Arctika

Team Arctika The most powerful nuclear icebreaker in the world was the Soviet Arctika. It was the first surface ship to reach the North Pole in 1977. When you need to break some ice, send in the team. TL;DR A team wants to form to break an impasse. This team dissolves after a work product is complete. The product is: A well-reasoned and best-in-class strategy recommendation for the network parameters for the upcoming V6 hard fork. What brings us here? The community stands on the cusp of launching the critical v.6 hard fork – all tech work done but governance issues remain. The issues are multiple, inter-related, and important for the long term sustainability of the project and the perceptions of the project in the market. People have tried sorting these in ad-hoc community meetups, with little success. The community is frustrated and there is a strong sentiment that leadership is needed. What's the Problem Definition? We don't have a numerical parameter for the coin split for V6 genesis. On the surface the problem is defining who pays for the Infrastructure Escrow. This has many ramifications on capital structure, and ultimately strategies that are available now and into the future. Making a "good decision" requires scholarship in blockchain, economics, and 0L's values. What does an acceptable work product look like? One document, clearly readable for readers of english as a second language. The document is a defensible recommendation for the parameters. The recommendation is framed to enable the community to cast a yes/no vote What's the greater opportunity? This is an opportunity to exemplify 0L's vision, mission, and values - "walk the walk". The outcome could be a canonical document which serves as a touchstone for our community, and maybe others. Is there a future utility to this work product? Besides helping to make a current decision, we hope that the document produced will also establish a template and model for future difficult decision making. Is this binding? This team has no formal authority on anything. Only leadership. Once the recommendation is made, the community will discuss and vote. If the community ratifies the recommendation, it will signal to the V6 genesis validators what parameters to enter at genesis. If the community does not accept the recommendation, this team will dissolve and the community will need to decide what happens next. How will you choose the members of this team? The team will include both Authors and Reviewers. Seven Authors have committed to being involved, including Zaki, 0D, Lex, Wade, Daniyal, AT., and ricoflan. The following criteria were used to select the Authors: They must have produced work products for 0L We need to represent a diverse group of stakeholders (e.g., a mix of OGs, community leads, subject matter experts, and validator operators) They must be respected voices in the community They must have exhibited good alignment with our project values They must have experience in other blockchains Reviewers are encouraged to join and will be asked to review the recommendations before they are shared with the community at large. We expect reviewers to meet the following criteria: Be familiar with the 0L Canonical Documents Be mission and values aligned with the project Be timely and responsive to review requests Attendance in Governance WG meetups Is this a permanent team? No, this is a team convened to solve a problem and help make decisions that we view as critical to shaping the future of the project How does this connect to other "governance" events? We will honor previous governance signals. A community vote in October 2022 approved stopping inflation and revising project economics. The proposals were fairly high level and left implementation details TBD. Among those details was the “infrastructure escrow fund” - a new pool for paying future validator rewards (and maybe more?). What may seem like a small detail on what percentage of the infrastructure escrow comes from which stakeholders, has deep and ramified consequences on capital. Why is this taking so long? Reaching those implementation details took far longer than envisioned and, now, as we have taken this up with the community we have found division on multiple issues, moreover, there is an argument that circumstances have changed to an extent that perhaps some of the right questions have changed. What's the timeline? Two Weeks. It's going to be hardcore work. What’s our proposed work process? A limited set of high level discussions, coupled with working asynch on reviewing a draft recommendation document. In a perfect world, this is a two meeting venture – a first kick off meeting and preliminary discussion, then a final meeting to review the draft recommendation. This is flexible, but the idea is to keep the lift light for everyone and be respectful of everyone’s time. What are we not going to do? We’re not developing (or designing) a long term governance solution. This is a temporary body focused on a specific challenge the community confronts at a crucial moment. This is not an unscoped exploration of the social science of governance, nor is it an attempt to write a white paper for public consumption. This is a focused, bounded internal strategy exercise. Where to learn more? 0L Canonical Docs:https://0l.network/category/canonical/ 0L Constitution: https://handbook.0l.network/index.php?title=0L_Network_Constitution