NU7 Coinholder Vote

[daira]

@aquietinvestor

This framing assumes the smoothing version of ZIP 234 is adopted, but Q1 is considering two different ZIP 234 implementations: one that smooths the issuance curve and one that preserves the existing halving schedule. Q2 therefore needs to account for both possibilities. If halvings are preserved, the curve-intersection dates aren’t relevant. So I think the choices should be framed around the earliest applicable recycling date under whichever implementation is selected in Q1: the next intersection point in February 2027 if issuance smoothing is adopted, or as soon as possible after activation if halvings are preserved.

It is frustrating to me to see polling questions about protocol options that haven’t been specified. This option could easily have been specified. To my knowledge no-one asked any of the core protocol engineers for help with that.

In any case, how is someone supposed to answer Q2 if its meaning depends on the answer to Q1, and they don’t know how polling on Q1 will come out? This is frankly just replicating the kind of mistakes that were made in setting the questions for the last sentiment poll, which gave uninterpretable answers.

I suggest something like this instead, so that at least people have the option to give a concrete date as their answer without it being reinterpreted unpredictably:

Q2 (NSM Reissuance Start Date)

NSM has prior coinholder approval. This question concerns the start of reissuance of funds removed from circulation (which includes at least 60% of total fees).

When should NSM reissuance of funds removed from circulation begin?

1. As soon as possible. If the outcome of Q1 is smoothed issuance, this will be February 2027; otherwise it may be sooner.
2. February 2027, regardless of the outcome of Q1.
3. February 2031, regardless of the outcome of Q1.
4. Abstain.

To explain the motivation for the February 2027 and February 2031 dates, these are the first and second points at which the smoothed issuance curve intersects the stepped curve, if smoothed issuance were to be adopted. The former date is what is currently specified in ZIP 234.

Note that there’s no particular reason why the introduction of reissuance needs to be at a halving if stepped issuance is retained. Choosing the same date as would have been chosen for smoothed issuance is entirely harmless.