Thanks to the feedback we got in the Ithaca debate we see a drawback in the escape hatch mechanism as a tool for signaling a will to continue or stop the subsidy: it does not distinguish the bakers promoting liquidity baking from the ones relying on the default behavior. This comes mainly from the lack of symmetry between the options and the lack of a “pass” option.
Here is a summary of the changes I am implementing:
- Rename the two available options to “on” and “off” to avoid confusion.
- Add a third “pass” option. Pass votes are ignored in the computation of the exponential moving average.
- Make this LB vote mandatory; that’s in fact not a protocol change. It is a change in the baker daemon that makes it refuse to start if no vote option is provided
- Make the whole mechanism symmetric by resetting the escape threshold to 50% and making subsidy deactivation non-permanent.
For more details, see the following draft MR: Add a pass option to LB escape vote and make it mandatory and symmetric (!4201) · Merge requests · Tezos / tezos · GitLab
Also what kind of timelines we would be looking at to implement those methods(approximately of course).
It is probably a matter of weeks.
I understand reinventing the escape hatch is not simple, but communicating ideas would help people understand your end game and possibly spawn new ideas.
Thank you for opening this communication channel! I am very happy to get feedback on this. I shall soon write a TZIP draft to have this discussed a bit more formally.
