Zcash Community Voting Authorities

[outgoing.doze]

I really wonder what is the sustainable way forward.

@hanh

Personally, I think that the validators should put a stake. If they misbehave, they get slashed.

I thought about this and did not suggest it because I have a feel that the complexity is going to be high once we look into the details. I could be wrong.

@outgoing.doze

I’m thinking we allocate USD$1000 per voting session. We then welcome anyone to join. All of the nodes that have ran the verifying nodes successfully to the end get to share the USD$1000. I think we can get at least 10 people that way.

The idea with this amount is the odds that we’re going to get at least three nodes working correctly is very high. We’ll probably get at least 10 people. I’ll already do it because I want to know that the voting can be trusted, so that’s one. I’m sure I can’t be the only one. ECC & Shielded Labs should run one honestly. And the complexity of my suggestion is fairly low, I believe.

Either way, I don’t mind one way or another, but we do need a clear, easily repeatable process. It doesn’t have to be “brainless”, but it should be easy at least for experienced systems administrators. Next time, I would like to participate again (cc @aquietinvestor ) and understand all this in finer details.

[ShieldOrder]

A sustainable validation process is one that does not depend on variable rewards or shifting incentives. The compensation model needs to be predictable, simple to administer, and consistent across every voting session.

The goal is straightforward. Any qualified community member should be able to run a node with clear requirements, a fixed stipend, and a defined scope of work. That creates a repeatable process that produces verifiable results without adding new moving parts.

I support moving toward a structure that lowers operational complexity, avoids ad hoc payout schemes, and gives the community a stable foundation for long-term voting integrity.