Proposed Agenda for Community Call on August 11th

Here is a first draft of an agenda for this week’s call and topics for upcoming calls. Let me know if you have any feedback. I tried focusing on topics about the timeline, governance, and community tasks, but can cut this down further if we want to focus on one area.

Opening

  • Greetings
  • News recap about Tornado Cash
  • Announcements or progress report

Talking Points

  1. Protocol timeline
  • Make a priority list of specific aspects of tokenomics, liquidity bootstrapping, community programs, and/or protocol functions to be finalized before November 2022.
  • Choose what aspects can be finalized later.
  1. Hedged launch
  • Decide how hedged the launch will be.
  • Should the hedged version be given a name (e.g. Trustless Genesis, Trustless Alpha, etc.)?
  • Will it progress directly alongside zkSync 2.0’s roadmap (Baby Alpha —> Fair Launch Alpha —> Full Alpha“ by end of year 2022 for zkSync).

If out of time, skip to the Q & A and closing. The following topics can be saved for future calls.


  1. Governance principles
  • Determine if there will be a constitution or guideline document.
  • Distinguish topics that are necessary to vote on vs. topics that are bloat or at risk of malicious behavior.
  • What is the process for a proposal moving from the community to a governance vote?
  1. Governance timeline
  • Should Trustless’ pursue an accelerated execution of the original 3-4 year decentralization schedule, and what would that look like?
  • Which parts of Trustless governance will have control removed during future phases? (see the Reflexer governance minimization guide for ideas).
  1. Delegation & transparency
  • Determine if and how to distribute tasks to team and community members, while maintaining open channels of communication.
  • How can we make the protocol, launch, and governance easy to understand while motivating the community to contribute?
  • Should we use this Discourse forum, the new Discord forum feature, or both for different purposes?

Q & A with the community

Closing

  • Any other challenges/concerns/points?
  • Action items & next steps

Resources:
Trustless whitepaper: Whitepapers/TCP_Whitepaper.pdf at main · TrustlessFi/Whitepapers · GitHub
Reflexer’s governance minimization guide: Governance Minimization Guide - GEB Docs
Trustless Blog proposed DAO Design update from July 26: Proposed Dao Design Update
Trustindistrust.eth’s DAO design article: Trustless.fi DAO tokenomic ramblings — trustindistrust.eth
My governance article: Trustless Governance and Value Accrual — jaypow

3 Likes

My suggestion would be to limit any given schedule to just 3 points. Especially early on while a lot of these topics can be pretty ‘heavy’ intellectually. If it’s 3 lighter topics that week, it means we can conclude early, or open the floor for community members to say stuff.

3 Likes

Awesome work!

to echo trustindistrust’s feedback, I see this as a roadmap for a series of community calls, vs a single community call. I would propose for this week we add tornado cash to the intro, and if we can additionally make some decisions about points 1 & 2 this week, I think that would be a huge win.

2 Likes

Also there is now a Community Call category, can you add this to that?

2 Likes

Thanks for the feedback. I updated the category, included the Tornado Cash recap, and added a line break after the second topic to signal a suggested stopping point. If there’s anything else, let me know.

1 Like

Trustless should be open. It is recommended to let more people participate through some activities, collect various ideas, and maybe there will be different inspiration for you. This kind of AMA can be held once or several times a month,

2 Likes

Notes from the call
I didn’t catch everything and missed most of my own contributions (doh!) because I was speaking, but hopefully this captured most of the talking points. My apologies if I missed something important or didn’t indicate your name somewhere - feel free to correct me.

Opening

  • Tornado Cash recap and relevance for Trustless.

Launch:

  • Hedged launch: Deposit limits will be scaled over time, e.g. from 0.1 ETH to 10 ETH, mirroring zkSync 2.0’s launch schedule. - All in agreement, though specific details are needed.
  • Name of launch version - Trustless Genesis? Trustless Alpha? TBD.
  • Launch a small amount of the TCP tokens right away for genesis rewards - Miles
  • Instead of calling them genesis rewards, how about announcing a retroactive airdrop for a limited amount with no further details given. The amount could be tiered based on user participation, e.g. using the testnet, depositing in the mainnet launch, completing quizzes, etc. - TnD

Priority list:

  • Tokenomics, liquidity bootstrapping, community programs, and/or protocol functions, prioritized in this order - TnD
  • Some aspects of tokenomics can be determined after seeing liquidity in the protocol - Miles
  • Some DAO functions can be determined later on, e.g. Should TCP tokens be put into a contract for ETH liquidity and/or for auctioning the tokens, etc. - Miles
  • Marketing will be informed by tokenomics, so we need a mostly fully-formed model before launch - TnD, stephenb (in the chat).

Governance principles:

  • Good idea to have a constitution - Miles
  • Constitution not necessary, though Trustless should make a public document about what can be voted on vs. what cannot. Also, proposals with changes to contracts should include executable code in them. - TnD
  • Governance model from Lucas: Split governance into two branches, executive and legislative. The legislative branch, comprised of TCP holders (?) can vote on executive parameters (e.g. controlling the interest mechanism) and on how much power the executive branch has, even as much as cancelling the executive multisig (!). The executive branch has the ability to make protocol changes. The Trustless Foundation is separate from the executive branch.
    Further questions regarding who is in these groups and how to avoid malicious governance takeover. TBD when Lucas has time to expand on it, but a concept worth researching ourselves in the meantime.
  • Since inflation rewards are supposed to incentivize users to vote and because voting delegation was unpopular with most of the call members, it is likely that many TCP holders will either vote “Yes” or click the top option in voting proposals rather than read and understand them in depth. We must find ways to encourage more genuine participation and/or reduce negative effects of apathetic voting. Various ideas about how to organize the wording of proposals and choices. - JP, TnD, stephenB (from the chat)
  • Quorum can vary - see update to Compound governance. - Miles (I think Miles is talking about the OpenZeppelin governor quorum function which sets quorum as a percentage of total token supply. Most DAOs use a 4% threshold. How to set up on-chain governance - OpenZeppelin Docs)
  • Veto approach as another DAO design, i.e. the core team delivers updates and makes changes while the community can decide to veto them or not. Interesting, but could be risky. - Miles
  • Accelerated decentralization schedule applies mostly to Hue. Hue should be made immutable as soon as possible, but other governance parameters can have a lengthier schedule. - TnD

Wrap-up:

  • Governance will take many calls to figure out. - Barto
1 Like