Acceptable Process

We propose the creation of the following Canonizer algorithms to gauge and compare the support for each:

• Popular Consensus
• Core Devs (white list of all “core devs”
• mapping how much vote each gets)
• Miners (develop method to verify this)
• Voting of Ether (people would have a way to vote their Ether)
• Quadratic Voting of Ether (Vote = SQR(Ether))

Based on consensus, we propose an 80% threshold of supporters in each of the groups that must be met in order to initiate change. Of course, like all aspects of Canonizer, the 80% threshold can be negotiated.

We must also develop and build consensus around solutions for any other issues people may raise, such as EIP editors facing legal jeopardy. Consensus will be defined as eliminating any reason for anyone to sue.

Determining whether any particular EIP is good for the community is a complex technical and moral process. It is necessary to develop a capable process which people can trust. There could be “experts” that seek or campaign to become such analysts. Experts could be compensated. Payments could be proposed by the people seeking to get the EIP accepted, possibly a commission in the form of a percentage of the capital recovered. There could be some kind of initial deposit locked into a contract should the EIP be rejected or accepted.

People could campaign, asking for people to delegate their support to them in specifically designed voting topics. The experts with the most delegated support, as specified by a predetermined Canonizer algorithm, would be selected to receive the contracted reward for doing such decision-making analysis. With a real-time infinite delegation system if any of the selected experts stopped performing, anyone could instantly delegate their support to someone else.

We could start by taking one of the larger / controversial EIPs that has been rejected and see if enough consensus could be built for approval as a proof of concept.