Name: Member Verification and Privatization of the Forums
Category: Governance
Status: Draft -> Closed
Scope: To validate the forum members so that investors or community members can distinguish between DN holders, investor speculators, and foreign interests
Overview
This RFC proposes a simple addition to the forums in the form of a Ren logo next to a user’s name that will verify that member as a DN holder, Investor, or everyone else. This is an important aspect of Governance in order to distinguish opinions and ensure that policies are being driven by stakeholders and not outside interests.
Option for discussion: Closed Community vs Open Community: Should these forums be open to the public or should they be exclusive to Dark Node Holders and Ren Holders?
Details
The process could include a connection through meta-mask which could validate wallets of DN holders, Ren holders vs. non-Ren holders. Such that members of the community whether inside or outside can see and understand with confidence the position of the opinions being presented.
Reasons for: Outside influences can deter, distract, and manipulate the vote of the DAO in ways that could benefit outside party’s interests above the interests of the stakeholders.
Reasons against: I would like to hear why the stakeholders of REN would not want to keep opinions, forecasts, and votes private until the Team is ready to release information formally.
Implementation: May take some developer time to confirm and validate the DN holders and Ren wallets, but Meta-mask has a simple API I don’t see how this would be a huge amount of work for the security of our DAO.
The purpose of this forum is not to allow people to explicitly vote on topics. It is a place to discuss ideas, get feedback, and help inform each other about why we think what we think. This is especially important for the Ren team, because we obviously have one perspective, but seeing what others think helps us build our own understanding.
Eventually, we will have a formalised voting system based around being a node operator and REN holder. But, that voting system will still need to be based around open discussions that everyone can use to inform one another.
Checkout the rules of the RFC/RIP processes. The Ren team has the final say on all matters of governance until a formal voting system is introduced (for which there are designs underway).
Understood on future voting systems, that is great to hear.
This RFC is less about voting and more about trying to help the team and community distinguish who is actually a part of the community and who is not. Being unable to determine if foreign interests are influencing the community should be important. Shouldn’t actual stakeholders of the RenVM system understand who is who?
To an extent I agree with you, but ideas can be assessed critically, independently of who proposed them, or what their motivations might be.
This is part of what I mean when I say this forum isn’t for formal voting: it doesn’t matter if 100 people say “I’m against”. What matters is one person saying “I’m against because…” and then we can look at the reasoning and see if it makes sense. We do moderate this forum, and will not hesitate to remove posts / ban users that are acting in bad faith (for example, saying things that are false).
I also don’t like the idea of exposing who runs DNs, for security reasons, as that is information an attacker can use for organizing a bribe attack, or for a scammer to attempt to phish you so they can steal your funds.
If security is an issue, it could be argued that open forums are a risk, and for the safety of REN holders, it should be considered to close the community to verified owners only.
Judging by Loong’s reply, I don’t see the closing of the community as in line with the objective of the forum, nor is it a priority. I will close it out the RFC.