Triweekly parameter committee meeting - 06 March, 2025
These are the minutes of the PCs (Parameter Committee) triweekly meeting. This is a summary based on automatically generated notes.
The purpose of the Parameter Committee is to provide technical advice and recommendations relating to protocol parameters. It discusses all parameters relating to the Cardano protocol including network, technical, economic and governance parameters.
Summary
The meeting covered Cardano governance, including a treasury rate proposal accepted by Andrew Westberg after legal review by Jane, and concerns regarding insufficient research and missing proposal details; Keystone wallet requests from Alexander Moser were discussed, with Jonathan Kelly suggesting a recipient list for feedback; and benchmarking results (PCP00003) were reviewed, with concerns raised by Neil Davies about irreversible decisions and cost implications. Tommy Kammerer and Matthew Capps will coordinate a developer poll regarding proposed changes, using the developer portal and other relevant channels, to gather diverse opinions. Finally, the group discussed reversion plans for parameter changes, with a focus on developing a model for inclusion in governance actions, using Neil Davies’ suggested risk assessment framework.
Details
- Cardano Governance Discussion: The meeting primarily focused on Cardano governance, specifically concerning a recent proposal to adjust the treasury rate. Andrew Westberg initially expressed reservations about the rationale behind the proposal but ultimately accepted it based on legal advice from Jane, the community lawyer. Discussion ensued regarding the sufficiency of research conducted and the importance of clear constitutional guidelines. The primary point of contention was a missing sentence in the proposal.
- Keystone Wallet Request: Alexander Moser jokingly requested free Keystone wallets for the foundation. Jonathan Kelly, responsible for distributing wallets, suggested a list of recipients be provided for feedback purposes. They noted the Keystone wallet’s openness to community feedback and troubleshooting.
- Benchmarking Results and Capacity: Discussions regarding PCP00003 benchmarking results were held, with Neil Davies indicating a lack of access to the full results. They expressed concerns about the irreversible nature of decisions. They discussed system stability, citing a recent traffic surge successfully handled without issues. They also raised questions about cost implications of using LXTB and broader developer interest in the changes.
- Developer Poll Regarding Proposed Changes: A plan to conduct a developer poll was formed. Initially, Alexander Moser suggested using a large follower account on Twitter, but Tommy Kammerer recommended using the developer portal and other relevant channels for better targeting. They emphasized the need for diverse opinions and representation in the poll. Neil Davies highlighted that blocks are usually full due to transaction size, not script size, a point further clarified by Kevin Hammond. Tommy Kammerer and Matthew Capps were assigned to coordinate the poll.
- Benchmarking Presentation and Headroom: Kevin Hammond announced preliminary benchmarking results indicating significant headroom for memory scripts, potentially up to 50% more. They planned to invite the benchmarking team to the next meeting for a full presentation. They also noted that this would be beneficial for preparing for increased demand from decentralized applications (dApps).
- Reversion and Recovery Plans: The discussion significantly revolved around appropriate reversion plans for parameter changes, as per constitutional requirements. Alexander Moser highlighted that the lack of a detailed reversion plan was a reason for the initial rejection of a proposal. Kevin Hammond suggested monitoring the impact of changes over time (e.g., six months) and implementing a reversion if significant negative consequences arise. Neil Davies emphasized the importance of considering the timescale and potential complexities of reverting changes, citing the potential for hysteresis.
- Model for Reversion Plans: The conversation turned toward developing a model for inclusion in governance actions. Matthew Capps suggested guidance on the structure of reversion plans, aiming to avoid ambiguity and provide DREPs with clear parameters to evaluate. Nicolas Cerny echoed the need for such a model and the importance of educating the community on the matter. Neil Davies introduced the “situation, complication, undesired outcome, desired outcome, action” framework for risk assessment, which Jonathan Kelly found useful for planning and mitigating risks.
- Treasury Rate Proposal and Economic Modeling: The specific treasury rate proposal was discussed, particularly regarding its potential impact and the necessity of an accompanying reversion plan. Neil Davies expressed his vote against the proposal due to the lack of a clear description of the desired outcome and the risk of stranding assets. Jonathan Kelly argued that the proposal included a buffer to mitigate against risks. Kevin Hammond proposed further in-depth analysis, ideally involving economic modeling by ShengNan Li, and possibly informed by the open PCP related to the parameters. They acknowledged that the deadline for voting may have been missed in this case.