Council Members Present:
- Hart Lambur
- Jeremy Sklaroff
- Jonathan Alexander
- Juan Garre
- Tomasz Stańczak
The Council meeting opened at approximately 8:00 pm (UTC) on June 21, 2022. It was noted that proper notice had been provided to the Council in accordance with the Bylaws. 5 of the Council members were in attendance and the meeting had a quorum. Two Council members were absent from the meeting due to planned absence for personal reasons. The Council consented to certain Foundation staff members’ attendance at the meeting to present to the Council, as well as to the appointment of third-party notetakers.
Approval of Minutes
The Council noted that draft minutes of the Council dated June 10, 2022 had been circulated to the Council covering the initial Council meeting and related written proposals that followed. The Council members present unanimously agreed that such minutes be published on the Forta Forum by a Council member or a Foundation staff member.
FORT Airdrop Update
A member of the Foundation gave a presentation to the Council regarding the ongoing FORT airdrop, including the number of FORT tokens claimed and related community engagement metrics and discussion followed. It was noted that following the removal of the whitelist by the Council, a number of platforms had chosen to list the FORT token and that now a wider range of global users could get FORT tokens to participate in the key roles of the Forta Network.
The Council discussed certain anomalous activity identified by the Foundation related to the Ethernaut category of the airdrop, which had ceased following the incident response process followed by the Foundation. The Council was informed that the situation had already been communicated to the Forta community through Discord. No further actions in regard to such anomalous activity were proposed.
The Council discussed the ongoing process of removing non-Council member signors from the multi-signature wallets, which had been delayed due to the testing process for the new Council addresses for security and reliability. It was agreed that completing the transfer should be made top priority and that in accordance with FP-1, the community should be updated on the Forta Forum as soon as the transfer was complete. The Council noted that a formal incident response program could be implemented thereafter, potentially delegating certain roles to members of the Forta community, but that such a process should be developed in detail and deferred to a future meeting.
Node Operator FORT Rewards
It was noted that with the conclusion of the Fortification Network phase, the FORT token rewards for node runners had not been defined for future weeks. The Council discussed the current weekly FORT rewards for node runners amounting to 400,000 FORT and the effect on increasing numbers of node runners and diminishing FORT rewards per node. It was proposed that 400,000 FORT be made available for each subsequent week as rewards and that the Council should evaluate the amount of such rewards in its regular meetings to determine if adjustments should be made on an ongoing basis.
The present Council members unanimously approved the proposal for the Foundation to distribute 400,000 FORT per week as rewards for node operators.
Booking Audit Time
The Council reviewed a proposal to book audit time with a leading blockchain security audit firm. A Council member asked a question about how the fees broke down into the weekly auditor rate and if the codebase for audit had been defined. A Foundation member responded with an overview of how the proposed deal was sourced and evaluated. The Council discussed the difficulty in securing quality auditors given the high demand in the industry and it was agreed that although no specific code had been scoped, it made sense for the Foundation to book the time in advance and that the proposal and agreement was in line with industry norms.
The present Council members unanimously approved the proposal for the Foundation to book the audit time.
Closing of the Meeting and Action Items
The Council members agreed that the remaining proposals in front of the Council could be decided upon by written proposal later in the week, so that they could review the details and related agreements and so that absent members could have an opportunity to review, comment and vote on each proposal.
It was noted that certain Council discussions would be sufficiently sensitive that they should be excluded from meeting notes according to the Bylaws, such as conversations about protocol security and topics protected by NDAs. These minutes have excluded certain sensitive details concerning such subject matter.
The Council members agreed that the meeting notetakers should circulate meeting minutes encompassing both the council meeting matters and the matters to be presented following the meeting as written proposals for Council approval before such minutes are released to the Forta community and that members should be provided at least 24 hours to review such minutes.
Update to Certain Staking Parameters
A Council member proposed that the node staking parameters be updated now that the FORT token is publicly available and there is more data about what it costs for a node runner to purchase FORT tokens in order to stake and run a node. The Council member continued that given the increasing number of nodes and to increase security of the Network, the minimum stake to run a node should be increased and that the maximum stake should be increased proportionately. The Council discussed and generally agreed and it was suggested that a more formal written proposal be submitted to the Council following the meeting containing details that could be reviewed by the Council.
Following the meeting, a Council member submitted a written proposal to increase the minimum node stake requirement and maximum stake up from 500 FORT and 750 FORT, respectively. The proposal reviewed the rationale for maintaining minimum stake and maximum stake in the permissionless network and that the proposed figures had been determined after conversations with experienced node runners and after a security evaluation, as well as taking into account the growth rate of the network.
It was further proposed that ahead of the minimum bot stake being increased from 0, a maximum bot stake should be implemented so that community members do not inadvertently stake an unnecessary amount, which could also present various security concerns to the network.
It was proposed that if approved by the Council, the Foundation communicate the new staking requirements to the Forta community through its official channels and that the community should be afforded reasonable notice so that there is sufficient time for node runners that want to offboard from the network can remove their stake in accordance with the network thawing period.
The written proposal to update certain staking parameters was passed by the Council following approval of more than half of the active Council members in accordance with the Bylaws
Bot Staking Parameters
A Council member noted that although staking FORT on bots was possible, the minimum bot stake remained 0 to give maximum accessibility to bot developers that wanted to participate in the network before permissionless launch. The Council member explained that since the FORT token was now publicly available, in order to reduce the opportunity for spamming or abusing the Forta network with low-value or malicious bots, as well as to further enable and incentivize the creation of Forta bots that are valuable to the community, the minimum bot stake could be increased from 0 and a formal slashing process could be implemented for malicious bots and that further, the ability to stake and slash could be built into the Forta user interfaces to make it easier for participants to utilize such functionality. The Council agreed generally and it was suggested that a more formal written proposal be submitted to the Council following the meeting containing further details and that could potentially be put to a vote of FORT token holders using the Forta Snapshot in accordance with the Forta Proposal Process.
Following the meeting, a Council member submitted a proposal to have FORT token holders vote in accordance with the Forta Proposal Process on whether to:
- increase the minimum stake required for bots from 0;
- implement bot staking in the Forta App;
- release a local version of Forta node software that would allow developers to test and tune Forta bots before deploying them with staked FORT;
- implement a slashing policy for malicious or spam bots, and
- designate 100,000 FORT to create a bot developer grant program with a leading platform.
The written proposal to put the matters relating to detection bots to a vote of FORT token holders pursuant to the FPP was passed by the Council following approval of more than half of the active Council members in accordance with the Bylaws
The topic of academic and other research was introduced by a Foundation staff member who explained the current landscape in the Web3 research space, including the importance research plays in driving innovation and how the Forta Network could benefit from research in the area of blockchain security. The Council noted that a research proposal had been received by the Foundation from a prominent university in the United States and due to time limitations, it was suggested that the full research proposal and further explanation be submitted as a written proposal following the meeting.
Following the meeting, a Council member submitted a written proposal to approve the academic research proposal, including the full text of such proposal and including an explanation from Forta’s Researcher-in-Residence around the potential benefits to the Forta Network, timing, risks and costs. A Council member asked whether the bytecode level Geth was a standard Geth feature and what the research proposed to add and the question was resolved.
The written proposal to approve the funding of the research proposal was passed by the Council following approval of more than half of the active Council members in accordance with the Bylaws
A Foundation staff member was invited to discuss the potential implementation of a grant program by the Foundation in accordance with best industry practices, including the various benefits this program could provide and conditions and obligations the Foundation would place on potential grantees in order to further the Foundation’s mission. The Council agreed that a grant program would be beneficial for the Foundation and all future material grant proposals should be brought to the Council for its approval, unless and until the Council determines to delegate its authority in this regard.
The Council noted that an initial grant proposal had been negotiated with three prominent blockchain security firms that wanted to train auditors to understand and be able to recommend monitoring solutions to their clients. Due to time limitations, it was suggested that the proposal and further explanation be submitted as a written proposal following the meeting. Following the meeting, a Council member submitted a written proposal to approve the core terms of the first training and monitoring grant and a Foundation member submitted a presentation providing further details to the Council.
The written proposal to approve the grant was passed by the Council following approval of more than half of the active Council members in accordance with the Bylaws