Governance Metadata

Working Group 💾

Workshop #1 - Governance Actions

​

2023-12-04 Ryan Williams 😎

​

​

Agenda

​

• 🏠 Housekeeping

​

• 📰 Motivation

​

• 💫 Background

​

• 🔩 Open Questions

🏡 Housekeeping

​

• Introductions: Ryan, Adam and Tom.
• Duration - 1 hour call
• Acknowledgements subsection
• Resources:
• This presentation
• CIP-100 | Governance Metadata (pull request)
• CIP-100 | Governance Metadata (rendered)
• CIP-1694 | A First Step Towards On-Chain Decentralized Governance
• SanchoNet Website
• CIP-???? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions (rendered draft)
• CIP-???? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions (PR) *PENDING*
• Ryan’s Off-chain example(s)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

📰 Motivation

2023 | Confidential and Proprietary

📰 Motivation - Why are we here?

• What is the Governance Metadata Working Group?
• Further the development of governance metadata standards, specifically off-chain metadata anchors as defined in CIP-1694.
• Through online workshops.
• I will be the one with the pen, but it is the community deciding.
• Likely develop 2 or 3 CIPs, two or three workshops for each, across time zones.
• Why a working group + online workshops?
• We want to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible, no technical knowledge needed.
• Better visibility than just Github pull requests.
• Not just technical people who will engage with governance.
• Scope for this call?
• Starting with Governance Action Metadata.
• Likely the most straightforward standard to create.
• Just care about the off-chain standard, leave CIP-100 to finer details.

​

📰 Motivation - Outcomes

• Share background
• Good opportunity to get everyone up to speed on governance metadata.
• Share some examples to visualise it.
• Continue the metadata conversation
• CIP-100 hast started the conversation.
• If we want governance tooling to be as good as possible we should prepare these standards now, and test against SanchoNet.
• Agree on first steps
• Decide on the first steps to take past CIP-100.
• Decide on what the community want from their governance.
• Discuss Governance Action Metadata
• Use feedback to publish a first draft pull request in the CIPs repo.

​

💫 Background

💫 Background - Metadata

• Metadata in Cardano
• Blockchains are not content databases and should not be treated as such.
• Compared to database blockchain storage is expensive and data is difficult to index.
• CIP-1694 Metadata Anchors
• This is why for governance metadata, the anchor mechanism was chosen.
• Where only a URL and hash are stored on-chain.
• With the URL pointing to an off-chain JSON document, whilst the hash is produced from the off-chain document (acting as a correctness check).
• Not related to transaction metadata.
• Types of anchor; Vote (optional), Governance action, DRep registration/update (optional) and Constitution Committee resign (optional).
• CIP-100 | Governance Metadata
• The ledger does not enforce structure, so we define additional conventions via a CIP.
• Standardising allows us to “facilitate rich user experiences”.
• Defines a base standard, open for extension.
• Provides a set of best practices.
• Common Properties. here.

💫 Background - What it looks like

• Ryan’s CIP-100 JSONLD Example

• For tools reading (CIP-100 data) from chain

Author display name: Ryan Williams

Author address: addr_test1qzqhq6kh26l3q0q9mrhqgx50dax667m29sza9w9dwfx6fft2gj0c8c80nl9j7n2ppc8uxasq08990yvqer6v007pt55sjcqugz

Author DID: did:example:1234567890abcdef

Justification: This proposal is being made to take money from the treasury to fund me buying an island.

External Update: https://www.google.com/maps/place/World's+only+5th+order+recursive+island/@62.6416748,-97.8213068,23322m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x5216a167810cee39:0x11431abdfe4c7421!8m2!3d62.651114!4d-97.7872244!16s%2Fg%2F11spwk2b6n?authuser=0&entry=ttu

​

​

💫 Background - Initial Thoughts

• Scope of needed CIPs
• Focus scope on the fields to be added to the existing CIP-100 body field.
• No need to add more best practices or anything fancy.
• Governance actions need their own base-standard, leave room for specialised ones for each type.
• DRep Registration and Updates can be linked together in a “DRep Profile”.
• Votes could use a base-standard? Then specific ones for DRep, SPO and CC?
• CC retirements can have their own specialised one.
• Governance Actions Base Standard
• Kicked-off with the Voltaire team, based on the design of CIPs.
• CIP-???? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions (rendered draft)
• Title / Abstract / Motivation / Rationale

​

​

💫 In presentation notes

• URL vs URI?
• IPFS may be supported
• You can use the external update links to act as volatile updates
• Any member of voting members
• Voters or proposer provide extra context
• Could look into CIP-13 URI type schemes to provide extra context
• Off-Chain discussion platform being build through Intersect grants.
• ​
• Committee Input -> use the external updates
• Ensure that external updates are supplied for rationale
• Usability concerns for too many fields
• CIP-100 not tied to further CIPs, it is not CIP process dependent.
• Do we want to support Markdown or HTML

🔩 Open Questions

🔩 Open Questions

• Should fields be optional or compulsory?
• I believe all should be compulsory.

​

• How should our fields interact with CIP-100’s justification?
• Id suggest removing justification from CIP-100 and leaving that to subsequent standards.

Thank You! 💾

15

INTERSECT © | 2023 IOG Singapore Ltd. | All rights Reserved