Proposal Review Call July 16

Delegates Delegate & Proposal Review Calls
2

:writing_hand::video_camera: Call Notes & Recording

Thanks to everyone who joined the Proposal Review Call on Wednesday! Below is a collection of summarized notes and links shared in the call.

:movie_camera: Proposal Review July 16 - Call Recording

:information_source: Check out the video description for timestamps on different discussion topics. Given we have the recording, notes will be kept very brief. Please watch the recording for full context!

Proposal Updates:

ONCHAIN: [TPP-5] Security Council Bridge Funding - The Security Council plays an important role in ZKsync protocol security. This proposal provides 2 months of bridge funding for SC as contracts with SC members are being renegotiated. As the next version of the Security Council is being negotiated, but until then funding is needed to ensure the signing security of the existing model.

(For reference: See Q&A from last Proposal Review call on this proposal)

Questions:

  • Why have this proposal now if proposal for V2 Security Council is expected soon?
    • Answer: Given legal and contractual complexity, it takes time to renegotiate Security Council SLAs and adjust the Security Council bylaws. The invoices for the Security Council have not been paid for the month of June. If payment continues to be delayed, the Security Council members are within their rights to stop providing services. This could put the integrity of protocol security at risk during any down-time of the Security Council. This proposal would provide the final funding for V1 of the Security Council. The idea going forward is to compartmentalize V1 of the Security Council, including all the contracts & budgets, and completely bookend it with V2 which will have new legal contracts, adjustments to the bylaws and multisigs for the Security Council.
  • Why can’t the Foundation continue to cover these costs?
    • Answer: The ZKsync Foundation agreed to bootstrap governance infrastructure at launch, but ZKsync governance and all of it’s bodies are meant to be independant of any other entity - including the Foundation. The goal for V2 is to reduce the monthly budget by half by renegotiating contracts with signers and gathering Token Assembly feedback on the V2 proposal on the forum before going onchain to ensure there is alignment.
  • What happens if this proposal does not pass?
    • Answer: One of two things will happen:
      • Security Council will default on payment and will stop providing security services to pass upcoming interop ZIPs (e.g. v29 & v30) or emergency response services - leaving protocol development stagnant and at risk.
      • ZKsync Foundation decides to steps in to cover two month bridge until V2 proposal is ready.

Minter Mod Standards

Rafa recently published a Minter Mod repo that includes all detail, standards, contracts and instructions in regards to creating a minter mod. We hope to run a “minter mod competition” in the future where folks build their own custom minter mods that we can add to the token mechanics toolkit for others to use in Token Program design!

Updates Overview: docs.zknation.io

In response to feedback from various stakeholders in the ecosystem since launch in September, the Gov Team has updated the ZK Nation docs to include clearer language and more resources to help folks better understand ZKsync governance!

Notable updates include:

  • Additions to the "Getting Started with ZKsync Governance” section - notably “ZKsync Governance 101”
  • Added “Proposal Type Overview” page under “Proposal Guidelines” to make comparing parameter difference between proposal types easier.
  • FAQ sections for each proposal type guideline page under “Proposal Guidelines.” ZIP FAQ includes more details on how exactly protocol upgrades can impact the ZKsync protocol and individual ZKsync Chains.