HIP draft - Scaling the Network with Governance & Hedera

[jamesmeikle]

This is a HIP proposal addressing our main concerns with HIP-70. This is building on the great work on fixing some of the structural issues by the core devs lead by @abhay (hashc0de).

Our concerns are not with the structural changes (specially not the choice of a full-featured LNS to replace console, nor is it with moving to a general purpose L1) but largely around governance, transparency and centralisation. To illustrate we have chosen another DLT technology to show an alternative way. However, we propose a formal review with some independent oversight (see Governance section).

Rendered view: https://github.com/leogaggl/HIP/blob/main/00XY-scaling-helium-transparently.md

PR on behalf of Author(s): @leogaggl, @gregscullard, @pathornteng, @jamesmeikle, @tonysmith55, @nodlRob

[Buckshot22]

Well written proposal. My personal opinion is that the governance and transparency issues are the most important.

I feel that combining these with the L1 choice may cloud those important factors and I suggest the two be separated. I feel that the ship may have sailed on the L1 and it is something that is desperately needed and shouldn't be held up.

Great work!

[leogaggl]

Thanks for contributing @Buckshot22 !

We have had this conversation between the authors. And this might well be what ends up happening.

However, to achieve the decentralisation part of the design goals we felt it was important to show that there are alternatives to what has been put forward in HIP-70 that could achieve this from the outset in a scalable manner.

The other reason for including this is that the governance structure that was chosen by our DLT is also something worth considering for the Helium Foundation.

[vincenzospaghetti]

I am also working on a governance proposal and will make that available for the community to read when I am done! This is separate from the L1 change, and is remaining separate, as @Buckshot22 suggested.

[leogaggl]

I am also working on a governance proposal and will make that available for the community to read when I am done! This is separate from the L1 change, and is remaining separate, as @Buckshot22 suggested.

Thanks @vincenzospaghetti - that is great to hear that there is finally some work being done on the governance side. We had the same response after the April Helium Foundation Community Call (https://vimeo.com/542796385) where Scott told us that work was underway already.

From the meeting notes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bMm2alBigBj3detA775Dn0Gz9UM5XczAeK9vnjBB3l0/):

sc0tt: announced last night that the current Lorawan Committee wouldn’t be issuing more rulings. Foundation is working on a solid framework for voting and a standardized committee framework. foundation is building a directory to provide transparency among all. High priority is formalizing governance.

However despite multiple follow-ups and offers to collaborate we have never had a response from the Foundation as to the progress of this.

That was the core reason to write this into this HIP proposal in the first place as HIP-70 has highlighted the shortcomings in all of those areas.

1. Transparency
2. Governance
3. Decentralised oracles

The L1 to illustrate that this can be done from the start rather than by "hope" as it has been expressed by Foundation members and core devs in AMA's and Discord.

[gregscullard]

Unsure how to contribute some code to this HIP, so here's a link to a public repo containing a POC for the proposed architecture on Hedera: https://github.com/gregscullard/he2-poc

There will likely be updates over time, but this is in a good enough shape to share.

[gregscullard]

Recorded a video of the POC here (from 3:50 onwards)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zomi_ywFY&t=1s

[leogaggl]

Unsure how to contribute some code to this HIP, so here's a link to a public repo containing a POC for the proposed architecture on Hedera: https://github.com/gregscullard/he2-poc

There will likely be updates over time, but this is in good enough shape to share.

Thanks, @gregscullard - great example! Not sure either as I have never seen any code attached to HIP. Just checked the HIP-70 and I can't see any code there.

[vincenzospaghetti]

Hi @leogaggl - although there is no code attached to HIP 70 there is a dedicated development team. Can you answer in your HIP who would implement this?

[nodlRob]

I represent the HBAR Foundation (Hedera's commercialisation partner), and we would be very happy to work with Nova Labs to implement this migration to Hedera. If Nova Labs cannot do this then it would be developed by a combination of Hedera development partners funded by the HBar Foundation (as open source) supported by Swirlds Labs and the wider developer ecosystem.

[leogaggl]

Hi @leogaggl - although there is no code attached to HIP 70 there is a dedicated development team. Can you answer in your HIP who would implement this?

Hi @vincenzospaghetti - I think the question is probably contrary to some of the issues we've tried to address in the HIP. The way the selection process for the L1 was done (or more not done) is related to the lack of clear governance and independent oversight from the Helium Foundation. That still needs to be addressed I believe.

But I think Rob's comment above should answer your question anyway. We can incorporate this into the HIP after presenting this at the Helium Community Call next Wednesday.

[leogaggl]

Forgot to attach the Community Call agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bMm2alBigBj3detA775Dn0Gz9UM5XczAeK9vnjBB3l0/

[vincenzospaghetti]

@leogaggl and team - we have you on the agenda to present this HIP in the Community Call this coming Wed. If something changes and you cannot attend or present please let me know.

[hiptron]

@leogaggl @gregscullard @pathornteng @jamesmeikle @tonysmith55 hi all, we are discussing this HIP on the Triage Call and think it might be worth splitting this into multiple HIPs to be discussed independently. e.g.

1. governance HIP (or roll this revisiting Terms of Reference or combine efforts/ @vincenzospaghetti's governance-HIP draft?)
2. decentralized oracles
3. Hadera as L1 selection

what do you think? Having pieces distinct makes it easier to respond (and approve) each major piece. Let us know if 2 + 3 together makes sense too

• @jamiew + @vincenzospaghetti + HIP Triage Call

[leogaggl]

Thanks @hiptron

As indicated we are happy to discuss any changes to this DRAFT and welcome input.

I already mentioned to @vincenzospaghetti that these calls all happen at between 1-3 AM (depending on where you are) in the morning in Australia. And since most of the team is in Australia and is working during the day that is not a reasonable time.

To your point 1 - this dates back to April and we have been told then that it would be incorporated as a matter of priority then. We have indicated in several emails to Scott and other Helium Foundation team members that we are keen to see some work done. We never had any replies.

As for points 2 & 3 that would really be a discussion including the DLT specialists. The reason the HIP included these three components is that we believe that they are intrinsically linked. I have tried to explain this in the [presentation to the Community Call] (https://vimeo.com/755374521). The following image tries to explain that reasoning ( Slides )

If there is a better way to do this we are happy to make changes. Or please feel free to submit any changes to the doc!

[vincenzospaghetti]

Hi @leogaggl - how do you want to move this forward? At this point, if your HIP wants a move to Hedera, it would have to repeal HIP 70. I suggest a separate HIP for this.

If you would like to open a channel in the Helium Official Community to discuss this, we will do that. Still, there are many points here that I think is asking a lot of the community to consider rather than narrowing in on either governance, L1, or oracles. Please advise and we'll move this forward.

[leogaggl]

how do you want to move this forward? At this point, if your HIP wants a move to Hedera, it would have to repeal HIP 70. I suggest a separate HIP for this.

I am personally struggling with this split as these things are intrinsically connected. We wouldn't be in this position if governance had been sorted and the Helium Foundation would have ensured some independence and transparency in this selection process and actually asked for alternatives to come forward. Rather than waiting for a HIP to be written on the eve of a vote and then having to "repeal" a HIP.

Of course, we believe using Hedera as the L1 is the better option. Otherwise, we would not have used it as an example (both from an architectural as well as a governance perspective) and gone to the extent of creating a proof-of-concept with it.

However, rather than just doing the same thing as HIP-70 and ignoring any evaluation process our approach was to do a proper transparent evaluation. This could probably be done in a number of ways. Building out a PoC that can simulate the load with alternative options is one example.

We have tried to reach out to the Helium Foundation to find out how this can be achieved. Forcing a fork as has been suggested by @abhay on the Helium Discord as the only option does not seem a healthy outcome from the perspective of the Helium Network.

If you would like to open a channel in the Helium Official Community to discuss this, we will do that. Still, there are many points here that I think is asking a lot of the community to consider rather than narrowing in on either governance, L1, or oracles. Please advise and we'll move this forward.

I am unsure how you want to split Oracles from the L1. How do you want to achieve transparent (ie. on-chain) and decentralised "oracles" without an L1 that is actually capable of doing this?

The reason we ended up with this architecture is that the L1 that was chosen in HIP-70 is not capable of this architecture. In fact, the most recent Solana outage has been used to justify the centralised off-chain oracle architecture.

[abhay]

Hi @leogaggl - how do you want to move this forward? At this point, if your HIP wants a move to Hedera, it would have to repeal HIP 70. I suggest a separate HIP for this.

I disagree actually. it feels like this proposal automatically repeals HIP 70 if the community decides to go with this approach. I'd be okay with this proposal being more explicit about that but it already seems implicit.

We wouldn't be in this position if governance had been sorted and the Helium Foundation would have ensured some independence and transparency in this selection process and actually asked for alternatives to come forward.

This is a bit disingenuous. The idea of a new L1 has been proposed as early as HIP-51. That was back in January of this year.

Forcing a fork as has been suggested by @abhay on the Helium Discord as the only option does not seem a healthy outcome from the perspective of the Helium Network.

It is one of many options but given that there's a community vote on HIP-70 plus several engineers already moving towards a HIP-70 implementation, should that work be ignored?

I'd recommend this draft be finalized and brought to a vote ASAP. Let the proposal stand and be voted upon.

[vincenzospaghetti]

Hi @leogaggl - it looks like there's enough discussion on this regardless of if it is several HIPs or not. I'm going to go ahead and open a channel for you on the server and mark this as HIP 71.