🗳️Governance

Governance - Metaoracle

The Metaoracle ecosystem will eventually be decentralised, and once the project is up and running, the ecosystem's automatic and non-automated rules should enable it to function autonomously.

Protocols for making decisions and dispute resolution methods are the two main functions of governance.

Participants are given the opportunity to influence ecological processes through decision-making mechanisms. It is challenging to build systems that account for all potential outcomes and participant actions due to the nature of incomplete contracts. The DAO-based strategy that Metaoracle will use will allow people to create decentralised organisations.

The resolution methods, which are hardcoded into smart contract and node software, control how problems are resolved. For instance, tokens will be issued when a participant successfully completes an objective.

Future modifications to these hard-coded resolution processes are possible because to the procedures for making decisions that have been put in place.

Decision Making Protocol

Several decision-making processes are available for use. It may be useful to identify the kinds of judgements that must be made in order to comprehend the approaches for Metaoracle that work best.

This is a preliminary attempt to predict the decisions that will need to be taken; it is not exhaustive and subject to change.

• Prices and fees set by customers in the system may need to change.

• The reward distributions for node runners may need to change

• Feed providers (and customers) may want to add an aggregation mechanism.

• Community members may want to change how the voting protocol works.

• Participants may want to increase, decrease or set minimum or maximum stakes for node runners.

Many of the choices mentioned above could be difficult to execute and take some time. For instance, altering the rewards distribution may be a difficult and complicated task. While a typical upgrade can be introducing an aggregate method.

The fact that a crucial user group (customers) will often have less voting power than node runners and that node runners will have less voting power than community members is a significant worry for the protocol. This would imply that people who stand to lose the most from protocol modifications have little voice. For instance, even though it is not in the protocol's best interest, a vote to raise customer costs may pass if it is decided by node runners. As a result, it makes logical to use a DAO-based paradigm where users, node runners, and community members may gather to discuss choices.

Resolution Mechanism

In the context here, A resolution means when a participant completes an action, whether an honest or dishonest action, that participant expects a resolution, in the form of a reward, punishment or some other promise.

The resolution mechanisms is slightly different for different participants, but ultimately collapse to rewards and punishments.

Group	Honest action	Dishonest action	Honest Resolution	Dishonest Resolution
Feed Provider	Provide quality feed Respond to queries (uptime)	Provide poor quality or malicious feed Don’t respond to queries	Financial Rewards Increased Reputation (subscribers will be more likely to select)	Decreased Reputation Removal from Aggregated Data Providers
Node Runner	Participate in voting Propose, certify and vote on honest blocks	Too much downtime Propose, certify and vote on dishonest blocks	Financial Rewards	Exclusion from rewards Public visibility of poor performance (e.g. poor reputation)