Hey Andrei! Do you have an answer about the Open poh arbitrator on polygon?
Agreed the name changes are dumb.
I mean ffs, OPoH and PoHO? could you guys not have words that start with different letters at least?
Honestly the history of the crypto spaces previous project forks sets the example to be followed here.
Proof of Humanity grew from Kleros. Therefore the Kleros side of the fork retains the original name.
The part of the project forking away renames itself whilst retaining a link to the parent it forked from.
EG. Kleros Proof of Humanity
Forking away: Independent Proof of Humanity
PoH and IPoH.
Agreed that these names are silly and cause confusion, but they’re needed to identify each group. Ultimately, each fork can rename itself later. Proposal for any group to keep original name wouldn’t be very peaceful - abandoning original PoH by both groups is the main premise of this proposal.
From my understanding, current PoH is owned by PoH DAO, which Kleros once created, but no longer fully controls. Seems that solutions are:
- Kleros forks-off, leaving PoH ownership to PoH DAO
- Kleros stays and tries to address community concerns and regain influence
- Both groups decide to find a peaceful resolution, abandon original PoH and make 2 forks
the POH dao forking is the only option.
The only question now is about who keeps what.
Kleros founder literally owns Proof of humanity telegram chat.
Santi owns the UBI dao chat.
Simplest solution is for those of the community with santi to shift their fork into the ubi dao and leave the PoH dao to its own devices.
One could argue that is fair.
The disgruntled community members get to fork away from kleros, and take the UBI token ownership with it.
Kleros and those of the community standing with it remain as the original PoH with brand.
Agreed. I think we’ll run into the same issues as with the telegram channels. It’s hard to tell which is which or does what. POH FORK DAO origin could be an option. But even then it’s a little too close to the original name. Recommend a bit of creative brainstorming about the name of the fork.
Are we able to get a clear outline for benefits to the community for both sides? Like a comparison panel or something?
It would be nice to just have a graph with all of the things offered and a check mark next to the system who will be offering it. The comparison should be presented as simply as possible.
The Open POH team can either use a bridge to Ethereum (or even Gnosis Chain) or make their own arbitrator.
Well I think everyone keeps what they own (the DAO can’t seize people assets anyways).
But I guess doing a fork in a peaceful manner means that both side get sufficient time to prepare to duplicate the resources they currently don’t have.
The benefit is that each side get to have a POH version following their wishes.
The pol.is identified two distinct groups. Each group gets to make a version of POH (Group A being Open PoH and Group B PoH Origin).
Looking at this result:
Open PoH will focus on:
- Lowering tech and economic barrier of entry.
- Management of telegram groups.
- Community popularity.
PoH Origin will focus on:
- Sybil resistance.
- Technical and economic security of the registry.
I think that framing of questions posted in poll by @clesaege might point to a conclusion that PoH Origin is about “Security of the Human Registry, minimalism and composability” of the registry. IMO, it’s a little bit misleading, because, some people believe that a 3rd party private DAO oversight in PoH will result in long-term lack of security and it’s exploitation (court fees), due to potential censoring of the registry or making it complicated - think a registry of people controlled by Facebook / Twitter that also makes money each time you fail or go to court.
From PoH DAO perspective, arbitrage service is just a swappable module, which is enough to threaten Kleros DAO existentially (or consider it a bad investment), if no fork is done and arbitrage service gets swapped.
Open PoH DAO attempts to be self-governed and arbitraged. Especially, no private court, but egalitarian one, while still maintaining security and proper jury incentives. PoH - an independent DAO should have no dependence on a 3rd party DAO, which may potentially treat it as a long-term source of revenue (court cases generate revenue), in it’s decision-making process. You don’t ask Google to write privacy regulation in your country, unless you live in a “Banana Republic” - same goes for DAOs and their partnerships.
Moved to phase 2: [Phase 2][Signaling] HIP 74: A peaceful Fork - #2 by Andrei
This HIP has been put to a vote.
I would agree with this if google were attempting to govern people. They are not. If this was just about finance, I would also agree but we’re talking about a UBI which will be attractive to the poorest of the poor PEOPLE who will be the legs for this finance. Because of this there need to be clear regulations that will be of most benefit to the people it will ultimately be governing.
Do you have anything written about it? Would love to read more about this on a separate post.
I believe forking maximizes the chances of making this vision materialize, since one side of the fork will be able to use the treasury and resources to pursue it, without having to convince the other side it is a good option - which right now is leading to more polarization, political fights, and the toxic environment we’ve got to naturalize.
I bring here a message from the duplicated post
Not 100% sure about this proposal yet…
How do you imagine that each side will define the constitution or the Main principles? In the way i’m seeing this, if everyone can stay in both registries, everyone can vote in both sides and the fork Will be stucked. Did you think about it?
It seems to me that some kind of centralization/trust will be needed.
Appending… For me this is a “split” proposal not a “fork” one.
This definition does not change much, but it may help to guide discussions.
The community needs an organizer or benevolent dictator of some sort.
There is no point on competing to create abundance the MOAR the better
This proposal has been moved to a phase 3, binding, vote.
Hey just for posterity, here’s my proof of human (error). While making the phase-3 snapshot vote, I made an error in the title, I went to delete the new proposal, but accidentally deleted the completed phase-2 snapshot proposal
Though we have copies of the outcome, and I reached out to snapshot to restore the page.
For the record votes are still stored by snapshot and phase-2 did pass with 70% support to move to phase 3
Move to Phase 3: 366 VOTE 70.43%
Make no changes: 153 VOTE 29.57%
We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. Apologies for any confusion!~
Im wondering why Open-PoH will live on Polygon first instead of Mainnet First → Polygon second
@juanu , I was wondering the same thing, but I think Open POH spec isn’t finalized yet - reuse of Kleros developed designs and code-base with different parameters may not lead to desired outcome, which is, among other things, decent decentralization of courts.
Any eventual PoH implementation should be “multi-chain” (at least with respect to L2s), which could mean that Ethereum L1 is a central registry and bridges to sidechains / L2 only sync peoples records back to L1. I think that both Origin and Open team get that, but they currently have different priorities, which are: Gnosis partnership with Kleros (PoH Origin) vs reaching more users via Polygon PoS due to size of the user base (Open PoH)
IMO, both Polygon PoS and xDAI, shouldn’t be heavily relied upon for really important stuff, since they’re really protected with some multisigs and we know they’re vulnerable (just because it didn’t happen to them yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen). In comparison, L2s already have better security properties and they seem like a better bet long-term, e.g. zkSync, Optimism or Polygon zkEVM.