This Tuesday, January 19 Free TON Weekly Meetup #37 was held. This time, the participants discussed updates on DeBots, Free TON Rust Cup contest and Web & Design Sub-governance news, and also held a Q & A session. This article presents the essence of the main discussions and the outcome of the meetup.
By tradition, general announcements were made first: the Chinese and African Sub-governances, which had recently officially launched, received tokens to their wallets. The African Blockchain Institute also received the second tranche of tokens, fulfilling all its obligations of the first phase of the partnership. It was also announced that the MIT / Harvard Paper contest will be extended: now participants can submit their applications by January 28 (00:00 UTC).
Mitja Goroshevsky was the next to speak, talking about technical updates. He shared his screen and showed the DeBot Interface Specifications (IS) Consortium repository on github.com. Now it contains proposed standards for the development of the DeBots interface – if they are adopted, then anyone who wants to create a DeBot browser will have to follow these recommendations. This is due to the fact that the creators of DeBots, in their turn, will also rely on these interfaces when developing. Anyone can join the repository and submit their own versions of the standards.
Then Mitja moved on to speak about the Free TON Rust Cup contest, the proposal for which will be published on the forum in the coming days. At its core, the Rust Cup is an endurance race, a validator contest (like Magister Ludi, for example). There will be a network based on slashing, but this time not simulated, but really implemented. If something goes wrong, the network will simply restart. The restrictions on C ++ nodes networks will be lifted, so the block limits will increase significantly. This contest will be more difficult than the previous one, and the requirements will be higher – in order to stay in the game, participants will have to put in a lot of effort. The pricing table will be published by the end of the week. There have also been changes in this part: this time, the main goal is to stimulate investments in the Free TON ecosystem, and not just attract validators, a significant number of which has already been achieved earlier. In this regard, some subsidies will be distributed, but their amount will not be sufficient for validation. To solve this problem, validators will have to raise funds from investors. It is assumed that such a system will be profitable both for the validators themselves participating in the contest and for their investors. This contributes to the achievement of one of the main goals of the project – the actual use of tokens.
The next topic for discussion was the Web & Design Sub-governance. Nikita Inshakov talked about the updates of the SG. First, he cited the numbers of the December contests for creating a video about Free TON and New Year’s greeting cards:
Free TON Video Explanation Contest:
- 86 applications
Free TON Greeting Card Contest:
- 276 applications
This number of applications has raised the question of voting tools. There is a critical mass of applications, after reaching which the judges simply cannot evaluate all of them. To avoid this problem in the future, the SG members concluded that the contests should be more difficult. At the end of the competition, some of its participants were dissatisfied with the work of the judges. The decision was made to remove the judges, and as a result, the SG members were unable to reach a consensus on what actions to take in the future. As a result, they came to the conclusion that SG is not capable of functioning correctly in the form in which it exists now, and the most honest and transparent solution would be to return all tokens remaining on the sub-governance wallet (namely, 2 million 555 thousand TON Crystals) to the giver. The main reason for this decision was that the community was dissatisfied with the way these tokens were distributed among the winners of the contests and how the winners treated their rewards. All tokens were returned two hours before the beginning of the meetup. A proposal was also posted for dissolving all current SG members and initiating the process of restarting it. This solution received active support on the forum. Now it’s necessary to come to a common decision on what the updated sub-governance should look like and draw up a roadmap for the next couple of months. After that it will be possible to relaunch Web & Design Sub-governance. Nikita also stressed that there are active people in the community who want to continue to develop it, especially work on the website – it is planned to complete beta testing soon and launch the main version.
Then the floor was taken by Edgar, a representative of the Latvian Free TON community, who talked about the proposed launch of the Latvian sub-governance. After a short introduction and a story of his experience and how he started to participate in Free TON, Edgar shared his screen and showed the meeting participants the text of the Latvian sub-governance proposal. Some changes have been made to the original version: the requested budget has been reduced. Now it includes several lines: translations and copywriting, web development – for developing own website and creating landing pages, developing infrastructure, maintaining social media and more. A separate line is reserved for partnerships – for example, posting articles from the Latvian SG in popular groups on Facebook.
Each SG has solutions that work and those that do not yield results – active members of the Latvian community are planning to collect best practices and apply them in their sub-governance.
Edgar also said that the total audience of various Latvian forums dedicated to blockchain and related topics is about 5,000 active users. He plans to attract at least 1,000 of them to the project during the first 3 months of work.
Ron commented on the performance, highlighting Edgar’s enthusiasm. At the same time, he explained that national sub-governances are not always necessary, they are created if the country’s blockchain culture differs sharply from general trends. For example, it makes no sense to create a Singaporean SG – this state is ahead of many others in the field of decentralized technologies. The sub-governances are needed in those countries that cannot integrate into the community immediately, in those which need bridges for this. Hence the question: what will be the value of the Latvian SG? Why can’t the Latvian community join Global Governance at the moment?
Edgar explained this by the fact that Latvians associate Free TON with Pavel Durov, i.e. with a Russian developer – and this is the problem, as Latvians try to stick themselves back from the Russians. In addition, very few people know Russian outside of Riga. Further discussion of this issue will take place on the forum.
After that, the Q&A session began.
Q: My question is for Mitja. As far as I understand from your description of the Rust Cup, the winners will be selected according to the results of the contest, and then they will have the right to allocate lock stakes. The reward is vesting stake added to the lock steak, right?
A: They are not related. There will be a lock steak for validation and a referral reward for attracted investors and for participants who attracted them.
Q: My next question is for the Main Governance representatives. How do you think the Rust Cup might affect the reward conditions for the Magister Ludi contest?. Will the conditions change over and over again or is 24 months the final decision?
A: 18 months. This decision is final. The Magister Ludi winners will not be associated with the Rust Cup winners, and these two contests will not have any reward influence over each other.
Q: This is not a question, but advice for Edgar. The reason why eSports is not making new token requests is because we have attracted a lot of users – but they are not the thing. At the moment, the priority of Free TON is use cases. Therefore – forgive me for such a wording – if you remove everything from the text of the proposal and write about your plans to attract new use cases, development companies, developers and partners, then it will be more useful.
A: Great idea, thanks.
Q: I have one more question for Mitja. At the last meetup, you promised to create a DeBot that will only accept questions backed by tokens.
A: Yes, but I think that first you need to launch DeBots in Surf, and then do something like that.
Q: It’s a question for Ron regarding the contract code we are currently using on the blockchain. Boris and I had a long conversation yesterday and he told me that TON Labs has a strict policy regarding the sources of blockchain contracts. I was very surprised, because if contracts are in the blockchain, then they seem to become publicly available, and we do not see the source code just because there is no compiler now. In 2-4 months we will have a compiler and we will see the source code of all contracts.
A: The point is that we do not want to invest in the further development of these smart contracts. There are contests, one of them has just ended, and the judges are now evaluating the submissions. The first part of the contest for smv contracts has passed, later there will be the second part. These contests will eventually replace all contracts that exist today. The reason we don’t open the code is because we don’t want it to influence the work of the contestants. The contracts that are on the blockchain now were written as a hobby and did not go through any of the internal processes of TON Labs. The key is to use the right contracts and the right processes.
Q: My question is for Ron. Different sub-governances have different procedural rules for payments. For example, recently there was a case where the SG decided to reward applications only if they received 50% + 1 positive votes. That is, if the application receives various marks from 1 to 10, and their number exceeds this threshold among all votes, then the submission can participate in the distribution of prizes. It happened at DexEx, one job got two votes with points, one refusal and one judge abstained from voting, and it eventually was not rewarded. What’s wrong with that?
A: Yes, according to the proposal adopted in September, the application must receive 50% +1 refusals in order for it to be recognized as rejected, from those juries who really participate in the vote, and do not abstain. DeFi SG wants to take a slightly different approach: the application will have to get 50% + 1 votes (on a scale from 1 to 10) in order not to be rejected. There was a situation where the application received 4 votes: 2 points and 2 rejections, and the work was eventually rejected. However, the decision was not made officially: DeFi SG did not publish the proposal and did not accept it by vote – all discussions were only in the chats, and the contestants might simply not know about it. Yes, the sub-governances can set their own rules, but for this they must follow the decentralized procedure, publish the proposal and accept it by a soft majority voting. DeFi did not adhere to this. I understand that if the application received 2 refusals, then its quality could be questionable, but a mechanism is needed to prevent it from being rewarded.
Q: This is not a question, but rather a suggestion. I think that all sub-governances should be guided by one general code of rules. My team and I are currently working on this issue. The rules for participation in contests and the rules for judging applications should be common to everyone. What do you think of it?
A1: This is already a matter of decentralized governance – the reason it didn’t work most of the time is because it is not scalable. If this is not an automated process, then here we are talking about centralized governance.
A2: I absolutely agree that we need a single protocol for all sub-governances. It all depends on what you mean by rules: if the rules of the protocol, then yes, this is what Governance 2.0 means.
Q: I have a simple question for Mitja or the DGO members. When are you planning to launch a contest for the development of a frontend for smv contracts?
A: I think it should start at the beginning of February. It will be launched in parallel with the second smv contract contest, but with a small time lag.
Q: It turns out that the winners of the completed contests in Web & Design SG will not receive their awards?
A: All awards have already been distributed to the winners.
Q: Why is there a trend for the disclosure of personal data on the forum? I don’t know how in other countries, but in Russia this is a violation of Federal Law No 152. They hide behind the words that the data was taken from open sources. And the moderators are dormant.
A1: Fortunately, none of our servers are located in Russia.
A2: I am not familiar with Russian legislation, but I think I understand who asked this question and what situation this person is talking about – about links to social networks of some community members and about published home addresses. I don’t know how it is from the legal point of view, in my personal opinion this is unethical, and this should not happen in Free TON. But I can also say that under US law, such information would not be considered private.
A3: First, there is no private data here. If you published it somewhere, you made it public, the data became publicly available. Secondly, moderators cannot delete messages from the forum, only spam.
The full version of the meetup can be found here.