Skip to main content

Ping-Pong Governance: Token Locking for Enabling Blockchain Self-governance

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Mathematical Research for Blockchain Economy

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Abstract

Updating blockchain-based protocols remains a significant challenge. If the community does not come to an agreement, a hard-fork can occur, splitting the blockchain’s community. Previous protocols have provided mechanisms to establish community consensus through the protocol itself, but these protocols either facilitate substantial, infrequent updates, or they allow more frequent but only minor changes. This work offers a mechanism that allows clients to vote by locking tokens, making the clients’ tokens temporarily unavailable in exchange for their vote. This design introduces an economic cost to voting, allowing us to measure both breadth and depth of support. Since there is an economic cost to voting, we wish to make non-contentious issues cheap to pass, but still allow the community to establish agreement on larger, more disputatious proposals. We achieve this property by a ping-pong governance model. An issue is tentatively accepted when it achieves enough votes within a fixed period. The proposal then enters a review period, where the opponents must gather enough votes to veto it. The supporters then have their own opportunity to overrule the veto. This process continues with new voting rounds until one side is unable to exceed the needed threshold, settling the issue. Our simulations show that this model allows the community to come to agreement quickly on popular changes, but still come to resolution when the community is more divided. Finally, we define the ideal properties of a blockchain governance protocol, and evaluate different governance protocols under these criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Specifically, 0Chain’s protocol features sharders responsible for the long-term storage of the blockchain, and validators whose role is to verify that the sharders are storing what they claim.

  2. 2.

    A pool is an account holding locked tokens, where a smart contract dictates the terms for unlocking the tokens. In the case of the accept and reject pools, the tokens are never unlocked.

  3. 3.

    Token rewards in the reject pool may be weighted differently than tokens in the accept pool. In our discussion of yay and nay votes, the vote tallies are assumed to have been adjusted for their weight already. See Sect. 4.4 for more details.

  4. 4.

    The same analysis would apply to a client voting against a proposal.

  5. 5.

    The Tezos foundation maintained veto power for the initial operation as they evaluated their governance protocol, breaking the fairness property; they have since relinquished that power [16].

References

  1. Ali, M., Nelson, J.C., Shea, R., Freedman, M.J.: Blockstack: a global naming and storage system secured by blockchains. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX Association (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blockgenic: A deep dive into EOS governance (2018). https://medium.com/coinmonks/a-deep-dive-into-eos-governance-49e892eeb4a2

  3. Corchón, L.C.: The theory of contests: a survey. Rev. Econ. Des. 11(2), 69–100 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eos.io technical white paper v2. Tech. rep., EOS.IO (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Filecoin: A decentralized storage network. Tech. rep. Protocol Labs (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goodman, L.: Tezos—a self-amending crypto-ledger. Tech. rep, Tezos Foundation (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guo, S.: Cypherium: a scalable and permissionless smart contract platform. Tech. rep., Cypherium

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim, J., Jun, M., Moon, K., Han, H.: Boscoin white paper 2.0. Tech. rep., BlockchainOS Inc. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kwon, J.: Tendermint: consensus without mining (2014). https://tendermint.com/static/docs/tendermint.pdf

  10. Leising, M.: The ether thief. Bloomberg (2017). https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-the-ether-thief/

  11. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., Green, J.R., et al.: Microeconomic Theory, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Merrill, P., Austin, T.H., Thakker, J., Park, Y., Rietz, J.: Lock and load: a model for free blockchain transactions through token locking. In: IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPCON). IEEE (2019) (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Miller, A., Juels, A., Shi, E., Parno, B., Katz, J.: Permacoin: repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2009). http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  15. O’Neal, S.: Corrupt governance? what we know about recent EOS scandal. Cointelegraph (2018). https://cointelegraph.com/news/corrupt-governance-what-we-know-about-recent-eos-scandal

  16. Tezos foundation will relinquish first-year veto power. Tezos News (2018). https://tezosnews.us/foundation-relinquish-veto-power/

  17. Trump, B., Wells, E., Trump, J., Linkov, I.: Cryptocurrency: governance for what was meant to be ungovernable. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38, 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9703-8

  18. Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Financ. 16(1), 8–37 (1961)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vorick, D., Champine, L.: Sia: simple Decentralized Storage. Nebulous Inc., Tech. rep. (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkinson, S., Boshevski, T., Brandoff, J., Prestwich, J., Hall, G., Gerbes, P., Hutchins, P., Pollard, C.: Storj: a Peer-to-Peer Cloud Storage Network. Storj Labs Inc., Tech. rep. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wood, G.: Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger (2014). https://gavwood.com/paper.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas H. Austin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Merrill, P., Austin, T.H., Rietz, J., Pearce, J. (2020). Ping-Pong Governance: Token Locking for Enabling Blockchain Self-governance. In: Pardalos, P., Kotsireas, I., Guo, Y., Knottenbelt, W. (eds) Mathematical Research for Blockchain Economy. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37110-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics