Let’s continue the last call’s discussion about how ETC should implement 1559.

This voice chat is an open discussion and anyone is free to join and chat.

Meet in the new server’s #community-calls channel on the ETC Discord at 1400 UTC for non-recorded chat.

AI Summary

Key takeaways

The meeting focused on discussing two competing proposals for implementing EIP1559-compatible mechanisms in Ethereum Classic
Olympia proposal (ECIPs 1111-1115) would redirect base fees to a treasury system with on-chain governance
ECIP 1120 proposes an algorithmic return of fees to miners over multiple blocks
Concerns were raised about Olympia’s governance system lacking specific details
Participants expressed concerns about Olympia being marketed as a done deal before consensus
Previous treasury proposals have been rejected by the ETC community
Questions about governance, representation, and implementation details remain unanswered

Istora: Summarized the current proposals for implementing EIP1559-compatible mechanisms

Details
- Istora: Olympia (ECIPs 1111-1115) proposes redirecting base fees to a treasury with on-chain voting
- Istora: ECIP 1120 (authored by Istora and Diego) proposes returning all fees to miners with an algorithmic mechanism
- Istora: On Ethereum, base fees are burned, but this would affect ETC’s emission curve
- Wedergarten: Expressed concerns about Olympia effectively implementing a tax on transactions
Conclusion
- Two main approaches are being considered: treasury system (Olympia) vs. algorithmic return to miners (ECIP 1120)
- Both aim to implement Type 2 transactions for better user experience

Wedergarten: Raised concerns about the centralized nature of pooling funds and the lack of specificity in governance

Details
- Wedergarten: “There’s a lot of possibilities… but it’s quite unspecified and still very up for debate”
- Wedergarten: Governance options could include giving power to all ETC holders or to miners
- Istora: Raised concerns about how to bootstrap the original governance system
- Istora: “Are given this ability to vote on proposals and importantly, upgrade the DAO code itself”
- Istora: Warned about potential scenario where a handful of people could take control of the DAO
- Justjin: Expressed concern about how the ECIP is being handled, appearing forced rather than discussed
Conclusion
- Governance system details are critical but currently insufficient
- Risk of centralization if governance system is not properly designed
- Need for more specific proposals on how governance would work

Wedergarten: Advocated for free market principles over a protocol-level treasury

Details
- Wedergarten: “I believe in the free market and in free market principles”
- Wedergarten: If there’s demand for protocol changes, the free market will find the most efficient solution
- Wedergarten: Users expect transaction fees to go directly to miners for security
- Istora: Noted that $10 million in ETC from Bitmain is already available in a multi-sig contract
- Istora: Suggested proving DAO concepts work before integrating them into the protocol
- Wedergarten: Anyone can build a treasury system using smart contracts without protocol changes
Conclusion
- Treasury proposals have been rejected in the past by the ETC community
- Free market solutions could be tested before protocol-level implementation
- Concerns about deviating from ETC’s original principles

Istora: Explained the technical approach of ECIP 1120 for returning fees to miners

Details
- Istora: Uses a “backwards-looking stateless fee distribution” mechanism
- Istora: Base fees would be split over approximately 50 blocks and distributed to future miners
- Istora: Implementation already exists in VESSU client
- Istora: Research questions remain about linear distribution vs. decay curve
- Wedergarten: Asked about the technical specifications compared to Olympia
Conclusion
- ECIP 1120 aims for minimal complexity while supporting Type 2 transactions
- Technical implementation is more defined than Olympia’s governance system
- Research tasks are ongoing to finalize specific parameters

Wedergarten: Asked about the ECIP process and how changes get implemented

Details
- Istora: Explained ECIP stages: Work in Progress → Draft → Final Call → Accepted → Implemented
- Istora: ECIP 1120 is currently blocked from being published as Work in Progress
- Istora: Miners ultimately have veto power by choosing whether to upgrade clients
- Wedergarten: Asked about repository access and who controls client implementations
- Istora: Explained separation between ETC GitHub organization and ETCLabs Core repository
- Istora: Emphasized importance of rough consensus to prevent chain splits
Conclusion
- ECIP process requires rough consensus to move forward
- Checks and balances exist through distributed repository ownership
- Chain takeover would be difficult due to open source nature of clients

Istora: Mentioned AI-assisted development happening in the ETC ecosystem

Details
- Istora: Cody Burns is using AI to build a Scala-based Ethereum Classic client
- Istora: AI tools like Claude Code can help with development tasks
- Justjin: Expressed interest in the AI development approach
- Istora: AI tools give hope for projects with fewer developers
Conclusion
- AI development tools could benefit ETC by reducing developer requirements
- New client development is progressing with AI assistance

Istora
- Post the meeting recording on YouTube
- Continue research on ECIP 1120 parameters
Community
- Develop an informal voting system to gauge community sentiment on proposals
- Further discuss Olympia governance details in future calls
Chris Mercer (absent from call)
- Address Istora’s five questions about Olympia governance
- Provide details on Olympia’s implementation on Mordor testnet