|Type||Songbird Test Proposal|
|Threshold Condition||75% (required to reject) 1.88% (obtained)|
|Majority Condition||50% (required to reject) 13.03% (obtained)|
|Voting Outcome||Accepted on 06-Mar-2023|
|Timeline||17-Mar-2023 Deployment started on Coston. |
22-Mar-2023 Deployment started on Songbird.
4-Apr-2023 Deployment complete.
This proposal will create a self-policing FTSO committee, called the FTSO Management Group, to report possible infractions by FTSO data providers and collectively determine whether punitive actions should be taken.
Infractions are purposely undefined. The group will decide on a case-by-case basis whether an infraction has occurred, but this proposal aims to prevent behavior that impairs the FTSO ecosystem as a whole, including, but not limited to:
- Collusion, defined as multiple FTSO data providers showing a strong statistical correlation in their submissions or clearly submitting through the same node.
- Duplication, defined as multiple FTSO data providers on the same chain, controlled by the same entity, and running largely the same codebases, resulting in substantially similar submissions.
Any member of the management group can propose a provider to be chilled. A chilled provider will not be able to operate for some time, causing it economic loss. A second chilling will cause the provider to be banned forever.
Chill proposals will then be voted by all group members and, when approved, will be implemented by governance.
The management group will be formed by upstanding FTSO data providers, meaning that they need to be actively submitting data and earning rewards, and not have been punished recently, either by being chilled themselves or by failing to perform their duties in the management group.
This section describes how the members of the FTSO management group are chosen.
Any address can request to be a member of the group, but only upstanding FTSO data providers will be accepted. Requests from addresses that do not qualify as upstanding will be reverted.
An address is considered upstanding if ALL the following conditions are met:
- It corresponds to an FTSO data provider that has been receiving FTSO rewards for the last 10 reward epochs. This condition implies it has been actively submitting good enough data to earn rewards. An initial KYC process will allow providers to skip this requirement, since not enough reward epochs will have elapsed since the time this proposal is implemented.
- It has not been chilled for at least 10 rewards epochs.
- It has not been removed from the management group in the last 7 days.
- Any address can request a group member to be removed. The request will succeed if ANY of the following conditions is met:
- The member has not earned any FTSO rewards for the last 2 reward epochs.
- The member has not cast a vote in 2 out of the last 4 finished proposals that reached the quorum. These proposals are only counted since the last time the provider was added to the group. If less than 4 proposals have been voted since then, this condition does not apply.
Providers that became group members using the KYC process can still be removed, and they cannot use the KYC to skip the wait described in clause
Management group members can always be added or removed by the Flare Foundation.
- The FTSO management groups on the Flare and Songbird networks are independent, since the data providers on each network might be different.
The FTSO management group members propose FTSO data providers to be chilled and vote whether to accept or reject each proposal, according to the following process:
A public discussion should happen before a formal chill proposal is submitted.
- A group member (the proponent) creates a new thread on the Flare FTSO Self-Policing Forum proposing to chill a misbehaving FTSO data provider (the defendant). This forum is public, but only group members can post on it. Defendant data providers can also join by invitation from the group.
- The chill proposal must contain the reasons, the C-chain address of the accused data provider, and some kind of evidence. Evidence is purposely undefined because it can materialize in various ways, such as data from a collusion-analysis tool. There is no specific format for the chill proposal.
- Discussion is expected to happen about the chill proposal. Ideally the defendant provider should participate. The goal is to decide whether a formal chill proposal should be submitted for voting and to gain quorum for it.
Chill proposal submission
After public discussion, the proposal must be submitted to the
- This step can be omitted if, after public discussion, the proposal is dropped. If the proposal is dropped, the process stops.
- Submitting a proposal costs 100 SGB to limit abuse. This number might need to be adjusted as the system evolves.
- If the proponent submits the chill proposal too early or without enough public discussion, the proposal may not have gained enough traction nor meet the quorum condition required for the voting to pass (See 3.a below). Proponents should submit a proposal only when they are reasonably sure it will meet the quorum condition.
- The proposal must contain the forum thread URL where the discussion happened. Only this URL to the discussion is stored on-chain.
- Once the proposal is submitted on-chain, the proponent receives a proposal ID, which they must submit to the forum thread so all participants know which proposal to vote on.
- Voting starts immediately after proposal submission.
- Each group member has one vote.
- Group members can cast their votes on the
PollingFtsovoting contract, using the proposal ID provided by the proponent on the discussion thread. The address of the contract will be present in a prominent place in the forum.
- Voting lasts for 48h.
- Proposals can also be submitted by the Flare Foundation.
A vote only passes if both these conditions are met:
- Quorum condition (threshold): 66% of the current number of members of the management group must cast a vote.
- Majority condition: More than 50% of the current number of members of the management group vote for the proposal.
- If the chill proposal passes, the Flare Foundation chills the proposed FTSO data provider.
- The Flare Foundation reserves the right to not act upon the results of the voting.
When a provider is chilled for the first time, it is removed from the FTSO data providers whitelist and it cannot re-apply for 2 FTSO reward epochs. When providers are punished in this way, they cannot submit prices, get rewards or participate in the FTSO management group.
After this chill period, the provider can re-apply for the whitelist.
When a provider is chilled for the second time, it is permanently banned from the whitelist.
A web forum will be available at the address https://forum.flare.network, hosted by the Flare Foundation.
A new contract called
PollingFtso will be deployed to take care of voting on chill proposals.
Right after deploying it, a call will be made to the
setMaintainer method to set the maintainer of the contract. This will be the only address authorized to add and remove management group members, and to change parameters.
Implementation is expected to start shortly after the voting finishes and be completed quickly.
The FTSO management group will operate under the proposed conditions only until a staking mechanism for data providers is implemented.
The proposal will be accepted unless it proves to be extremely unpopular with the community. It will therefore be rejected only if a majority (>50%) of the votes cast are against it, with the additional threshold condition that at least 75% of all possible votes are cast.
One week after the proposal is published in the Flare Portal.
|2||A data provider needs to receive rewards for 10 reward epochs instead of 20 (Clause 2.1.1.a). A data provider must not have been chilled for the past 10 reward epochs instead of 20 (Clause 2.1.1.b).|