The Grin Community Council (CC) originally consisted of four trusted community members with a proven track record and an additional two council members which were elected based on community voting. Having 4 appointed members was designed to keep the funds secure as well as to make sure sufficient know how was present in the council to make informed decisions. Since two council members are leaving, we are trying to reorganize the whole community council and make proper procedures for the upcoming and future CC elections.
Based on input from some community members (mostly those on Telegram) we are now considering to move towards a fully elected council. However, this brings additional risks to the funds and might require some additional safety measures. See below a link to the draft document. Any feedback is welcome.
Some consideration which I did not put in the documents, but which might add additional protection are:
1. Optionally add an extra key as backup with one of the CC members.
E.g. We now have a 4/6 MultiSig wallet. We could move to a 4 out of 7 MultiSig with one of the OC members holding this backup key to avoid loss of funds when 3/6 or members would collude to destroy their keys. This is highly unlikely, but more likely than anyone steeling funds since that would require 4/6 to collude. 2. Weighted voting
Another thought that comes to mind is to use some minimal form of reputation for voting. Now we have a very minimal treshold for voting and all votes are counted equally. We could consider using the forum user Trust levels as a weighing factor for votes:
Let us know if you have any opinion on the above draft and whether you think we should use any of the above two mentioned extra safety measures, or optionally another safety measure that was not listed here. Keep in mind that we are searching for a balance between protecting the funds while at the same time keeping the CC simple and making it more democratic. In the end there is always a balance between security and usability. If we are to democratic and easy going, we might put funds at risks. On the other hand, if we make things to secure or complex, it might make the Grin CC less nimble and put-off potential new council members.
Let us know your thoughts on this next step in Grin governance.
3. Seperate council representatives and keyholders
Suggestion by @AceKaplin, have long term trusted members sign transactions to keep the funds safe while allowing more easy changing of representatives who hold the votes and are actively managing the CC.
*4. OC or other trusted old community member with a backup key to protect against three members freezing the funds by not signing.
My take on 1 is I perceive the conceptual threat as community members colluding to embezzle funds rather than destroy keys and this adds no protection from that.
2 seems reasonable, and I think there should be an account age requirement, at least older than the vote and probably older than whenever elections were announced. Maybe trust level 0 should be ineligible.
Instead of #1, I think it would be better to have tiered security, e.g. a separate ‘treasury’ managed by long time trusted users. The treasury has zero CC duties other than to top up the CC spending account (Monthly? Quarterly?). Then, the CC can make spends out of their spending account and the community doesn’t need to worry about rogue actors draining the entire treasury if they get elected.
Option 2 sounds reasonable, but I think the weights need to be recalculated. e.g. it is very easy for me to get five level 0 accounts and outweigh a level 4 member. Instead, I propose:
level 0 doesn’t get a vote… must be at least level 1
levels 1-4 get weighted according to population density of each level AT TIME OF OPEN ELECTION.
I’ll give an example with the population distribution you cited:
Existing council members also need to be voted. Once elected, will he remain a councilor forever? A voting period has to be opened. For example once every 2 years. The community votes again in the next election according to the performance of the CC members for 2 years. The membership of the CC member who does not get enough votes is dropped. No need to wait for someone to resign for election.
Unpractical. If we feel we have to few active members, and to many keyholders, we ask them to step down, if they did not propose to do so themselves. Doing unecesarry voting just adds a burden while it is already challenging to find enough trusted and capable council members.
Then you can’t talk about democracy.
An elected member must be re-elected periodically. There can be no excuse for this. Some members were not active before, but you never made it public and there was no vote for their resignation. You only make the election when people resign.
Also, no one can’t be sure that people who stay in CC all the time group up and get the funds or no through the backdoor by voting on the projects they want. Therefore, a vote has to be made every 2 years. For everyone. Otherwise, delete the word “democracy” in the title.
This is part of my frustration with the community council concept. Neither option seems satisfactory. With ongoing reelections I don’t have a lot of faith in the community’s opinion, and with permanent seats the CC can grow apart from the community and become inactive.
I see it a bit like politics. In my country, politicians serve 4 years. The CC is not even that old yet, so talking about reelections sounds rather premature. But hey, if it would make people happy, we can ask after four years if the community would like a council member to stay on or not. Instead of a vote, I would prefer to see arguments. Decissio
Doubt many like to stay on that long.
It’s too risky to change members often (so regular votes are too risky). It’s also a bad comparison when some here compare it to democracy that we have (eg. government voting) since there new government can’t take ALL of the money and basically destroy the system. If they could do that, then the elections would not be that regular. I think the best way is to not have a “public voting” because that’s too dangerous. If each old member appoints someone new (or if he can’t, he tells other members to do that) then, since we know that they’re good people, we should get an almost perfect new candidate. So democracy here would be, counterintuitively, a wrong decision imo.
Already, the concept of democracy that you use is the term of politics.
If an election is going to be held, everyone has to go to re-election. Again, contrary to democracy, you propose something like 4 years. How many people say 4 years? The additional 2 years creates a scenario where the funds can be spent comfortably where the stereotypical members of the CC want. It wouldn’t make sense to expect democracy from people in seats that never get up.
Just to be clear democracy is nice… but not everything.
If more democracy would threaten the security or the funds and the continuity of the project I ,and I think most community members, would not support such a move.
Unecessary changing candidates is poor for the continuity and poor for security.
@minexpert What do you mean with contrary to democracy? I live in a democratic country where politicians serve 4 years.
You cannot set the election duraction. You can’t choose new contacts either. You can’t support sitting in a chair for long periods of time. Democracy requires a system where everyone is ready to stand up from seat. Like, if something better comes along, I’ll gladly give you my seat but saying I don’t want to leave is not democracy.
Makes sense, in the future AI can decide who will be member by analyzing all factors, messages, contribution, past story based on this digital identity, what will be much fair. Eventually all governments will be replaced with AI.
In any democracy, representatives are chosen for a specified term, e.g. 4 years. So I do not see the argument you are trying to make. Besides, after 2 years, 4 out of 6 members stepped down. I do not think we have a problem with council members not willing to give up their seed, more the contrary, council members step down too quickly, we have a problem with retaining council members and keeping continuity.
In the community there is continuity. But whether on OC or CC, it appears the burden insentivises them to step down prematurely. One lesson we can learn from this is the need to keep things simple and minimal. E.g. the burden of managing the mining farm is a big part of the reason why the CC lost @davidtavarez.
So let’s keep things simple and not waste our most scarce resource: Active community members willing to take on burdens like CC or OC in their free time
Power requires responsibility, this is why its better to predict all scenarios of decisions before they will happen. History with miners was just one part of snowball, the last straw we can say. I mentioned AI for a reason, predictions is important use-case for it, but only a part what it can handle. For now we as humans with brains can predict all possible scenarios to prevent them in the future, without pink glasses, for decades to come, not just for tomorrow.
P.S. Barbie is funny movie funny tho, I just saw trailer
and knowing this, no one set a time. For example, why am I reminding this, why no one in CC? Why didn’t you share the inactive CC members with the public before? Some were seriously inefficient and inactive. You know this best. Also, you are talking about democracy in the title, even the candidate’s eligibility is decided by the CC.