CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 #373

Ryun1 · 2022-11-11T16:09:49Z

Proposed Change

Replace reward_address with payment_address. Where payment_address should be a Shelley payment address. This means that the payment of voting rewards in Catalyst can no longer be done via MIR transfer but rather require regular transactions.

Motivation

Past Catalyst's Fund 9, MIR transfers will be unavailable to be used by Project Catalyst. The operators of Project Catalyst, IOG, do not control the keys necessary to perform MIR transfers. This aligns Catalyst with all other projects implementing this standard.

Historically the use of MIR transfers by Project Catalyst was allowed to save on the costs associated with the payment of thousands of voting rewards. But this application was beyond the intended design of the mechanism since Project Catalyst is not a core network function.

The removal of this constraint makes the application of this standard more practical for projects beyond Catalyst to adopt.

Note: In an effort to ease the transition and not remove voting rights unexpectedly from already registered voters, Catalyst's Fund 10 registrations/delegations with the incorrect type of reward_address will still be valid, but will not be eligible to receive voting rewards.

cc: @kevinhammond @stevenj @ehanoc

gitmachtl · 2022-11-12T14:44:36Z

Registrations/delegations with the incorrect type of rewards_address will still be valid, but will not receive voting rewards.

Why should an incorrect type still be valid?

Ryun1 · 2022-11-14T10:09:22Z

Why should an incorrect type still be valid?

Good question. The idea is that its a lesser sin to not get a reward for voting than be denied your voting rights, due to a reward address change outside of your control, that you may have not found out about until after its too late.

Registrations should entitle you to vote. IF the rewards address is something we can pay to, AND you earn a reward, then a reward gets paid to it.

(forwarded answer from @stevenj)

CIP-0036/test-vector.md

gitmachtl · 2022-11-17T14:17:46Z

lgtm

GitCardano · 2022-11-25T20:51:27Z

How are you going to explain this change to those of us who struggle with change? I just figured out how to vote, Fund9 was my first. What is "regular payment address"? I hold my Cardano on Daedalus.

gitmachtl · 2022-11-27T11:17:18Z

How are you going to explain this change to those of us who struggle with change? I just figured out how to vote, Fund9 was my first. What is "regular payment address"? I hold my Cardano on Daedalus.

don't worry. daedalus will get an update in time.

Ryun1 · 2022-11-27T11:56:48Z

How are you going to explain this change to those of us who struggle with change? I just figured out how to vote, Fund9 was my first. What is "regular payment address"? I hold my Cardano on Daedalus.

@GitCardano - This change is to be implemented by wallets and supporting tools. End users/voters should not have to do anything but keep their wallet/tool of choice updated.

rphair

My reading of the dialogue so far is that all reservations have addressed so I would readily approve this, pending:

@KtorZ - I assume will want to give it a good technical review (I'm not qualified to determine if there could be any hang-ups in doing it this way).
@Ryun1 - Is there a way we can verify that IO > Catalyst team actually intends to do things this way? (see below)

(edit, added) Although this requires changes to wallets in production I would forego the usual "Path to Active" because with IO's official endorsement it seems that wallets starting with Daedalus would be forced to implement the change quickly & as a matter of course.

rphair · 2022-11-30T07:22:48Z

CIP-0036/README.md

@@ -230,6 +230,10 @@ Fund 8:
 - added the `voting_purpose` field to limit the scope of the delegations.
 - rename the `staking_pub_key` field to `stake_credential` and `registration_signature` to `registration_witness` to allow for future credentials additions.

+Fund 10:
+- stipulated that `reward_address` must be a Shelley payment address, otherwise voting reward payments will not be recieved. 
+  - **Note:** up to Fund 9 `reward_address` was a Shelley rewards address; from Fund 10 onwards, it will be a normal payment address.  This will allow rewards to be paid directly from the designated Catalyst pot rather than requiring MIR transfers.


Could we add a link to some Catalyst documentation that verifies this change? If no link exists, could we add some background here about the Catalyst team's decision to do this?

This will allow rewards to be paid directly from the designated Catalyst pot

What is, the "designated Catalyst pot" ? I thought this pot was precisely called the "treasury" 😶 ?

@KtorZ from my reading of the CIP currently, Fund 10 will allow (or be based on) paying from accounts that are not the treasury. But @Ryun1 there is still a need to document this change. The Catalyst changes are usually documented on a Git Doc somewhere & I still believe we should have a link to this resolution in the CIP text.

@KtorZ @rphair
Im working on fleshing out the motivation for this.

@rphair I think there is a misunderstanding here. Proj Catalyst did not make a decision to make this change. Proj Catalyst was forced to by circumstance and directive. IOG does not control the keys sufficient to perform MIR transfers, so its incapable of performing them. The only documentation proj catalyst has on registration and delegation is CIP-15 and CIP-36. The motivation therefore is "Project Catalyst would like to continue to have the option of paying voter rewards. Now that MIR transfers are unavailable for that purpose, the only option is to change the reward address to a normal payment address. This also has the added benefit that these formats can be utilized by other applications, which is what the CIP-36 specifically envisioned when it added a voting purpose to the record. In recognition that this change may cause a large number of previously registered voters to now have an 'invalid' registration, the prudent course would seem to be not denying a voter the right to vote, simply because they would be unable to receive a voter reward through no fault of their own.". Or words to that effect.

thanks @stevenj, that was my understanding (though not including the detail about the inadequate keys)... once we get confirmation @Ryun1 is done working on the Motivation as it appears in the CIP then I'll double check that all your points are clarified there.

@rphair

See, updated motivation section :)

thanks for updates @Ryun1 but so far I'm only seeing the Motivation section of the CIP draft has had "address" changed to "payment address" & no other changes. @stevenj's comments are now reflected in the original post of this PR but I don't see them in the CIP document yet... have I missed something?

@rphair

Apologies I was unclear, poor choice of words - I was trying to say that @stevenj's comments have been reflected in this PR's motivation.

CIP-0036/README.md

CIP-0036/test-vector.md

Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]>

KtorZ · 2022-11-30T08:59:46Z

CIP-0036/README.md

@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ considered valid if the following conditions hold:
  The advised way to construct a nonce is to use the current slot number.
  This is a simple way to keep the nonce increasing without having to access
  the previous transaction data.
- The reward address is a Shelley address discriminated for the same network
+- The reward address is a Shelley payment address discriminated for the same network


That sentence reads funny now 🙃 ... "reward_address is a payment address". Naming things is hard I guess.

-> Might be good to consider renaming the field altogether.

maybe we should change it here and in the cddl from rewards_address to voting_rewards_payout_address. or remove the wording "rewards" in total and just call it voting_payout_address or even just payout_address.

I'm on the fence about renaming it, I would like further input.

Historically, before Catalyst's Fund 4, this field was a payment address and was named reward_address, see #89 - it does not appear to have been an issue back then. With that said, I do understand additional the potential for confusion as this is not the first time this field has changed.

@KtorZ @gitmachtl

See most recent commit, I have renamed the field to just payment_address. In addition to making things clearer, I believe removing the notion of rewards from the field name makes the specification less Catalyst specific; as the notion of voting rewards are Catalyst specific.

@Ryun1 hey, yes thx i have seen it and i think its ok. but tbh, i have not really seen a problem calling it rewards_address too. But its clear now IMO.

Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]>

… CBOR hex

CIP-0036/test-vector.md

rphair · 2023-01-20T13:43:17Z

@Ryun1 can you rebase & merge from upstream master to fix the current merge conflict (from #426 being merged in the meantime)? cc @KtorZ

(p.s. thanks... looks like done now & our last actions were at precisely the same time.)

rphair

Looks to me like last round of editing covers everything & I will leave it to @KtorZ & maybe also @SebastienGllmt to double-check.

@KtorZ

…n#373) * Stressed payment address for reward payments * Adjusted wording and started with test vectors * Reset changes to test vectors * Added test vectors * Typos + added public gov key to test vectors * Missed comma * Update CIP-0036/README.md Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]> * Update CIP-0036/README.md Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]> * Removed cardano-cli specific notation from test vectors, just leaving CBOR hex * Renamed rewards_address field to payment_address * Addressed @KtorZ comments Co-authored-by: Matthias Benkort <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]>

Ryan Williams added 3 commits November 10, 2022 13:43

Stressed payment address for reward payments

7c58548

Adjusted wording and started with test vectors

0e1d003

Reset changes to test vectors

7e78c1e

Added test vectors

d42ca73

Ryun1 marked this pull request as ready for review November 16, 2022 14:43

gitmachtl reviewed Nov 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gitmachtl reviewed Nov 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gitmachtl reviewed Nov 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Show resolved Hide resolved

gitmachtl reviewed Nov 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Typos + added public gov key to test vectors

e74a3db

Ryun1 mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2022

refactor(governance): Aligned Governance Package with newest change to CIP-36 input-output-hk/cardano-js-sdk#524

Closed

Missed comma

3209feb

rphair added the Update Adds content or significantly reworks an existing proposal label Nov 27, 2022

rphair reviewed Nov 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

janmazak reviewed Nov 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

CIP-0036/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Nov 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update CIP-0036/README.md

93b5e3a

Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]>

KtorZ reviewed Nov 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

Update CIP-0036/README.md

c64f527

Co-authored-by: Ján Mazák <[email protected]>

davidmisiak mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2022

feat(cardano): allow external reward addresses in governance registrations trezor/trezor-firmware#2692

Merged

Removed cardano-cli specific notation from test vectors, just leaving…

0ea4652

… CBOR hex

Ryun1 changed the title ~~CIP-0036 | Change rewards address field for Fund 10~~ CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 Jan 5, 2023

Renamed rewards_address field to payment_address

3eb58be

rphair mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2023

CIP-36 test vector CBOR incorrect #425

Closed

refi93 mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2023

CIP-0062? | Cardano dApp-Wallet Web Bridge Catalyst Extension #296

Closed

Ryun1 pushed a commit to Ryun1/CIPs that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2023

Change to match cardano-foundation#373 CIP36

e35b27c

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

KtorZ reviewed Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

CIP-0036/test-vector.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Ryan Williams and others added 2 commits January 20, 2023 13:32

Addressed @KtorZ comments

1397389

Merge branch 'master' into ryun1/cip-0036-change-rewards-address-fund-10

565d0ae

rphair approved these changes Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

rphair requested a review from SebastienGllmt January 20, 2023 13:47

KtorZ approved these changes Jan 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

KtorZ merged commit a98b5fa into cardano-foundation:master Jan 20, 2023

Ryun1 mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2023

refactor(governance)!: Aligned package with updates to CIP-36 input-output-hk/cardano-js-sdk#592

Merged

davidmisiak mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2023

feat(connect-cardano): allow external reward addresses in governance registrations trezor/trezor-suite#7768

Merged

Ryun1 mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2023

CIP Editor Application | Ryan Williams (@Ryun1) #473

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 #373

CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 #373

Ryun1 commented Nov 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gitmachtl commented Nov 12, 2022

Ryun1 commented Nov 14, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gitmachtl commented Nov 17, 2022

GitCardano commented Nov 25, 2022

gitmachtl commented Nov 27, 2022

Ryun1 commented Nov 27, 2022

rphair left a comment •

edited

Loading

rphair Nov 30, 2022

KtorZ Nov 30, 2022

rphair Dec 6, 2022

Ryun1 Dec 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading

stevenj Jan 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rphair Jan 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Jan 9, 2023

rphair Jan 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Jan 9, 2023

KtorZ Nov 30, 2022

gitmachtl Dec 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Dec 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Jan 9, 2023

gitmachtl Jan 9, 2023

rphair commented Jan 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rphair left a comment

CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 #373

CIP-0036 | Change reward address field for Fund 10 #373

Conversation

Ryun1 commented Nov 11, 2022 • edited Loading

Proposed Change

Motivation

gitmachtl commented Nov 12, 2022

Ryun1 commented Nov 14, 2022 • edited Loading

gitmachtl commented Nov 17, 2022

GitCardano commented Nov 25, 2022

gitmachtl commented Nov 27, 2022

Ryun1 commented Nov 27, 2022

rphair left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ryun1 Dec 6, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stevenj Jan 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rphair Jan 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rphair Jan 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gitmachtl Dec 1, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ryun1 Dec 28, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rphair commented Jan 20, 2023 • edited Loading

rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ryun1 commented Nov 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 commented Nov 14, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rphair left a comment •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Dec 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading

stevenj Jan 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rphair Jan 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rphair Jan 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

gitmachtl Dec 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Dec 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rphair commented Jan 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading