Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has criticized the Ethereum layer-2 community ZKsync as a result of it nonetheless operates like a multisig system regardless of claims of community-led governance.
In a post on X (previously Twitter), Yakovenko argued that the identical “honest majority” assumptions apply to ZKsync as a result of its system’s authorized or technical management might simply fall below the jurisdiction of a courtroom, compromising its decentralization.
In response to him:
“Enough of the token holders to create a quorum and enough of the ‘professional security council’ could be within reach of a rando US bankruptcy judge that could order all of them take all the bridged assets under control of a bankruptcy trust.”
His feedback had been in response to Alex Gluchowski, co-founder and CEO of Matter Labs, the workforce behind ZKsync. Gluchowski had claimed the community’s new decentralized governance system was not a multisig setup and making “a critical step towards Stage 2.”
Stage 2 refers to a transition from keen on full decentralization. On this stage, belief is positioned totally within the blockchain’s code and algorithms, making certain the system is open, safe, and proof against manipulation.
Notably, no Ethereum layer-2 community is totally in Stage 2 of its decentralization growth.
Decentralized governance
On Sept. 12, Gluchowski announced that ZKsync’s governance system had gone stay.
The system introduces a three-body structure, which incorporates the ZK token meeting—a gaggle of token holders who delegate their voting energy to delegates. These delegates can submit and vote on protocol, token, and governance improve proposals.
In response to the workforce:
“This is perhaps the most important facet of the system: token holders and their Delegates can initiate ordinary upgrades to the ZKsync protocol directly onchain, instead of relying on a single multisig.”
In the meantime, Delegates will even have authorized safety via the ZKsync Affiliation, an ownerless non-profit that addresses private legal responsibility issues.
The second a part of the governance construction is the ZKsync Safety Council, which consists of engineers, auditors, and safety professionals. The Council has the ability to assessment and actively approve protocol upgrades, freeze the protocol, and submit obligatory time-sensitive upgrades.
Nonetheless, their energy is constrained as they can not submit and approve upgrades unilaterally.
Lastly, the ZKsync Guardians guarantee governance proposals align with the ideas of the ZK Credo. They maintain veto energy and function a examine on the opposite governance our bodies.
The three governance entities—the Token Meeting, Safety Council, and Guardians—collaborate to assessment and execute proposals, resembling ZKsync Enhancements, Token Applications, and Governance Advisory modifications. The Token Meeting can submit proposals, which the Guardians can veto if wanted, and the Safety Council should approve protocol upgrades.
Basically, this construction prevents people or teams from having unilateral management over proposals and upgrades.
Talked about on this article
