A research proposal that seeks to shift some of the ETA awards to ecological construction is triggering new governance debates within communities. The Rotki founder, Lefteris Karapetsas, an Ether Workshop developer, openly opposed the programme, arguing that it could give the head pledge agency too much influence in the allocation of funds.

Proposal to allocate part of the pledge proceeds

The core approach of the programme, known as Validator Redirected Revue, is to allow the certifying officer to shift the pledge from 0 to 10 per cent to public goods, infrastructure and core development.

Under the proposal, this arrangement would apply to the overall pool of certifiers if more than half of the certifiers supported the non-zero ratio. The certifier may also choose the preferred collection address and then direct the funds to the specified project under the distribution contract.

  • The percentage allocation ranges from 0% to 10%
  • Between 5 and 10 per cent or between 50,000 and 70,000 ETH per year
  • The proposal is still under discussion at the Forum

Lefteris questions the power of the head pledge.

Lefteris stated that he had raised objections after reading the original proposal and his response. In his view, the real problem lay not in the misinterpretation of the proposal by the outside world, but in the fact that the mechanism itself could give rise to a network of incentives led by the head pledge.

In his view, once the large certificationer developed a consistent preference, it might be materially about the flow of up to 10 per cent of the certificationer ' s incentive. In this way, the remaining certifiers may be passively liable to the same reduction of proceeds, even if they do not agree to specific uses.

One of the points of contention was who decided which projects the funds eventually went to. Lefteris also questioned the idea of pre-approval of the list, arguing that the right to establish the list itself would become a new governance issue.

Differences extend to core development lines

Lefteris also extends the disagreement to criticism of the Etherak core development route. He stated that the manner in which the core development had been advanced over the past decade had been disappointing, and had become increasingly distant from the actual users of the agreement, particularly those who directly handled the technical details.

In his view, the Ether Workshop had accumulated too much technical complexity and referred by name to designs such as RLP, SSZ and RLPx. In his judgement, if core research and development were to face tighter financial constraints, it might contribute to team contraction and integration.

At present, this Validator Redirected Revence is not an adjustment to the Injectable Rules that has entered into force. The discussion will then focus on governance arrangements, incentives for distribution and how to avoid weakening the confidence of the pledge.