Proposal #110
Referendum #106

Close HRMP/XCM channels to Equilibrium and Parallel (but leave Parallel->Interlay open)

Democracy
4 Comments
Executed
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up 1
Share
Votes
AyePassing thresholdNay
87%13%
Aye
10.64MvINTR
Nay
1.62MvINTR
Turnout
12.26MvINTR
Electorate
0vINTR
Passed
How Interlay Governance Works.
  • Call
  • Metadata
  • Timeline3
  • Votes Bubble
Comments

A waste of money from the treasury during critical times for Interlay. I am against it.

Reply
Up 2

Here are several substantial arguments against a positive vote on this referendum, as well as reasons why it may be a waste of Interlay's treasury funds:

  1. Uncertainty regarding users and their funds:

    • Despite the proposed protection of users from accidentally sending funds to the Parallel parachain, there is no precise information on the number of such users and the amounts of their funds. Leaving the channels open for a limited time could allow users to complete their transactions and minimize potential losses.
  2. Inefficiency in resource utilization:

    • The costs associated with closing the channels might outweigh the potential benefits. Conducting research, discussions, testing, and creating the proposal require significant resources that could be more effectively used for other projects or initiatives.
  3. Risk of needing to reopen channels:

    • Closing the channels now might necessitate reopening them in the future if the situation changes or new opportunities for using these parachains arise. This would lead to additional costs and efforts, making the current decision less rational.
  4. Lack of a concrete loss compensation plan:

    • The proposal includes compensation for research, discussion, and testing but does not provide a specific plan for minimizing user losses or ensuring their protection in case of channel closures. This raises doubts about the effectiveness and advisability of this step.
  5. Possibility of alternative solutions:

    • Instead of closing the channels, other solutions can be considered, such as improving communication with users, developing automated systems to warn of incorrect transactions, or creating reserve funds to compensate for potential losses.
  6. Risk of negative community perception:

    • Closing the channels might provoke a negative reaction among the user and investor community, potentially harming Interlay's reputation and reducing trust in the project. This could affect future investments and community support.
  7. Disproportionate compensation costs:

    • The compensation of $500 for research and proposal development might seem disproportionate compared to the potential benefits of closing the channels. These funds could be directed to other important projects or initiatives that contribute more significantly to Interlay's development.

Thus, these arguments emphasize the need for a more thorough analysis and exploration of alternative solutions before deciding to close the XCM channels, which will avoid unnecessary expenses and ensure more efficient use of Interlay's treasury resources.

Reply
Up 2

Спасибо господин @wdCA...jjMY "Mr RR" / mr.rr_web3.0 / @arkadihard. I know you're indirectly venting at the Interlay team and project in general because you're frustrated that your staked tokens are locked and you feel that the team has abandoned Interlay. You’re hoping that blocking community referenda or filing a lawsuit against the team will force them to return to developing Interlay.

MrRR_plan_to_block_Interlay_referenda_short.jpg

However, I don’t think creating a hostile community environment will help. Instead let's find ways to improve and expand Interlay and to help the overall Polkadot ecosystem. We’re expanding Interlay money markets and vault collateral to expand use of Interlay’s existing products. We’re trying to decentralize by opening up collator spots and hiring another dev team to update the Interlay runtime. Those will have a larger positive impact. Even though many of your objections appear AI generated and don’t apply, I will still attempt to answer them in good faith, in hopes that you change your mind.

Argument #1 worries about protections of users and asks for the amounts of their funds
Answer: This referendum lists the Parallel chain as holding 155k INTR and 0.0368 iBTC of user funds, but leaves open the channel for users to send their tokens back to Interlay instead of losing them.

Arguments #2 worries about the cost of closing a channel
Answer: This concern doesn’t apply because there’s no cost to close channels (it frees up 10 DOT for each direction of a channel. 30 DOT total will be freed up).

Argument #3 worries about reopening channels
Answer: No risk of needing to re-open the channels because both Equilibrium and Parallel teams have abandoned the DOT ecosystem.

Argument #4 – loss compensation plan
Answer: Interlay is not responsible for users moving their funds to those chains and then those chains ceasing operation, but is trying to help avoid additional users sending funds.

Argument #5 – alternative solutions
Answer: I welcome anyone to try to directly contact the affected account holdsers. None of them set an identity.

Argument #6 – negative community reaction
Answer: There’s no Equilibrium community left (Genshiro bail bonds were an AWEFUL trap) and former Parallel all hate the team because there’s so many funds trapped on the Parallel chain with no wait to release them.

Argument #7 – compensation costs
Answer: The Interlay community was aware my $100/hr rate from previous referenda and it hasn't been an issue over eight referendum approved by Interlay voters. This topic was clearly discussed and agreed to in the Interlay “gov-discussion” channel before I developed the XCM calls to close the channels and created the referendum.

image.png

Edited

Reply
Up

The cost for the service is ridiculous!

Reply
Up