𝘼𝙋𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙀𝘿 | MIP-3: CVP Decentralization Proposal

[psinelnikov]

Abstract

This is a proposal to update the Community Verified Projects (CVP) process to ensure that projects launching within the Metis Ecosystem get sufficient promotional support from the Metis Ecosystem through the CVP program as a core part of Community Ecosystem Governance (CEG).

Purpose

Through community feedback received by the team regarding the current CVP processes, we are proposing a change that will update the CVP to allow for more decentralized operation and decision making power by the community on choosing projects to promote within the Metis Ecosystem.

Proposal

• Enabling the community to submit a proposal directly on the Snapshot (community member submitting the proposal should have at least 1 METIS)
  • The previous system only allows a Snapshot proposal to be created by the governance team
• No mandatory requirements to submit a proposal, only recommended guidelines
  • The previous system had mandatory requirements that were reviewed and approved by the governance team before a Snapshot proposal was created
• No manual review by the governance team
  • The previous system had a manual review process that approved or rejected projects based on successfully fulfilling the requirements
• Shortening the Snapshot Process to a minimum of 24 hours
  • The previous system minimum time is 72 hours
• A quorum requirement of 10k METIS tokens
  • The previous system had no quorum requirement
• >80% approval vote to pass
  • No change from the previous system
• Transferring Metis Governance forum from https://candidac.org to https://ceg.vote
  • The previous location for the Metis Governance Forum was https://candidac.org.
• Addition of their project into a list of approved CVP - Ecosystem – Metis-Smart L2
  • The previous system had a CVP verified badge on the Metis Ecosystem page
• Introduction of an Offboarding Process
  • The previous system did not have an offboarding process

Offboarding Process

The community may begin the process of removing the project if it uncovers malicious events that harm the ecosystem.

Examples of the events:

• Website unreachable
• Socials deleted (Twitter, Discord, Telegram, etc.)
• Liquidity is removed, resulting in a significant price impact (>80%)
• Discovery of security risk through a contract vulnerability
• Inactive groups
• No project activity

Process

1. A proposal is created for the project offboarding in the Metis Governance Forum, the proposal needs to specify the reason for the offboarding
2. A Snapshot is created and the offboarding follows the quorum, approval, and time requirements of the onboarding process
3. If the proposal passes, then the project will be removed from the Ecosystem – Metis-Smart L2

This is a large proposal that will make a significant change to the current CVP process. I hope that this proposal makes the CVP program more impactful to both the projects and the community.

[rlntlss.eth]

The proposed changes all sound good. It is unclear how this will help promotion for projects going through CEG though. How does this affect promotional activities, if at all?

I think a quorum of 10k $METIS is great. However, one wallet with 10k+ tokens can reach quorum by itself and approve its own proposals. I think a wallet quorum could be useful. Maybe 1000 wallets, for example, also have to vote + reach 10k $METIS.

Now this leaves room open for Sybil attacks but there are ways to check against that like refusing newly created wallets. If there are transfers of tokens from one wallet to others, those wallets can be denied to prevent a Sybil attack. Once reputation-based governance is implemented Sybil resistance will be much stronger.

The new website name is awesome.

Finally, since anyone can create a proposal, does this mean anyone can put up their proposal for vote at any time? Will Metis CEG promote these proposals on their socials to get out the vote?

[blesily6688]

This is fair enough, the onboarding and offboarding rule is cool, I think any project should be able to follow strictly.
But I think metis can maybe reconsider the quorum requirements it quite huge, the previous one doesn’t have it, could be alot more difficult for intending project.

I will suggest the quorum requirements be reduced. Thanks

[patoae]

Commendably, this proposed update to the Community Verified Projects (CVP) process underscores a commitment to decentralization and active community participation within the Metis Ecosystem. By enabling direct community submissions on Snapshot and removing mandatory proposal requirements, inclusivity is greatly enhanced.

The streamlined Snapshot process, coupled with the introduction of a quorum requirement, reflects a responsive approach to community input. I suggest the team should start with a pilot program involving a smaller community subset to gather real-time feedback and identify any potential issues or improvements.

Thank you.

[ceeny007]

After reviewing the proposed changes to the Community Verified Projects (CVP) process within the Metis Ecosystem, it is clear that the intention is to leverage decentralization and community participation to enhance project selection, streamline processes, and ensure the security and transparency of the ecosystem. Here are some insightful thoughts and recommendations:

1. Decentralization Benefits: The move towards more decentralized decision-making can bring about increased transparency, encourage community participation, and provide a sense of ownership over the projects being promoted. It can also help in distributing power and mitigating undue influence by any single entity.

2. Quorum Requirement: The introduction of a quorum requirement of 10k METIS tokens is a positive step towards ensuring that substantial participation is necessary for decision-making. However, it’s important to consider the potential for a single entity with a concentrated amount of tokens to easily meet the quorum requirement and potentially influence the decision-making process. Implementing measures to enhance voting participation and prevent undue influence, such as considering a wallet quorum in addition to the token quorum, could be beneficial.

3. Offboarding Process: The introduction of an offboarding process to address scenarios where a project may harm the ecosystem is commendable. It reinforces the commitment to transparency and security and displays a proactive approach to managing potential risks.

4. Community Engagement: With the community now able to directly propose projects on Snapshot, it’s essential to ensure that there is active engagement with the proposals and decision-making process. This could involve promoting the proposals within the Metis CEG socials to encourage community participation and ensure a diverse range of projects are considered.

5. Consideration of Quorum Requirements: It’s worth considering the feedback regarding the quorum requirements. Assessing the potential impact on intending projects and the balance between participation and potential difficulty for project onboarding is crucial. A pilot program involving a smaller community subset could be beneficial to gather real-time feedback and identify any potential issues or improvements.

In conclusion, the proposed changes signal a positive shift towards a more community-driven and inclusive ecosystem within Metis. The commitment to decentralization, proactive risk management, and enhanced community engagement are steps in the right direction. It’s essential to carefully consider the feedback and potential refinements to ensure the successful implementation of these changes in 2024.

[Akita]

Thank you for creating this proposal and I appreciate the efforts to enhance community involvement and decentralization in the governance process. However, I would like to offer some thoughts and suggestions for further refinement of this initiative.

1. Enhanced Staking and Lock-in Requirement for Proposal Submission: The proposal to allow community members to submit proposals directly is a positive step towards decentralization. However, to mitigate the risk of spamming, I suggest implementing a staking requirement. Community members should not only hold but also stake a certain amount of METIS tokens, with a mandatory lock-in period of at least 30 days. This approach will ensure that participants are genuinely invested in the ecosystem’s future, thereby maintaining the quality and seriousness of the proposals.

2. Consideration of Staking Amount and Community Inclusivity: While implementing a staking requirement, it is crucial to balance deterring frivolous proposals with maintaining an inclusive community. The required amount of METIS for staking should be accessible enough to encourage broad participation while being substantial enough to demonstrate commitment.

3. Reevaluation of the Snapshot Process Duration: The proposal suggests shortening the Snapshot Process to a minimum of 24 hours. I believe this duration might be too brief for a thorough and thoughtful community deliberation, especially for significant governance decisions. A longer period, perhaps keeping it at 72 hours, would provide a more reasonable timeframe for community members to evaluate, discuss, and vote on proposals, ensuring more informed and considered decision-making.

4. Quorum Requirement and Wallet Quorum: I’m in agreement with @rlntlss.eth The introduction of a 10k $METIS token quorum is a positive step. However, I concur that a single wallet meeting this quorum could unduly influence the governance process. Implementing a wallet quorum, such as requiring at least 69 distinct wallets to participate in the voting process as a secondary quorum, could provide a more democratic and representative decision-making framework. This approach would help mitigate the risk of any single entity exerting disproportionate influence.

In conclusion, while I am in agreement with the direction of the proposed changes, I believe that addressing these additional points will further strengthen the governance process and ensure a more robust, democratic, and effective CVP system within the Metis Ecosystem.

Thank you for considering my comprehensive response. I am excited about the potential of these changes to enhance our community’s engagement and the overall success of the Metis Ecosystem.

Akita
Assistant Community Member / Dog

[rlntlss.eth]

Fair point about reducing quorum requirement. However, the higher it is the more it encourages projects to promote their proposal and get more Community members engaged in the Metis governance process.

If 10k seems too high, maybe it can be reduced but I think it should be high enough where not just anyone can get a proposal through without a minimum amount of community engagement.

I intend to do this after I finish this post, but I think looking at recent votes & taking the average amount of votes in them and finding a number that is around that might be a good start.

[rlntlss.eth]

Yes agree on extending the 24 hour proposal! That struck me as really short as well.

I think there should be a category of “emergency/urgent Metis Improvement Proposals” that can be proposed by EcoNodes that have a shorter time limit like 24 hours but for everything else it should be at least 72 hours for thoughtful consideration and debate as suggest by my favorite dog on Andromeda.

[Prince_omobee]

Great proposal and initiative to get the community involved. I just have 2 major areas of thought which @Akita and @rlntlss.eth already touched on…and maybe a 3rd:

1. 10k Metis can be easily reached by an individual or small group who intend to tilt the proposal to their favour. Decentralization is defeated.

Set minimum amount of wallets to participate; say also 80% wallet addresses to agree for proposal to be accepted.

2. Some requirements need to be set for anyone to be able to submit a proposal. If you’re going to be involved in governance, you need to be invested in the ecosystem too - like was proposed with DAC having to stake, or something.

3. Best to keep the timeframe at 72hrs, except we’re now paying snapshot for how long a proposal is up haha.

24hrs seems short for proper analysis.

Thank you.

[DivineT]

Your proposal for updating the Community Verified Projects (CVP) process is indeed comprehensive and forward-thinking. The emphasis on decentralization through enabling the community to submit proposals directly on Snapshot 2 is a commendable step towards inclusive decision-making.

I’m particularly interested in understanding how you plan to maintain transparency and prevent potential misuse, given the removal of the manual review process by the governance team. Could you elaborate on the mechanisms in place to ensure that submitted proposals align with the community’s best interests and uphold the integrity of the Metis Ecosystem?

Additionally, the introduction of an Offboarding Process reflects a proactive approach to potential issues within projects. However, for further clarity, could you provide more details on the criteria and evaluation process that the community will follow when initiating the offboarding process? This will help in ensuring a fair and objective assessment of projects facing potential removal.

Overall, this proposed overhaul has the potential to significantly impact the CVP program positively. I’m eager to gain a deeper understanding of these specific aspects to better appreciate the robustness and resilience of the updated CVP process

[jakartinho]

This proposal feels like a positive step forward for the Metis community. The decision to let community members submit proposals directly on Snapshot 2 adds a democratic touch, giving everyone a chance to contribute. I appreciate the move towards simplicity by removing mandatory requirements, although keeping recommended guidelines is a good balance.

The reduction of the Snapshot Process time is a welcomed change, showing an understanding of the value of time for the community. However, it’s crucial to ensure that the 24-hour timeframe allows for sufficient discussion and consideration.

The addition of an Offboarding Process is a smart move. It shows foresight in handling potential issues and protecting the community. The examples provided for offboarding reasons make it clear and practical.

[biyiemmy]

Regarding the proposal, I propose these changes to it…

1. The quorum requirement of 10k Metis should be increased to 100k Metis. This will enable the project owner to go to the community to convince and canvass for votes. Doing this enables the community to know more about the latest projects within the ecosystem, thereby leading to exposure.

2. The CVP program team should also be decentralized, consisting of more community members, and some team members.

3. Whenever a team published their proposal on Candidac, and the community members asked questions on Candidac, they always failed to answer. This should be improved on, if option 1 is implemented.

4. Regarding community voting for a project. I would suggest ceg.vote should have a locking mechanism when people vote, the number of tokens they use to vote should be locked and released after 7 days or lesser days - this will reduce circulating tokens thereby helping market value sometimes.

5. Lastly, the CVP program team should always organize a weekly or bi-weekly online meeting where projects will talk about their proposal and stuffs like that.

[priyankg3]

First of all love the focus on increased community power in CVP selection! Direct proposals and flexible guidelines empower grassroots innovation.

Shortening the Snapshot period will surely encourage prompt action and keeps the momentum going. 24 hours seems reasonable - perhaps test 12 hours in future iterations?

Also consolidating the forum to ceg.vote provides a streamlined experience. Ensure effective data migration and intuitive user interfaces to avoid hiccups.

The offboarding process is essential for ecosystem protection. Defining malicious events and timeframes for action adds clarity and accountability.

Few Suggestions for Improvement:

-Consider a tiered quorum system. 10k METIS might be high for initial proposals, while a lower threshold (e.g., 5k) could encourage wider participation. Increase the quorum for final vote to ensure stability.

-The grace period for offboarding is a great suggestion. Perhaps 30 days for project response and remediation before community vote on removal?

-Transparency is vital. Include voting history and clear justifications for all decisions (CVP onboarded/offboarded) on ceg.vote to build trust and understanding.

-Highlight real-world success stories of CVP projects! Showcase community-backed initiatives that thrived within the Metis ecosystem to generate excitement and demonstrate tangible benefits.

I guess overall this proposal sets a strong foundation for a more decentralized and impactful CVP program. Building on its strengths while addressing the suggested improvements will enhance community engagement, safeguard the ecosystem and maximize success for both projects and the Metis community.

[Davidbrown]

The proposed updates to the Community Verified Projects process are a fantastic step toward empowering the Metis community and promoting decentralized decision-making. Allowing community-generated proposals and introducing an Offboarding Process demonstrate a genuine commitment to inclusivity and transparency.

However, to ensure the process’s integrity, establishing clear guidelines around proposal submissions and offboarding criteria would provide valuable structure. Overall, these changes have the potential to make a substantial positive impact on project promotion and governance within the Metis Ecosystem.

Great work !

[BenjaminLT]

I think the proposed changes are incredible. Both in relation to the process of registering and deleting projects, they are completely adequate and focus on giving even more importance to the community and decentralization. 100% agree!

[Casybby]

This proposal for updating the CVP process in the Metis Ecosystem is impressive. It focuses on decentralization, enabling community submissions via Snapshot 2 and removing mandatory requirements, which promotes more accessible decision-making. The introduction of an offboarding process is a proactive step to protect the ecosystem. The proposal’s clarity and emphasis on community empowerment make it promising for enhancing the CVP program’s effectiveness.

[rafaeljeff]

New proposal is a good move for projects launching within the Metis Ecosystem to get sufficient promotional support from the Metis Ecosystem.

The area of of 10k METIS tokens as the required quorum is not really fair, as a single wallet with 10k Metis can bypass this quorum and this will not make it look decentralized. Using the old ways is far better as it makes it more decentralized.

Making the snapshot 72hrs is way better than the recent 24hrs proposed snapshot timeframe, as 24hrs look really short to carry out a proper analysis.

[nsikakudo]

Empowering the community with a decentralized CVP process is commendable. The shortened timeline and offboarding introduction enhance adaptability and responsiveness. Great strides for Metis Ecosystem!

[Chieftain]

Overall, the MIP-3 proposal presents a positive step towards a more decentralized and community-driven CVP program. By addressing the mentioned areas for improvement and ensuring effective communication, the Metis team can foster a thriving ecosystem where both projects and the community can prosper.

[Papijhaytu]

This initiative marks a pivotal step towards fostering a more robust, inclusive, and impactful community-driven ecosystem as we journey through 2024 together. Emphasizing community involvement, introduces robust mechanisms to gather and incorporate community feedback throughout the CVP process.
The introduction of the 10K Metis quorum will help in identifying a more serious project that tends to onboard on Metis eco.

So, honestly the proposal is a go!