Bioregion Governance

[n13]

See #45

Phase 2: Constitution Implemented [SEEDS]

Specs

Bioregions mirror the global governance

• [x] Each Seeds citizen can belong to a BR
• [ ] One can switch BR but it takes a while (12 weeks?)
• [ ] Each BR has its own proposals
• [ ] Each BR has its own referendums
• [ ] BR has its own settings? See constitution

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vg95Bw4Pzsqe4DXPusiyD2hAU-HCI-37c0AAZSXxC68/edit

Phase 3: Roles, Challenges, and Quests

• [ ] Roles are proposals that pay out over time, say 4 months, then come up for review
• [ ] Chalenges are one time contributions - same as a Seeds proposal
• [ ] Quests consist of multiple challenges, each one tied to rewards
• [ ] Maybe simply make proposals such that they have action steps that must be fileld - like quests really. There's a lot of overlap and we want one structure that can handle all these cases.

Implementation

• Existing tables of proposals, voice, referendums, voice and settings are moving to the "earth" bioregion
• Bioregions table contains "earth" bioregion
• All existing actions keep working but are for the "earth" region - which is the default.
• Each bioregion has a id (name) and a long name (string), and maybe a location string (JSON?). String allows us to support all sorts of formats and shapes and locations

Deployment

• Migration method to move existing data to scope "earth", then delete the old tables
• Might be easier to just keep a copy of these tables in another contract we deploy, then import them into the new scoped contract.
• Deploy and migrate

[IanMendozaJaimes]

Hello, I have some questions:

Related to proposals:

• In the issue #93, the global scope is the contract's scope, which one should I use, the 'earth' or the contract's scope?
• I think a good way to store the bioregions proposals is to use the same proposals table but using the bioregion's name as the scope, what do you think?
• About the voice, in the constitution (page 44) says that each member of a bioregion receives a given a mount of trust tokens, this voice is an extra amount for the voice a citizen receives? or this voice can be spent only within the bioregion? in case the voice can only be spend in the bioregion, can you spec a little bit more how that will work?
• The actives, participants and cycle_stats_table tables will be scoped by bioregion as well?
• The quorum base should be unique per bioregion, right?
• A user can only delegate its trust to another user in the same bioregion? or you can delegate your voice to anyone and when your delegatee votes the contract validates if you could vote, if not then do nothing?
• The onperiod method should evaluate all the proposals or would it be better to have one onperiod per bioregion?
• Is it necessary to keep track in a table of all the active proposals no matter which bioregion they belong to?

Related to referendums:

• In this case, I think is better to have the bioregion as another parameter in the referendums table because the way referendums are evaluated uses 3 different scopes, what do you think?

Related to settings:

• I think this could be easy to have the settings float and integer tables scoped by bioregions

[julioholon]

The Bioregion voice is separate, it's like another voting category (scope). Voice should be bioregion specific. If you switch to a different one, you have to earn voice there too. At least wait to next cycle before receiving. Same number of voice tokens used for proposals for now.

The actives, participants and cycle_stats_table tables will be scoped by bioregion as well?

Yes

The quorum base should be unique per bioregion, right?

Yes, count active users per Bioregion

A user can only delegate its trust to another user in the same bioregion? or you can delegate your voice to anyone and when your delegatee votes the contract validates if you could vote, if not then do nothing?

Yes for Bioregion Trust, but Proposal and Alliances Trust can be sent to anyone

The onperiod method should evaluate all the proposals or would it be better to have one onperiod per bioregion?

Break down one per scope (alliances, campaign, bioregions)

Is it necessary to keep track in a table of all the active proposals no matter which bioregion they belong to?

Not necessary, so we can scope only per bioregion

Related to referendums, I think is better to have the bioregion as another parameter in the referendums table because the way referendums are evaluated uses 3 different scopes, what do you think?

Refactor Referendum to keep the state in a field, make it work more like proposals, then add a bioregion scope. Change referendums to use voice table from proposals, also scoped by bioregions. You delegate voice to people in your region for referendums too.

Related to settings: I think this could be easy to have the settings float and integer tables scoped by bioregions

Yes, exactly. Fetch from bioregion scope, and if that doesn't exist, use global one.

NOTE: Rename BIOREGIONS --> REGIONS (also .bio to .reg, bdc -> rdc) Rename the contract too??? Later

[julioholon]

Review each settings to check which settings are local(regions can change) or global (can only be changed by SEEDS Citizens). Examples are: cycle duration and voice decay, should they be local or global? If local, we have to change many contracts to support that (scheduler for example). If used improperly could possibly spawn different "SEEDS currencies" per region, so we have to be careful. @n13 @Rieki7 Thoughts on this?

[julioholon]

Active bioregions (>144 citizens) receive funds from the Harvest. Ok, maybe "bio.seeds" receives from Harvest, with a table that behaves like an escrow, and keeps the amount of funds each region is allowed to access to proposals. Watch in case the region runs out of funds.