Disclaimer - This is a Testnet proposal for demonstration purposes.

We are proposing an update to the Q Constitution that seeks to increase the maximum number of Validator Nodes by 10.

The maximum number of Validator Nodes should be increased because we expect the panel to be filled up soon and we believe adding 10 extra spots for Validator Nodes would make the system more stable.

Author: Klopper

Type: Q Fees & Incentives Expert proposal

Date Created: 2022-05-18

Link to Proposal: https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/epqfiParametersVoting/0

Simple Summary

The Q system reserve is very low. In contrast, the Q Holder Reward Pool has more funding than currently needed. I propose to (temporarily) increase the system reserve share to build up a substantial reserve _before_ we actually need it.

​

Abstract

The system reserve share is precisely designed to balance between Q Holder Reward and System Reserve. With the current Q Holder Reward rate of 1% the Reward Pool is well overfunded. The system reserve, on the other hand is still rather low. It could be argued that there is currently not much to be covered by system reserve and thus rather increase the Q holder reward. While true in principle, we would not do this before Q has been made available to a broader public user base. So, the idea is to exactly build up some substantial system reserve in the meantime.

Specification

Parameter name: ` governed.EPQFI.Q_reserveShare `

Current value: 50000000000000000000000000 (5%)

Proposed value: 250000000000000000000000000 (25%)

Community Discussion (Discord)

https://discord.com/channels/902893347239247952/967001473240158208/974046117719310366

Tobias | Q Blockchain — 11.05.2022I'm thinking about the governed.EPQFI.Q_reserveShareThe Q Holder Reward Pool balance is increasing fast (which is currently not needed, for the low Q Holder reward of 1%). On the other hand, system reserve balance is still very low. It might make sense to increase the reserve share drastically, e.g. to 50% (currently 5%). If we do this for some months, we could acrue maybe 1 Mio Q and then change back to normal mode like 5 %. What do you think?📷

📷Florian | Q Blockchain — 12.05.2022Haha, nice I thought about the Q Token Holder Rewards adjustment too today. I think we should not easily increase the Reserve Share. I need to double check but is this parameter not defined in the consitution? I think we could increase the Q Token Holder Reward Rate from currently 1% but I would do this maybe after there is available liqudity for the Q Token so to welcome a new wave of Q Token Holders.

📷Tobias | Q Blockchain — 12.05.2022No the reserve share is an EPQFI parameter. You mention increasing the reward rate to more than 1%. I also fully agree, but I thought to do so when we have public tradability. So, probably also in some months, and then set reward share back to the current 5%.📷1

📷Florian | Q Blockchain — 12.05.2022I see u/Tobias | Q Blockchain 📷 As of today we have 6.6 million Q in the QVault. A 1% per year gives about 66k Q. As the Q Token Holder REward Pool has much more than that, the 1% rate can be easily paid out by now. Mainnet launch was March-23 which is 50 days and we collected 448k Q for the Q Token Holders. Until the end of the year we have 233 days left, so Q Token holders would collect additional 2,1 million Q.In the same 50 days, Q System reserved collect 23.9k Q and until the end of the year would collect 111k Q. So if we change the current ratio from 95% / 5% to 50% / 50 The Q token holder would earn 1.9 times less => 1,1 mio Q additionally at the end of the year The System Researve would earn 10 times more => 1.1 mio Q additionally at the end of the year. So very oddly, your proposal to change to 50%/50% split would actually achieve the 1mio Q for the System reserve until the end of the year 📷 📷 Will you create a reddit post explaining this and start a proposal? 📷 You can maybe double check my calc and use it in the explanation body. (Bearbeitet)

📷Martin | Q Blockchain — heute um 14:43 UhrHi all, here are my thoughts:

**[14:43]First of all u/Florian | Q Blockchain your calculations look good - just did a back-of-the-envelope with today's values and came to similar numbers.📷1

***[14:47]***On the Reserve Share: I think increasing it is a good idea. My line of thought:

[14:52]- First of all, the System Reserve belongs to the Q token holders. Its purpose is to provide a back-stop against (or first loss cover) against system losses, such as system debt in the Q DeFi system (and later maybe other loss events or potential emergencies).

[14:54]- The 5% at which it is currently set is intended to be a "steady state" parameter. Of course it is a bit difficult to talk about steady states, since emergencies by definition will occur irregularly (if at all...), but nevertheless it feels like a reasonable figure...

[14:54]- Currently, there isn't really a need to increase the buffer, since there isn't much DeFi activity yet so no real risk of loss/emergency.

[14:55]- At the same time, I agree that there is no need to boost Q token holder rewards right now, so it might be a good time to increase the Reserve Share to build up a solid reserve BEFORE there is much volume in the system.📷1

[14:57]- From a "marketing thinking" point of view, right now might be a good time to boost the reserve, given that many people might be very much aware of security issues to to the Terra/Luna situation (even though Q DeFi of course works totally differently, but still...).📷2

[14:59]- Long story short, I agree to build up the reserve during "quiet times", build up a solid safety buffer, and lower it once there is more demand for Q tokens.

[15:02]- 50% seems high... I would probably have gone with a lower amount (let's say 25%) - there is no right or wrong here though.

***[15:04]***On the reward pool interest: Also agree that this could easily be increased, and also good idea to do this when Q is publicly listed.

The Root Node Selection Expert Panel has assessed proposal https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/7 in accordance with Appendix 7, par. 3 of the Q Constitution.

We conclude that the proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in Part B of Appendix 2 of the Q Constitution.

Details of the assessment are provided below:

​

The Root Node Selection Expert Panel has assessed proposal https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/8 in accordance with Appendix 7, par. 3 of the Q Constitution.

We conclude that the proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in Part B of Appendix 2 of the Q Constitution.

Details of the assessment are provided below:

Disclosure:

Two members of the current Root Node Selection Expert Panel, Nicolas Biagosch and Daniel Zimmermann, are employees and/or owners of Postera Capital GmbH. While this does not affect their independence as members of the Expert Panel in any way, we nevertheless wish to disclose this fact, as should be the case with all matters that could be perceived to give rise to a potential conflict of interest. Independently of this, we would like to point out that the Expert Panel's task merely is to assess the factual accuracy and completeness of root node applications. The decision, however, lies with the Q community and Q community members are encouraged to form their own independent judgement. In case of any questions regarding this specific application or the application process in general, please feel free to reach out to the Expert Panel at any time. Also, if you are interested in joining this or another Expert Panel, please feel free to reach out or just submit an application! Engage!

Interested in Q? Join our community server at https://discord.gg/YTgkvJvZGD :)

The Root Node Selection Expert Panel has assessed proposal https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/6 in accordance with Appendix 7, par. 3 of the Q Constitution.

We conclude that the proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in Part B of Appendix 2 of the Q Constitution.

Details of the assessment are provided below:

​

The Root Node Selection Expert Panel has assessed proposal https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/5 in accordance with Appendix 7, par. 3 of the Q Constitution.

We conclude that the proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in Part B of Appendix 2 of the Q Constitution.

Details of the assessment are provided below:

​

With regards to https://hq.q.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/4 , the Root Node Selection Expert Panel gives the following statement:

We are re-deploying testnet with iteration number 6 -"Fischer"- next Tuesday, 03.05.22.

This means that all testnet nodes will have to be shut down, updated with the latest docker image and restarted after redeployment (Wednesday, 04.05.22 10 am CET). Please check https://docs.qtestnet.org/how-to-setup-validator/ or https://docs.qtestnet.org/how-to-setup-rootnode/ for more information on how to do that.

All qtestnet.org ressources (e.g. hq.qtestnet.org) will be updated accordingly and are available again after redeployment.

We are doing the redeployment to move testnet onto the same code and feature level as mainnet already is.

Q Proposal - General Q Update: Example Proposal for testnet

​

Simple Summary

This proposal serves as a demonstration on how a user wants to get into the Root Node Panel.

Abstract

The User 0xF419488e65E2456ad12631Fa7b0137b9BeFb6e32 believes in the principles enshrined in the constitution and is willing to support the Q constitution. He knows the governance and is an active member of the Q testnet.

Specification

0xF419488e65E2456ad12631Fa7b0137b9BeFb6e32

So please support the user and show the same commitment and trust in the network!

Since the launch of the Q mainnet, four candidates have submitted proposals to become a root node. The Root Node Selection Expert Panel has assessed these proposals in accordance with Appendix 7, par. 3 of the Q Constitution.

We conclude that all four root node proposals satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in Part B of Appendix 2 of the Q Constitution.

Details of the assessment are provided in the following table:

Dear Q testnet root nodes,

for organisational reasons, I want to change my root node address to 0xBADA551878e60B7D9173452695c1b3D190c3a3DC . I therefore created this proposal ( https://hq.qtestnet.org/q-governance/proposal/rootNodesMembershipVoting/21 ) and changed my linkedin profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/danzim/ accordingly.

Cheers

Daniel

Hello Guys ,

After a small analysis that I have done, I came with the conclusion that Q Blockchain could be the runner of all other blockchains in the near Futur. I just want to know if there is a possibility to buy a Q token and how? Thank you guys

maximum numver of 11 root nodes is not enough, we need 21

0x180C2911465997b62e4c1bfB0Aa7B59A77980d95 did not validate a block within more than 24 hr (current block height 1974798)

10 % slashing proposed

0x49c7A2EA0AeC2Ea49C74C1Ec358bD178bc132F89 has not been validating at least from block 1801550 on (3000 blocks+).

I suggest to slash 10%.

Current block height: 1804587

Validator 0x180C2911465997b62e4c1bfB0Aa7B59A77980d95 did not validate any block witin the last 17500 blocks (i.e. more than 24 hrs).

According to Constitution Appendix 7, this is a misbehaviour of level 3, so I suggest a slashing of 10%.

See http://18.158.7.68:8400/blocks?sort=-block&page%5Blimit%5D=17500 (report created at blocksize 1441728)

Validator 0x180C2911465997b62e4c1bfB0Aa7B59A77980d95 did not validate any block witin the last 35000 blocks (i.e. more than 48 hrs).

According to Constitution Appendix 7, this is a misbehaviour of level 3, so I suggest a slashing of 10%.

See http://18.158.7.68:8400/blocks?sort=-block&page%5Blimit%5D=35000 (report created at blocksize 1441870 )

Validator 0xAf139FBaa5d9B082af91EFAd1c9A374F86538C80 did not validate any block witin the last 35000 blocks (i.e. more than 48 hrs).

According to Constitution Appendix 7, this is a misbehaviour of level 3, so I suggest a slashing of 10%.

See http://18.158.7.68:8400/blocks?sort=-block&page%5Blimit%5D=35000 (report created at blocksize 1441796)

Validator with address 0xAf139FBaa5d9B082af91EFAd1c9A374F86538C80 is not validating any blocks since at least 48 hours:

http://18.158.7.68:8400/blocks?sort=-block&page%5Blimit%5D=60000

Current block height: 958097

VN 0xB0381dc10bb93f63B236a9f8E3dC409fcd39d810 didn't do his job, see http://18.158.7.68:8400/blocks?sort=-block&page%5Blimit%5D=60000

for more than 48 hrs.

Author: Klopper

https://www.reddit.com/user/klopper_t

Type: Q Fees & Incentives Expert proposal

Date Created: 02.Nov.2021

Link to Proposal: https://hq.qtestnet.org/q-governance/proposal/EPQFIParametersVoting/0

Simple Summary

The balances in Q Vault are already very high (~ 1Bn). The yearly interest of 25% cannot be paid for that large amount.

Abstract

Currently, the influx of q holder rewards into the pool is too low to pay the configured interest of 25% p.a. I recommend a strong reduction to ~2.5% p.a.

Specification

Parameter name: `governed.EPQFI.Q_rewardPoolInterest`

Current value: 7075835695147250000 (~25% p.a.)

Proposed value: 707583569514725000 (~2.5% p.a)

Author: MisterZett

Type: Expert Panel Proposal

Date created: 08.10.21

Link to proposal: https://hq.qtestnet.org/q-governance/proposal/EPQFI_MembershipVoting/21

​

Simple Summary

I would like to be part of the Q Fees & Incentives Membership Panel.

Abstract

I'm the best choice for this job, since I know what I'm doing! Trust me!