An additional feature, building on those on TG, is to allow Opensea users to see how much CTM is locked within a veCTM, and for how long. The system used by Multi had a gazillion zeros behind each NFT and it was too difficult to read.
I am good with the cost. It is wonderful that a dev is interested in owning veCTM. Great proposal.
For the fun of a dnd player, Router - "Teleporter," and AnyCall - "Sending Stone."
I really really like the simplicity, both concept and marketing wise, of this proposal. Thanks Selqui and everyone who chimed in!
I appreciate both @Insomniac and @Selqui thoughts on this, from both competitive fees and long term decentralization perspective. I do favor a design that makes possible (and in the most simple way) complete autonomy of the network, and hence (still trying to wrap the tech info in the thread in my head) keeping a fix fee makes non-upgradeable contract possible.
In a long run, and I believe most here would agree, that CTM is going to be autonomous; CTM is going to be a core cross-chain infrastructure for crypto. So that all the new chains are able to connect with existing financial ecosystem readily and easily. And $10 is a very small fee in doing cross-chain transactions - almost nothing compared to what it will cost for doing any form of ETH settlements.
Great start. The items covered are comprehensive, and the decentralization measures are well thought out, and thanks Selqui for the draft. Most of my suggestions are to include clearer language to what is modifiable, timeline, and so forth. Needed two reputation to post quotes. So here're my in text comments:-
Introduction:
"Some of the rules and procedures in the Constitution ..." "Some of the rules" is ambiguous. The document later says that constitution can only be modified by a 67% majority so let's just say "All the rules?"
ContinuumDAO Governance Structure:
"They will be responsible ... in a timely manner." "...timely manner" is ambiguous. How about "...seven days?"
"...then the old Committee will stay in place and a new election will be implemented as soon as practical." Ditto. How about "... within three months?"
The Governance Process:
"Proposals will have a temperature check for 5 days." Just for the record (since this has been discussed twice on TG), I am oppose to 5 days as such tight timeline will exclude participants (even if they are few in numbers) who have real life commitments and needed to stay offline for a period of time. I propose a "14 days" temperature check so that citizens (who are willing) has a chance to take a look.
"Once they collect enough feedback (1/10 of the veCTM holders commented effectively on the proposal) from the community..." I am confused here as to the difference between "Ideas & Suggestions" and "Temperature Check." "Ideas & Suggestions" appears to be period for discussions, but "Temperature Check" also serves the same function to "collect enough feedback." In many communities, temperature check happens through forum vote, and if passed, move on to on-chain vote. We need to define these clearer. (I noted that this constitution did not undergo "Ideas & Suggestions" process)
"The formal voting period for the snapshot will be 7 days. The governance for Emergency proposals will be shortened to 4 days." On the period of Emergency proposal, I am taking a different stance - to encourage us moving faster than 4 days - to "24 hours." The reason is I have seen enough shit happening, mostly due to rugging, hacks, and regulatory actions, leading to a major token losing their treasury or funds suddenly. Recent cases include Multichain, Curve, Luna, etc. I have no idea if CTM is going to hold such tokens, but given how hard it is to change the constitution, I rather we are ready to act quickly. In this case, many citizens will not have the chance to vote. Can we make this process difficult to initiate by changing "Only a Committee member can initiate an Emergency proposal" to "...four Committee members," i.e., simple majority. This is to avoid the situation of a committee member went "rogue."
ContinuumDAO Proposals and Voting:
"The quorum for the voting must meet 20% of the total voting power." CTM citizens are relatively active though many other projects have 1% participation rate. Is 20% realistic base on the turn out rate for 001 temp check?
@Insomniac I can live with a 21 day (7 +14) voting period. It sounds reasonable enough.
Emission numbers look great. I also agree with the initial distribution. Also agree with governance.
A $5 fee sounds reasonable and competitive. Regarding the max fee of $50, is it too cheap for someone who is using up 80% of liquidity on the destination chain? If cross-chain liquidity is all but dry, I suspect users would be willing to pay more.
The reward model calculations are a little beyond me but the key variables look good.
Does Theia pay CTM for using its network?
Thanks Jerry and Selqui for putting this proposal together.
