IIP/ICCP General Discussion

[brisk trellis]

Welcome to the IIP/ICCP General discussion chat. This channel is the perfect place to discuss IIP/ICCPs and to help keep IIP/ICCP chats on topic.

[sand sierra]

Thanks @brisk trellis !

So what do you all think of this Spicy IIP?

[brisk trellis]

Just so youre not alone

[sand sierra]

It would be great if this turns into B0tch talking to himself channel

[brisk trellis]

Or just you and I maybe Scoot too

[sand sierra]

I would love it

Personally I like alpha as a concept, being playful with a fake limited printing run is fun. I also hope the next iteration of alpha iip is IIP-XXX ...

[limber current]

definitely spicy!🌶️

[weary sequoia]

See, you can do short answers. I like it

[vivid garden]

I mostly hated all the reading

[sand sierra]

Do you think a slo mode at the beginning would have helped?

[vivid garden]

I have almost always felt that the longer the slowmode is the better things are. But I am certainly based biased.

[brisk trellis]

You are based

[limber current]

I have my moments.

[brittle halo]

LFG!!!

[onyx dune]

It would be good if we could get more people involved to the IIP discussions. I don’t know if a lot of people know how to find their ways into the forums? Does tagging everyone help when a new IIP proposal channel is made? #1073158340512858172 didn’t have a everyone tag

[floral arrow]

It's opt-in to be informed on governance. There's a governance news tag, and all ILV holders and stakers were pinged when the proposal went up for review. Not everyone cares about governance, so pinging everyone for every proposal doesn't make sense to me. #📰〕governance-news message

You can see all the opt-in roles in #1038034977864032276

I'll also just point out that we're at 156 total up + down votes on IIP-30. That's more total votes than any other proposal that's existed since we've moved to Discord Forums. For reference, our last council election had 436 people participate.

Engagement with this proposal was extremely high compared to the baseline, which is great.

[onyx dune]

Yeah yea I didn’t mean to sound rude. It was good engagement now recently and everyone doing a great job, no one can deny that . I just think we could get more people involved. My belief is that people who isn’t aware of the role selection and don’t know much about governance might find more interest if they saw more things like this. 400+ people reacting is good but not that many if we’re supposedly being 200k people in here (I know people are inactive and people are not too involved with the project and maybe even some bots) and far from 400 people expressed their thoughts around the proposal. Now from those people who did engaged we got some really good changes from the initial proposal. So if more people can find more interest we might have even better ideas coming up with future proposals and new IIPs.

So maybe my bottom line is, how do we get more people to be interested in governance? Not a question I believe anyone have the answer to now really, more something to think about 🙌🏼

[floral arrow]

This is a good general topic we've been trying to address this epoch.
A couple general things we've done, or the team has done to address accessibility of governance:

1. Discord Forums to keep governance more organized (we used to just have one big mixed channel for ALL governance)
2. Council Town Halls + Recordings uploaded to YouTube

Additionally, individual council members have made themselves available across platforms. I know Ani holds office hours, Deraji has done some YouTube interviews, Scoriox has been creating content. We have also discussed a governance newsletter as a possibility.

I'm open to some other ideas as well. I'm also wary of what I'll call "Governance Fatigue" - We've had a lot going on this epoch, and not all of it is necessarily interesting to everyone in this server. Lots of people are here waiting for the full launch of our gaming products. I'm concerned that pinging everyone for everything is too much, but maybe we could do something to make #1038034977864032276 more visible.

I agree that more people involved in governance is almost strictly better - A broader pool of ideas to draw from means the chances of a very good idea being brought forward is higher.

[onyx dune]

Off to a very good start by organising the channels and such. Myself haven’t had much interest in governance earlier because I feel like a lot of things went over my head when people start diving too deep into technical stuff.

Since most council members seems to read “everything” I think people would appreciate a simplified summary of “last weeks events” or last day summary or whatever. Basically like the newsletter/newspaper you’re talking about. How frequently it should be and how long would of course depend on what’s happening. But I like the idea of doing some sort of blog/newspaper type of thing for people to read up on.

For instance regarding the illuvitar proposal we could have the IIP proposal and a summary of what people felt was good and bad about it. That could lead to more people agreeing with some of the bad and good argues and even come up with some new ideas.

Another thing that’s been discussed was slow mode which I feel is a good idea for 2 minutes or something. But I have no idea what duration is optimal here. But that wouldn’t clog the channel too much and people can keep up with it easier when you can’t send a message too often and people have to be more wise with what they’re sending. This slow mode wouldn’t be necessary in all governance channels of course but maybe in the proposal/IIP channels?

And I like what you said about making #1038034977864032276 more visible.
Maybe start off by clarify what “governance” might include. To me that word scares me away because I’m not interested in things I normally associate with governance. But maybe somehow have a better description of the roles and examples what “governance” means within the Illuvium project.

• Raise your voice about DAO related proposals
• Vote and review community/council proposals
• Be engaged with the future of Illuvium
  I don’t know, just some random sentences as ideas
  Also kinda remind people about #1038034977864032276 roles. It’s good to have a role like that. As you said, pinging everyone all the time is never a good idea.

[brisk trellis]

That’s why I’ve been tagging ILV staker/holder still and governance news until people realize they need to get that role

Maybe once gov v2 is passed and announced we add it in the announcement

[sand sierra]

I hope the art team doesn't hate us all 🙂

[brisk trellis]

https://tenor.com/view/pepe-gif-18261463

[sand sierra]

was the creation of a new wallet for the safety pool a change? I assumed within the Illuvium Treasury to mean in the same wallet, but maybe that needed to change since we diversified stable coins. Or maybe my assumption was wrong.

[floral arrow]

It's just more robust to track in a separate wallet. USDC/USDT is certainly part of the consideration.

[sand sierra]

Called it 😄

[sand sierra]

Why was 495 ETH withdrawn from IMX for Safety Pool, was that total d1sk sales at some snapshot? Where can I find the safety pool wallet? Do we have a system in place (or will we) for systematic withdraws and conversion to USDT?

[sinful wren]

#814313779696238642 message

[smoky ledge]

I wanted to ask how would the proposal for staking votes only count help the quadratic voting issue? If anyone splits then the fee's have already been paid, and their willing to do that, what's another transaction help do when it will give them some ILV and revdis back as well? Does it cause some sort of business transaction that someone wouldnt want on their books so they wont do it? just curious, im all for it, itll help a bit, but don't see it helping much?

[floral arrow]

It's a disincentive, not complete protection. For an example wallet with 100 ILV, they'd have 10 vILV in a single wallet, 14 vILV in 2 wallets, 17 vILV in 3 wallets etc. By 100 wallets, they'd have 100 vILV. To do so, they'd have to pay 100 gas fees to split the ILV out in the first place, and 100 gas fees to stake those 100 ILV in 100 wallets. There would be another gas fee to unstake each of those 100 ILV.

It's pretty much just a layer of protection against the extreme abuse cases.

I also just wanted to mention that the proposal in question was passed at the end of last epoch, just so no one gets confused.

[smoky ledge]

Do we have security tools to see where the ILV comes from, so like, if ILV is coming from one main wallet to 500 different wallets instead of like an exchange, it would send be flagged? also i have 3 wallets, i vote with them, but not splitting them to increase vote, just how i managed my wallets and security, is this an issue, maybe we need to address wallets under X ILV, get some kind of weight

[floral arrow]

Voting is on-chain data, it's available for public analysis after each election.