Fri. Feb 26th, 2021
BFT Governance, Free TON, Mitja Goroshevsky,

TON Crystal can be obtained by anyone who will benefit the Free TON community with their ideas. To do this, you need to participate in contests and win prizes. This distribution of the cryptocurrency is called the Meritocratic Token Distribution model (MTD).

But who judges the contests and distributes Free TON tokens? The question constantly comes up on the community forum. Ron Millow, Chief Business Officer of TON Labs, has already shared his thoughts on the competence and fairness of judging in Free TON. Now let’s find out how Mitja Goroshevsky, Chief Technical Officer of TON Labs, sees the judging system.

The problem of judging and community governance

In his work Practical Byzantin Governance (download pdf), Mitja Goroshevsky proposed his own vision of the Free TON community governance.

Problem of governance of a decentralized community is a consensus problem. Since the goal of any community governance is to reach a consensus about its decisions, the protocol must be proposed with some consensus rules, to which the community agrees including the rules of the protocol upgrades. If every part of the community starts creating its own rules for every decision they want to take consensus with other parties won’t be reached in time of a conflict.

We recommend reading this unique work, and here we briefly present its main ideas.

New judging system — “blockchain over blockchain”

Let’s think of a governance of a blockchain as a higher level social blockchain. One may also think about it as a virtual shard, a workchain of the existing Free TON blockchain. Let’s call it “Governance Workchain”. In order to participate in the decision making process a Participant must possess a token of such a workchain. Since the Utility of said token will be in its Voting power, the more such tokens the Participant has the more their Voting power is”.

The former (majority voting system, SMV) Mitya suggests leaving the voting system for various proposals:

  • about partnership;
  • about allocation of funds to sub-governances or their withdrawal;
  • about changing the system itself by adjusting its parameters or introducing new smart contracts;
  • about holding contests and so on.

But the method of choosing the jury, the work of the jury and its assessment suggests to completely revise.

Let’s think of Contest as a block, a Submission as transaction and Jury as validators.

Jury selection and evaluation of their work

Free TON, Сontests
Tags for contests

From Practical Byzantin Governance, it follows that in order to be selected for the jury, the applicant must be the winner of a prize in any Free TON contest. Each contest has its own tag, which also marks the winners as a sign of their competence in a particular field.

A community member will be able to judge a contest only if he has previously taken high places in contests with a tag similar or close to the ongoing contest. For example, for a developer contest, there may be a “java” tag, for which the tags “javascript”, “python”, etc. will be similar.

Jury members can lose more than just reputation

Each contestant who wins the prize is invited to become a judge and contribute 1/3 of their prize to a special DePool Governance. Only prize tokens can be added to the judging pool, which serve as a guarantee of objective and professional judging. 

The judges of a particular contest are selected automatically based on the tags of DePool Governance contributors whose stakes are above the set threshold. The number of judges depends on the amount of funding for the contest. 

It is assumed that at the start of such a judging system, for every 100,000 TON Crystal, 1 judge is elected, but not less than 3 jury members for the entire contest.

Judging time should depend on the amount of funding and on the submitted bids, but not less than one week.

“Rejection” and the prize in the work of the jury

The jury may reject the contest by a 2/3 vote if it does not comply with the community guidelines. In this case, a special committee is formed, which makes a proposal to the community to vote using the SMV method for withdrawing funding. 

In the allotted time, the jury will evaluate the contest work with points from 1 to 10 and write a justification. Also, by voting 2/3 of the votes of the jury, they can reject the contest work. The award of judges for their work depends on the number of submissions, but not less than 5% of the prize of the contest. Judges are rewarded in proportion to their stakes. Rejected submissions do not affect the judge’s reward.

Fisherman sees everything

Fisherman — another person in the judging system. Any member of the community who owns tokens, including a contest participant, can become a fisherman. The task of the Fisherman is to identify judging errors and get rewarded for it. For this, the Fishermen are given 1/3 of the time that the judging took. 

The fisherman can make blame form against a jury member whose vote he considers incompetent and submit his tokens. If the total amount of the Fishermen’s blame bids exceeds 2/3 of the jury’s total stake, the voting verification procedure is started. To do this, a new jury is randomly selected, each time 2/3 more than the previous one. If there are not enough jury members with the tags required for a given contest, then some of the judges are selected with tags from related areas.

The new jury re-evaluates all the contest submissions. If other winners are chosen during the voting, the Fishermen will receive part of the accused judges’ stakes minus the costs of re-judging. Otherwise, the Fishermen lose their tokens attached to the blame form.

A system of penalties for judging has been developed. “No show” — a portion of Jury stake is slashed if a jury member did not vote for a contest they have been selected for. “Blame” — a portion of a stake is slashed if a fishermen proves the judgement fraudulent or incompetent.

If the jury stake is reduced below threshold he loses the chance to participate in the election of the jury members of subsequent contests.

When Free TON is complete…

In addition to evaluating contest submissions, the new voting system will address blockchain governance as a whole. 

Due to the fact that the jury members are winners of contests that have proven their own benefit of Free TON (and they are also owners of crystals), their motivation to act for the good of the community is considered undeniable. However, “Workchain Governance” does not have to manage all the processes in the community all the time. The community itself is decentralized and the moment of transition to self-government should come.

This moment, according to Mitja Goroshevsky, will come after the distribution of all TON Crystal. Then the accepted system of community governance should be abolished.

Contest for the development of smart contracts for Free TON governance

To implement the described ideas, Mitja Goroshevsky proposed a contest for the development of the BFT Governance smart contract system for Free TON governance.

Preliminary date: from February 15 to March 31, 2021.

Prize pool: 600,000 TON Crystal. The winners will receive a reward within a year.

1st place300,000 TONs
2nd place150,000 TONs
3rd place75,000 TONs

7% of the total amount will be distributed among the jury members for their work.

We invite developers to take part in the contest!