#164 Motion to add Liebi as Registrar
We need to think about how needed registrar's diversification is for the ecosystem. The council should always think of a balance between community building and security - and not having more registrars seems an unsafe approach in both directions.
I have been working in the last days with Liebi to include the feedback the council gave to their past registrar proposal. In perspective and after the last registrar discussions, it now seems like an attractive approach, especially taking into account the changes made.
I submitted motion 164 to the council to be voted on this new proposal and hopefully passed to the referenda queue for the community to vote after. This decision is based on 1. The need for certain degree of redundancy and the importance of the role, 2. The changes Liebi has made taking into account the council suggestions.
The amended proposal can be found here: https://hackmd.io/@WUwOYEcKS7SDniXXxl93yA/ryqHRsDaI
Show More
Overall 33 % of users are feeling optimistic. The speaker backs the proposed motion as they find it sensible. They express optimism regarding the potential benefits of introducing a new registrar, including enhanced diversification and minimal impact on network security.
Overall 66 % of users are feeling neutral. The text discusses the challenges of managing KSMs in the current climate and suggests that fees may be too low considering the time spent on supporting users who often get things wrong via email, Riot, and Twitter. The author urges the registrar to ensure relevant fees and supports expanding the pool for better distribution. They also mention a plan to provide automated ways to reduce manual operations and adjust fees if necessary.
AI-generated from comments
I do think the fees indicated here (with the current climate) is on the low side. For 1 KSM even with automation, the time overhead with "helping people get it right" just doesn't work out in favor. You can automate signature verification, but the support around it is what eats up the time, generally people will get it wrong more often than right via e-mail, Riot and twitter. (Twitter especially is nowhere near intuitive) I would just urge the registrar to not underestimate the effort and make sure the fees are relevant.
With that said, I am really in favor of expanding the pool to remove some bus-factor and have indicated it as such with my vote.
We currently keep the cost of 1 KSM per challenge for now, usually users will verify the information of 3-5 channels, we think it is enough for us, and we will provide an automated way to reduce manual operations. If there have a big gap with most registrar fees, we will adjust it as appropriate.
Thank you for your comments and voting support : )
I support this motion, it seems to me that his proposal is reasonable. Hope the emergence of another registrar will help diversify registrars without severe threats to network security.
Discover similar proposals
Voted Aye