In a voting process it is important to hear as many opinions on a voting proposal as possible prior to the actual voting. This will enable voters to make informed decisions.
In the case of our proposals it has become clear that they are very much skewed towards the interests of token holders. That is why Sergio Flores as the Founder of Phantasma has been asked to give his opinion on each of the Voting Proposals from a Protocol point of view.
When casting their vote, voters should not only consider their personal interest but also what the proposal means for the Phantasma Protocol, the development effort it would take to implement a Voting Proposal and how this might influence time that can otherwise be spent on other development activities.
The Governance Process – Voting Outcomes
The Ethereum Governance Process describes the potential outcomes of a voting as:
- The EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) will be considered for a future network upgrade.
- Technical changes will be requested.
- It may be rejected if it is not a priority, or if the improvement is not large enough relative to the development effort.
Ethereum’s EIPs are being written by developers. In our case, the VPs have been written by community members, but the principle remains the same. We will be applying the same potential outcomes as the leader in the field of decentralization. To distinguish between proposals coming from the Phantasma Community and proposals coming from Phantasma Developers, these proposals will be identified as Community Voting Proposals (CVPs) and Developer Voting Proposals (DVPs).
The Founder Speaks
Please find Sergio’s opinions below.
- CVP1 – Stop Crowns Distribution
I’m in favour of it, crowns were supposed to be a limited thing for early adopters. In terms of code, its 1 or 2 line changes, low impact. - CVP2- KCAL Token Split
I’m against it, it requires changes at chain level (or doing some “cosmetic hacks” at wallets / explorer). I think it’s better to find a way to spend the millions of KCAL that the community accumulated.About the change itself, the chain has no built-in systems for a “split”, so it is a tricky thing… Either a new full system would have to coded so that change can handle old transactions using previous decimals and new ones using the split values, or some other workaround.Also if the changes are done at chain level, it requires touching deep parts of the code, I would consider it high impact and dangerous.If the changes are just cosmetic in the wallets / explorer, not that big of an impact but would still require Kucoin / CMC / Coingecko and others to be notified about it.
- CVP3 – Increasing Crown Production Rate
I’m against it, since I’m in favour of the other one. Also since Crowns were created to incentivize early adoptions, I think this proposal makes not much sense. In terms of code, it should be similar to the first one. - CVP4 – KCAL Rebalance
I’m in favour of it, this is the kind of thing that I envisioned voting being used for. I think this one might not require any code change at all, or if it needs it, it’s 1 or 2 lines of code. - CVP5 – Game Jam
I’m in favour of it, it’s non-technical anyway, no code changes required.
Sergio’s opinions have also been shared in the individual Voting Proposals which can be found in the Phantasma Governance Telegram Group.
The Phantasma Voting Software is currently undergoing testing by a select group of testers from our community. Once this has been completed, further information on how and when to vote will be published.
We consider Phantasma Voting a major step towards true decentralization.
Power to the Phantasma Community!
