Hey @raphael - thank you for providing additional budget details. The Governance Team has gone through the proposal in detail and reviewed the proposed scope and costs.
In addition, we’ve reached out to multiple Delegates and the ZKsync Foundation to better understand reactions to the proposal. The feedback is consolidated below.
Contribution to Protocol Security and ZKsync Growth
- As of the moment, there haven’t been any security risks raised related to delegation patterns or feedback on the need for additional delegation data analytics. Current governance analytics is seen to be enough with regards to support ongoing protocol upgrades.
- The work in the proposal focuses on governance, but doesn’t seem to contribute any value over and above the current solutions and infrastructure deployed with regards to GAP1 priorities for ZKsync (Protocol Sustainability, ZK Chain growth, ZKsync App growth), or growth objectives that the Foundation has published, which focuses on driving Prividium adoption and growth.
- One of the challenges with dashboard and data tooling is that it should be downstream from a key problem, such that there is clear line of sight on what would happen once the data is collected and analyzed. At the moment, this is also unclear.
Work Duplication
- As you’ve mentioned in the proposal, there are already active governance analytics for key metrics related to governance performance and capped minters.
- As the Governance Team is already managing governance & operational analytics work, the proposed seems like a duplication of effort.
- As a result, there isn’t a compelling reason for the Token Assembly to either duplicate the work, or fragment responsibilities for significant additional costs mentioned above.
Benchmark Costs
- After looking into comparable analytics offering, the budgeted costs of 100k USD is a magnitude higher than similar offerings.
- As an example, 3-5k USD has been spent on the current governance performance dashboards to date. While additional work may be necessary in the future, the approach to all governance tooling should be minimum viable value first, prior to scaling or additional complexity.
Usage of Global Consensus
- Token Programs should activate broad programs in the service of ZKsync that require Token Assembly alignment at top level, strategically. For example, a new mechanic or program should be a portfolio of activities with a clear strategy. The current proposal falls outside of this broad approach, asking to purchase single-tooling via global consensus.
- In this case, the proposed tooling is a supplementary offering to governance infrastructure, not a unique core requirement for sustainable operations. It is also not part of a broader program supporting growth priorities.