At the meetup, they discussed the proposal to hold the DeNS contest: features of the economy and the auction, and jointly distributed the prize pool. The question of who should check the Vestings SDK, how and how often, and whether watchers are needed was also resolved.
DeNS: name prolongation problem
The proposal to hold this contest, according to Mitya (he is also the initiator), is quite justified: this will solve the problem of decentralized naming of accounts in Free TON. The TON DNS design, written by TON Labs employee Alexander Murzin, has a problem: this is a normal contract with a pair. “We figured out how to make DeNS based on a similar mechanism with TIP-3, i.e. a fully distributed registry”. Mitja clarifies the situation. — I propose a contest for implementation, because we need this naming in TON: it greatly improves experience and usability. And yes, we will also participate in the contest”.
When Alex Novikov asked whether it is possible to extend or restrict a name if it is reserved, as in DNS, Mitja replied that there is no such thing here, and he does not think that it is necessary at all. Alex doubted: “But there may be something tied to the name, some external links, for example. If I outbid such a name, one might say, I completely destroyed his business.” Mitja agreed that the prolongation still needs to be done, but its price is quite difficult to set, because it must change: “The idea is that if you want a guaranteed price, there is an incentive to take the domain for the longest period, otherwise there is no risk of losing it or buying it at a high price. You can do this: hold an auction, but give the pre-emptive right to purchase at the second price to the current domain owner. Although this can also be a problem, because they can raise the price out of spite”.
Marina doubted this idea, because people can start playing against each other. Mitja believes that there is a risk if, for example, the domain is very expensive, with big business.
Dmitry has a lot of questions about the economy, because it is quite unusual: “I think everyone has doubts about how everything will work from the point of view of the auction economy, where these tokens will go”.
Mitja is confident that everything is running well: “This is vickrey second price auction, which has been on the market for many years. There is a huge theoretical base, many scientific papers have been written, so there is no doubt. Similar math was written by Andrey Lyashin and me in stablecoin, which works at the same auction. Tokens can go, for example, to the same Developer Giver. It’s definitely open for discussion”.
Dmitry also asked a question about who will deploy the system smart contract, is there any risk of facing an unscrupulous developer? Mitya explained that it makes no difference who will deploy, because that person will not have the owner method, a set code. He can’t do anything wrong even if he wants to. And if an update is needed, if there is a set code, you can add it to the SMV contract, which will determine the mechanisms by voting.
About the prize pool
During the discussion, it was decided how many prizes there will be, what will be the reward for each and what will be the reward for participation.
The proposals varied: someone offered 3 places, someone — 5, but, according to Alexey Novikov, the goal is to attract more participants: “So that not only the initial members receive prizes, but other people as well”. Therefore, the more prize-winning places, the better.
And since the distribution of tokens is an emission, by identifying the best solutions, then, according to Nikita, 5 places is really the best solution, since it is the smart contract developers who move the network the most.
Alexaner S. expressed his opinion that vesting of 2-5 places is not required: “One global prize-winning place for an application with vesting, and pay some amount for participation to all participants with working solutions.
Mitja disagrees with this approach: “Everyone should be on equal terms, there may be more than one contract in the network, and their use is completely different”.
Darkwing Dark agrees with Mitja: “The goal is to attract competent developers, and the essence of vesting is to retain the value in the form of a person for a long period. Not only within the framework of this contest”.
During the voting, it was decided that there will be 5 prize-winning places: 50-40-30-20-10 thousand tokens. All applications that have votes and have no rejects will receive 1500 tokens just for participation.
Vesting and SDK
Ekaterina Pantaz talks about the tasks to be solved, preferably here and now: how to check the vestings, whether the participants’ work meets the contest terms — who will do all this?
Dmitry suggested looking at the repositories, for example, during the entire vesting period, because retesting is unacceptable.
Sergey Tyurin proposed to meet once a month and vote: “Perhaps on smart contracts within 3-5 days before the end of the month. Also to identify the criteria so as not to go too deep into testing and studying. At least according to the feedback from the repository support’’.
Pavel P put forward his best-case scenario version: “It is technically easier to just make vesting more automated by canceling it from the side of sub governance. In this case, you won’t have to vote every time. And only if the fact of violation is noted, then the group of people who will write the multisig must remove the vesting.
Darkwing Dark is sure that in any case there should be a check, at least average in detail: “You need to see that the solution really works, so that it motivates developers to do something right, and not just support the solutions. You can ask the developers to make some kind of report on what exactly was done to reduce the burden on those who will check this solution”.
Alexander S. added that the developers themselves should provide guides so that it is faster and more convenient to make decisions and updates: “I suggest paying more attention to the vesting terms in contests. Because regarding the SDK, there was nothing written in the terms that developers should do this, for example, somehow improve their product”.
Concluding the discussion, Marina Guryeva offered to vote and reached a verdict: “We automatically believe that everyone fulfills the contest terms and is engaged in further development. But if someone reports violations, then we consider the case for the flaw and vote for the exclusion of the team from the pool of those who receive the award”.
Andrey Falaleev made his own worthwhile proposal, which was supported by the participants of the meetup: “Now there are popular solutions in сryptoeconomics, when watchers are paid a reward for finding defects, etc. If you let it all go, it is quite possible that something bad can be missed”.
Alex Nivikov assured that it is unlikely to miss something: “The technology is so configured that the negative is visible in the first place, and if something is wrong with some decision, someone submitted a proposal, threw a message to the Dev EX or any other group, such a wave will rise that we will in any way we will know about it”.
By voting, the majority decided that a contest to find watchers should take place.