First of all thank you for the work that has been put into this. If it takes me half an hour to only read, I don’t want to know how long it took you to draft!
Some remarks:
Unlike in anonymous airdrops, app builders are doxxed and apps seeking to use fake activity expose themselves to reputation risk and the possibility of not receiving long-term support from the ZK Chain they are building on (and the wider ZK ecosystem).
Everything is public. We will look into the transactions and how KPIs are achieved. If there is suspicious activity, we will publicly highlight it on the website dashboard and inform the DAO / ZK Chains.
This will result in (1) funds not being paid out due to the veto right of the review committee, and (2) reputational damage for the app in question in the community and on its home ZK Chain, which the app would, in all likelihood, want to avoid at all costs.
Especially MAUs, but also trading volume can and will be faked and gamed. The industry has not found a way to exclude airdrop hunters, I expect similar results here. I understand the difference between apps and users, but that’s the first plausible argument for any app (“why would we risk that?”) and proving faked metrics will likely only be possible with whistle blowers.
Also it will be hard for the committee and its members to accuse business partners of fraud. So I expect this veto right to be of theoretical nature.
We might see a little less gaming, but I sadly doubt this will be enough to not be exploited in the end.
Membership
Members of the CRC in Wave 1, to be ratified by the Token Assembly upon proposal approval, are:
Polar, Paul Dylan-Ennis** — Researcher
Gauntlet, Trevor Normandi**— Analytics Audit
Uniswap Ecosystem Growth, Aaron Lamphere** — Ecosystem Growth / Builder Support
Matter Labs, Ivan Bogatyy** — VP Engineering
Aleph_v,** ZK Nation Security Council — Security
[Confirming] TBD** — Consumer Crypto VC Expert
I would like to echo @Gabriel’s opinion here that at least one, best case 3 independent delegates should be part of the CRC.
I raised that concern as a feedback for the Ignite Program
- I hope we can find a more decentralized approach with more Token Assembly involvement for future proposals. […]
tl;dr: I am okay with taking a pragmatic approach here, but for future proposals the bar would be higher and I hope the values zksync shared won’t be aspirational forever.
I understand there are is one delegate - but as stated in the Ignite thread the process on how to pick the delegate is important too. From everything I have read Polar is a brilliant pick, but I would like to add e.g. 2 more delegates that were not proposed by you, but picked purely by the TA.
Since there is no time pressure for this proposal I don’t think that should be an issue, especially since the VC experts aren’t defined either.