Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update tracks.rs #119

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 4, 2024
Merged

Update tracks.rs #119

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 4, 2024

Conversation

Leemo94
Copy link
Contributor

@Leemo94 Leemo94 commented Dec 11, 2023

Changes to Treasurer, Big Spender, Medium Spender and Small Spender Confirmation Periods as per: polkadot-fellows/RFCs#20

I opted to not propose to remove the Big Spender track (it was part of the discussion on RFC 20) as I am not sure how it would affect referenda that are currently live on that Track.

Changes to Treasurer, Big Spender, Medium Spender and Small Spender Confirmation Periods as per: polkadot-fellows/RFCs#20
@Leemo94
Copy link
Contributor Author

Leemo94 commented Dec 11, 2023

I am also interested in understanding the way forward to propose changes to OpenGov track parameters on Kusama.
The tracks on Kusama are a bit different to those on Polkadot (Decision Periods are different) and I would like to propose to change the Confirmation Period of the Treasurer track on Kusama to 48 hours to match that of the Big Spender track.

Should I propose that change here?

https://github.com/Leemo94/runtimes/blob/9bbd9d2acfed9e6e9da7be4c6ecd6e0476a3c41f/relay/kusama/src/governance/tracks.rs#L119

@bkchr
Copy link
Contributor

bkchr commented Dec 11, 2023

Should I propose that change here?

https://github.com/Leemo94/runtimes/blob/9bbd9d2acfed9e6e9da7be4c6ecd6e0476a3c41f/relay/kusama/src/governance/tracks.rs#L119

If you like you can include it in this PR directly.

@bkchr bkchr mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2023
Updated Kusama Treasurer track Confirmation Period to 48 hours to match the Big Spender track.
@adamsteeber
Copy link

This needs to be accompanied either by an increase in the payout delay for bounties or a much faster track solely for assigning bounty curators. Right now, the delay is 8 days. If my understanding is correct, this delay serves as an opportunity for openGov to respond to a compromised curator attempting to misuse bounty funds. If the Treasurer track takes 7 days to confirm, it will be rendered effectively useless against a corrupt curator who can heist a bounty with a mere 8-days notice.

@joepetrowski
Copy link
Contributor

This needs to be accompanied either by an increase in the payout delay for bounties or a much faster track solely for assigning bounty curators. Right now, the delay is 8 days. If my understanding is correct, this delay serves as an opportunity for openGov to respond to a compromised curator attempting to misuse bounty funds. If the Treasurer track takes 7 days to confirm, it will be rendered effectively useless against a corrupt curator who can heist a bounty with a mere 8-days notice.

We should probably do away with this delay on bounty payout. It was not related to the confirmation period but rather the Council motion duration back in the day, which was 7 days. A confirmation period of 1 day vs. 7 days is irrelevant when the track takes 28 days to decide; it's still outside the bounty delay. The network should really only give bounties to curators it has a reasonable expectation to curate. Or, better yet, use a sub-treasury with more transparent voting and membership criteria.

From Bounty pallet:

//! After the Council has activated a bounty, it delegates the work that requires expertise to a
//! curator in exchange of a deposit. Once the curator accepts the bounty, they get to close the
//! active bounty. Closing the active bounty enacts a delayed payout to the payout address, the
//! curator fee and the return of the curator deposit. The delay allows for intervention through
//! regular democracy. The Council gets to unassign the curator, resulting in a new curator
//! election. The Council also gets to cancel the bounty if deemed necessary before assigning a
//! curator or once the bounty is active or payout is pending, resulting in the slash of the
//! curator's deposit.

@adamsteeber
Copy link

We should probably do away with this delay on bounty payout. It was not related to the confirmation period but rather the Council motion duration back in the day, which was 7 days. A confirmation period of 1 day vs. 7 days is irrelevant when the track takes 28 days to decide; it's still outside the bounty delay. The network should really only give bounties to curators it has a reasonable expectation to curate. Or, better yet, use a sub-treasury with more transparent voting and membership criteria.

Gotcha, I just assumed that this delay period translated directly to openGov. As you mentioned with the 28-day decision period, the mismatch between that and the 8-day delay confused me.

I suppose we expect openGov to thoroughly vet curators with less trust than what the old Council had in curators. As long as you don't think we need an agile track for curator management, this is all good enough for me.

Copy link
Contributor

@muharem muharem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in the comments to the RFC, we also discuss a possible update to the conviction factor, treasurer curves and the confirmation period for the root track. are we going to proceed with that RFC? should we summarize all those comments into the final table with all paramaters for kusama and polkadot, and the conviction factor.

@bkchr bkchr requested a review from muharem January 4, 2024 12:06
@bkchr bkchr enabled auto-merge (squash) January 4, 2024 13:30
@bkchr bkchr merged commit ab96e82 into polkadot-fellows:main Jan 4, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants