalty System - Research and specify a MEV theft detection and penalizing system
-
Security Council NO commission changes - Determine when and how the council should use their limited power to change no_commission.
We foresee at least 2 follow-on votes - one for Surplus Share strategy and one to ratify the final states of the RPIPs. The other items on the list may be bundled with the ratification or get their own votes.
1kx proposal
1kx has proposed an alternative direction, which retains the RPL collateral requirement and introduces delegated staking. You can read the details of their proposal here.
Our position on this is that while some of the contents of the 1kx proposal are complementary, the core elements are not compatible with the RPIP-49 rework.
Note that this proposal doesn’t currently have specifications (RPIPs) to vote on. This is normal – all proposals have a design phase that precedes specifications.
Voters should vote to oppose moving to snapshot if they prefer the direction outlined in the 1kx proposal.
ib1gymnast proposal
Ib1gymnast has also proposed an alternative direction, which reduces the RPL bond requirement, uses smaller ETH bonds and maintains the 14% commission. You can read the details of their proposal here.
Note that this proposal doesn’t currently have specifications (RPIPs) to vote on. This is normal – all proposals have a design phase that precedes specifications.
Voters should vote to oppose moving to snapshot if they prefer the direction outlined in the ib1gymnast proposal.
How can you help us?
Please read through at least the intro explainers. Reading more and/or asking questions is highly encouraged! Then, make an informed vote on the future of Rocket Pool!
Thanks from all the authors and contributors (including but not limited to @Valdorff @samus @LongForWisdom @knoshua @sckuzzle)
RPIP-49 Rework Sentiment Poll
This poll will lead to a snapshot vote if it shows promising community sentiment after 14 days.
- Support moving to snapshot vote on the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework.
- Oppose moving to snapshot vote on the RPIP-49 tokenomics rework.
- Undecided
LFW’s Metagovernance Comments
You can safely ignore this if you just care about tokenomics stuff and aren’t that interested in how governance works.
We spent a few days debating and going back and forth on the wording around this forum post, and the format of the sentiment vote. It’s a reasonably complex governance situation because there are related proposals at different points in their life cycles. Here are some disordered thoughts about how we ended up with the above and how this played out.
(Note these are all LFW thoughts, and not tokenomics core-contributors thoughts)
- RPIP-4 is pretty ambiguous, and this makes it very hard to communicate clear outcomes to voters. I think in an ideal world, I would be able to say ‘a majority counts as promising sentiment’ and that could head-off contention later. Others disagree that this is good, given lack of referee and abusability of forum polling.
- There isn’t really a referee for this process, and there probably should be. Defacto it’s Langers because he gates access to snapshot voting. I guess it’s up to Langers if whatever result we end up with counts as promising community sentiment.
- There’s an argument that all RPIP-4 is meant to do is prevent spam, and the threshold for promising sentiment should be very low. I’m unsure how I feel about this.
- By any reasonable metric, it feels like this proposal meets the requirement for promising community sentiment even prior to a vote (due to engagement with the proposal, contributions, feedback, previous sentiment votes, etc). It would take a really extreme negative outcome to convince me that this doesn’t hit that bar.
- If you take the above to be true, then this is just a formality and arguably we should have just skipped to snapshot.
- Lots of the debate was around whether to have options to explicitly allow voting for a delay (either of explicit length, or just ‘some time’.) I’m unsure how I personally feel about this as well. In the end, if people want a delay they can comment and vote against.
- Delay seems costly. Val felt it was costly on a general level. I feel it’s costly on a morale level for those involved in the rework. Langers commented that a delay of more than six weeks would start to negatively impact development.
- Ultimately, I don’t think the authors want to delay, and this is the authors sentiment poll. I don’t think authors need to bend over backwards to accommodate an outcome that they don’t want. It’s enough that voters are able to express ‘not this.’ Which they can both here and on snapshot if it proceeds.
