feat: gse dd #62
Open
feat: gse dd #62
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
just-mitch
reviewed
May 21, 2025
| 1) Only rollup stakers have a say in governance, meaning that end users have no direct say in governance; | ||
| 2) The voting power from stake can be delegated, and will by default be delegated to the rollup itself, which will follow the signalling; | ||
| 3) "Willing" stake can be moved by governance and bypass the exit delay. | ||
| 4) At the end of execution of proposals from the governance proposaler the canonical instance must have >X fraction of stake; |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 4) At the end of execution of proposals from the governance proposaler the canonical instance must have >X fraction of stake; | |
| 4) At the end of execution of proposals from the governance proposer the canonical instance must have >X fraction of stake; |
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| We then will have this information for EVERY rollup instance (only possible to add a new if it is the current canonical as per the Registry). |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't look like we consult the registry in the current implementation PR?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, ye you are right we don't currently. There is a bit of detail later talking about using the governance for it to avoid having to deal with the issues of incompatible rollups and such. Will get rid of the text in parenthesis.
|
|
||
| For the `canonical` voting power, a special case using the `MAGIC_CANONICAL_ADDRESS` is to be used, note however, that unless there is a separate checkpoint around when the canonical is moved around, it might be the case that the power for a vote in the past is passed along in case of an upgrade (edge case). | ||
|
|
||
| The `GSE` must have logic to allow the cast of votes from anyone with voting power, so if a staker does not agree with the rollup, there is a way for him to vote against it. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Details on how this will be done would be good.
| > [!info] Point of discussion | ||
| >Is it desired to always require > 2/3 of stake stake to be on the canonical for the proposal to be passable, or is it acceptable that this is bypassed when a proposal is made using the `proposeAndLock`? | ||
|
|
||
| To support requirement 3, we will alter the `GovernanceProposer` such that it any proposals from it will be extended with a check at the end that the stake held in the canonical is >2/3 of the stake in the `GSE` (instance directly + canonical). |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this include non-upgrade proposals?
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, does this mean that if a whale comes along and stakes over a third in an old version then the governance proposer is bricked?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related to AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#13868