Announcing Tezos’ 9th protocol upgrade proposal “Ithaca”

What do you see as the impact of the quorum being lowered for the next vote?

As for a nay vote, you can see from tzkt.io that around 15% of bakers are already flagging against it. This represents 42% of those who voted in the last proposal (yes, no votes) which means this proposal is unlikely to gain a super majority of 80% to get passed anyway. But not everyone who is willing to boycott is against LB - they might just dislike the way it is being forced down our throats.

image

Source: Block 1965739 on tzkt.io

1 Like

To be clear, I’m not against the quorum being lowered. Bakers have a right to vote however they like, or not vote at all.

I just think voting Nay sends a stronger message and may get your point across in a stronger way, while getting you results faster than simply not voting.

1 Like

Here’s Jarrod and Arthur talking about changing the language, to confuse bakers, so they don’t know that they can boycott something by not voting, and to trick them into choosing pass instead which implies voting and reaching a necessary quorum. To that level of desperation they reached?

Oh, let’s change PASS into ABSTAIN!! GREAT IDEA.

That way they don’t boycott us!

Genious Jarrod.

You’ve misinterpreted that conversation and you’ve posted in the wrong thread anyway. “Abstain” is objectively more clear than “pass” and the purpose is precisely the opposite of what you are alleging - that is, to avoid confusing bakers.

Please don’t derail a legitimate discussion.

4 Likes

No, it was not pull out of context. Abstain is abstain, meaning literally abstain from voting, no voting at all. And pass is pass, which implies voting. Jarrod wanted to change the word PASS to ABSTAIN, is literally what he is suggesting. It makes it even more confusing for bakers to know that they can really abstain, not fake abstain like he proposes.

1 Like

You clearly are pulling it out of context. It’s clear from your own screenshot you posted. Language is important as governance systems are based on language and usage. At this point you are not even attempting to argue in good faith and are nothing but a troll and should be treated like one.

3 Likes

I argue in good faith, tell me, by grounds of logic, how it will be clearer for bakers that the word “pass” is swapped to “abstain”? When abstain means, literally, not voting.

Saying “I will vote abstain” instead of saying “I will vote pass” doesn’t make any sense or has any logic at all.

1 Like

It’s very simple, reading your screenshot, Jarrod is saying “pass” could be interpreted as a voting “yea”, for example: “passing the protocol through”, whereas if you use “abstain” instead of “pass” it’s clear that you are not voting for or voting against, but are contributing to quorum only. Can you see the difference or is your “tax” blinding you from seeing the difference?

You are not getting it lol, I don’t care what you do with the word “pass” you could change it to “neutral” if you want, in case it is confused with “yea”, the problem is changing the concept “ABSTAIN” to “PASS”, it has no CONCEPTUAL LOGIC. ABSTAIN doesn’t belong in anything related to voting.

1 Like

I think the only person not getting it is you. You clearly cannot see the forest for the trees. Reading through these threads and your LB thread, it’s clear whatever personal vendetta and hatred you have for Jarrod is contributing to your lack of good faith in terms of trying to articulate your position.

Oh, that’s it? You couldn’t answer me, just ad hominem me and that’s it, you just quit like that?

Answer me this with logic, or just quit.

Do you understand what ad hominem means? I literally just answered you in the above and even gave you more context with an example.

See above, with the example I gave.

Again, let’s clear this issue with pure logic. Without attacks.

Jarrod says “pass” could be confused with “yay” due to the phrase “passing the protocol through", everything is fine here, we could change “pass” to “neutral” or to ANY concept you want, doesn’t matter which, EXCEPT, changing “pass” to concept “abstain”, which literally means “choosing not to vote”.

“Abstain” concept has no logic place in the neutral vote, no logic, no conceptual logic. Doing that will just make it much more confusing for bakers, is common sense.

1 Like

Dear spanish and whole Tezos community,

Since the Granada Tezos amendment, we are seeing that Nomadic Labs, a subsidiary company from Tezos Foundation, is injecting a feature on all its amendments called Liquidity Baking.

According to its website description, the Tezos Foundation defines “Our role is to sustainably deploy the resources that are under control to support the long-term success of Tezos. This long-term success will only be possible with a vibrant decentralized ecosystem."

We think that Liquidity Baking harms the interest of our Tezos Spanish Community and other fundraiser donors that made possible the Tezos project, as well as to retail investors because:

  • It creates extra inflation on our Xtz savings
  • It creates a dangerous precedent issuing xtz through a centralized pair (tzBTC), on behalf of a supposed global benefit of generating a liquidity cascade into the Tezos defi ecossytem that is not being achieved.

For that reason we are working on a future spanish baker that would vote against any future inflationary amendments and we encourage to all bakers (specially spanish bakers Ceiboxtz, Wake n’ bake and Mytezosbaking) to escape Liquidity Baking using the escape mechanism following the next instructions from sources:

Create this file, vote.json with the following contents:

{“liquidity_baking_escape_vote”:true}

Then restart your baker and add the parameter — votefile vote.json
Example:

tezos-baker-010-PtGRANAD — endpoint http://127.0.0.1:8732 run with local node /opt/tezos_mainnet/ — votefile /home/mybaker/vote.json bakingtacos — max-priority 2

This will cast a vote to stop the LB when a baker bakes their block. Once enough bakers/block cast this vote, it can end early.

Or if you use Kiln:

sudo su -

cd /var/lib/kiln/exe-dir/

mkdir -p config

echo ‘ — votefile /var/lib/kiln/data-dir/vote.json’ > config/kiln-baker-custom-args

echo ‘{“liquidity_baking_escape_vote”: true}’ > /var/lib/kiln/data-dir/vote.json

systemctl restart kiln

We believe that the progress of Tezos cannot be achieved on detriment of the fundraiser donors and retail investors’ community, and so we encourage the Tezos Foundation to adopt immediately effective measures to increase liquidity on Tezos:

  • Implementing at once USDC and other major stablecoins on Tezos
  • Hiring effective market makers
  • Not using TF treasury xtz till other fundraiser treasury resources like BTC or ETH are totally deployed, informing about the detail of grants in a detailed and transparent way.
6 Likes

LB tax is criminal by now. Only serving the interests of a gang. It was supposed to serve the interests of everyone, that’s what “the common good” or “the public good” means, the interest of EVERY individual, not just the interest of a single group or gang, and the individual who is funding LB which is every single HODLER, is not receiving any benefit at all. The only thing the hodler is receiving from LB, is his XTZ worth less and less every day.

Not giving us a CHOICE to vote for an option without LB, is even more criminal than the tax itself.

No choice, only baguette.

2 Likes

I do think we should do Ithaca and plan for the next one to add a proposal either with LB sunset set soon or lesser escape hatch requirements.
This way we can inquire if Nomadic Labs is willing to provide such a version (which would be the most convenient).
It also gives ppl who invested in LB time to plan accordingly, which is always nice. If it has to be done outside the usual devs the next step would be to submit a tzip proposal as described here TZIP Explorer i think and go from there. Have to read up on the process.

In my opinion the biggest problem is the impressive tone deafness of the current actions. Lets move on and make sure that next time there is an alternative proposal with a viable alternative.

2 Likes

I don’t run a baker or anything like that, I’m just a techie user of Tezos that would like to have a say in the future of this ecosystem. Currently, with the way that the LB escape hatch is implemented, I have no way of telling if my baker has activated it. If it was a proposal to be voted on, then I would be able to use governance as it was meant to be and choose another baker. Please stay true to the democracy and governance system and use it correctly. ANY change in the protocol should be voted on, not bypassing it using some other method like the escape hatch vote.

If creating different proposals for every possible change that could be made becomes too cumbersome in the future, then I think the governance process needs to be changed such that individual feature updates can be voted upon. Imagine it like passing individual bills in a government instead of passing one massive bill containing all other bills.

5 Likes

There was a last time, that was where Granada was being voted upon and there was a huge uproar in the reasoning behind LB. We were told this should have been spoken about before. We are now facing another huge uproar because there are no options and it is a feature that is shuffled in with the rest of the beneficial updates, without a choice of keeping it or stopping it. This is the issue at hand, TF and NL choosing to not give us an option and to force feed it down our throats. They want all their proposals to go through and they will continue to bet on the communities lack of action and hope people just stay passive aggressive which will lead to them being able to push any updates they like.

The time is now to actually see if they are listening to the community or just playing puppet masters. 5 years and its still the same story from day one. Their agenda in tezos is the only agenda they want to see.

3 Likes

Nah, i think this is mostly just them being in their bubble occupied/distracted by other things. If it is not possible to get this time an alternative proposal about LB lets make sure there is one next time. This is absolutely feasable and the most productive way forward.

How this could happen in the first place is also interesting, but a different problem.

2 Likes

I’m not a baker yet but I hope it’s ok to jump in with a quick thought. Considering how controversial LB is/has been, why not decouple the Tenderbake update from LB? If Ithaca would be the biggest update to Tezos to date seems like it makes a lot of sense to hold separate votes on the major changes, and LB. Mainly saying that because there doesn’t seem to be any discussion around the major update to the consensus protocol and the LB controversy seems to be a distraction. Any reasons I’m missing for why this approach can’t be taken given the feedback from the community?

7 Likes