Basically, the way it will work is: Instead of staking directly with the staking contract, you will be staking indirectly via a vault contract (specific to you) which in turn will stake your ZIL on your behalf with the staking contract.
And for every ZIL you stake via the vault, you will be given 1 bZIL. These bZIL will have to be returned if you wish to take your stake out. The returned bZIL are burnt.
The base contract is almost ready. However, there are a couple of features that we would like to add that will allow a smooth transition from the current staking system (via the staking contract) to staking via the vault contract.
Once the contracts are ready, we will have to update the zillion staking frontend to make it easier for users to use the vault.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Why Valkyrie? Simply put, because Valkyrie is BIG. For those who do not know, it is an asset management firm in the US. It is also most likely the first entity to file a BTC-futures ETF with the SEC.
2/ Valkyrie x @Nasdaq: As a BTC-futures ETF product is quite certainly to be approved before a physically-backed BTC ETF, Valkyrie's BTC-Futures ETF could in fact be the first to get approved by the SEC. It also has Nasdaq's backing, i.e., when approved, it'll be traded on Nasdaq
NFT and social token thesis for the $ZIL ecosystem: Celebrities and influencers carry as much value as any goods, product or services. In the blockchain world, it has started to give rise to the rebirth of NFTs which has naturally extended to social and fan tokens.
We are witnessing the early signs of a decentralised creator economy which enables influencers, artists and in fact anyone to monetise themselves. Their ‘virtual’ value becoming tradable on a “humanised stock market” that enables trading of ownership or belonging to a community.
Creators in this economy get adequately recognised and rewarded for their skills, authenticity, ability to engage a large fan base and general know-how by having a direct access to their fans. Fans on the other hand can extract value for their contribution to creators' success.
Project completed in the last 4-5 quarters on the usability side.
1️⃣ Simulated testing environment.
2️⃣ Full-fledged web IDE to develop Scilla contracts.
3️⃣ Dev-friendly explorer that can be run locally.
Thread 👇
4️⃣ One-stop GUI to launch all the dev tools.
5️⃣ Testing library to make it easy to write unit tests.
6️⃣ Truffle-like framework for Scilla projects.
7️⃣ Learning portal for Scilla.
8️⃣ Revamped dev portal.
9️⃣ Ledger Nano X support and improved Nano S app.
🔟 ZILPay
Thread 👇
Projects that we took on core platform and dapp development side:
1️⃣ Scilla VM (WIP)
2️⃣ PolyNet Integration (WIP)
3️⃣ Staking contract and UI
4️⃣ Seed node decentralization
5️⃣ HGX
6️⃣ Research on Smart Contract Sharding
7️⃣ Improved consensus protocol for lower latency
Voting on the first $ZIL governance proposal has just ended. The proposal has passed with a resounding YES, which means that the community has now agreed on the rules for future decision making.
Time to analyze, introspect and see how to make this better next time. A thread 👇
1/ 348 different wallets voted. It may appear to be low given that 25,304 were holding $gZIL before the voting started. But, if you compare with other projects, it is in fact quite high. The last voting on YAM had 4 participants, 177 on YFI, 91 on SUSHI, 30 on UNI and 8 on SNX.
2/ Since 1 $gZIL = 1 vote, the total number of $gZIL used for voting was around 26,694, while the total number of $gZIL captured in the snapshot was 130,481. This translates to around 21% $gZIL being used for voting. The largest voter had 2,479 while the smallest had 0.002 $gZIL.
Some good discussions on the governance process: forum.zilliqa.com/t/zip-12-stand…. Thought it's worth sharing a summary of what people have been discussing:
1/ Several community members have argued that the voting period on the governance portal should be extended to 7 days 👉 Accepted.
2/ Someone asked to have a Telegram ZIP Alert bot to notify people when there is an ongoing vote. 👉 Maybe @Zillacracy could add this feature in their staking bot t.me/ZillacracyNoti…? The bot currently notifies delegators when the staking rewards are available for claim.
3/ Is there a minimum amount of time before people can decide to make changes to something that has already been approved, or is it a permanent thing? 👉 Maybe a cool-off period of a few months could be set in the future to make sure that the current flexibility is not abused?
Zilliqa governance proposal attempts to strike a balance between permissionlessness and spam mitigation.
1/ Allows one to start a conversation on a change that one firmly believes in by describing the idea as a ZIP and getting the initial buy-in from the community on the forum.
2/ However, it mitigates spams by requiring enough buy-in from the community in the form of informal "FOR" votes on the forum. At least 25% of votes must be "FOR", thereby signalling sufficient interest to take it to the next step. No $gZIL requirement also helps at this stage.
3/ At the next step of formal voting on the governance portal via Snapshot, it is required that the proposer must have at least 30 $gZIL to put the proposal to vote to prevent spam. But, in case the OP doesn't have enough $gZIL, anyone could do so on the OP's behalf.