- CryptoKachu(email@example.com, @CryptoKachu )
- Robbie OH(firstname.lastname@example.org, @robbie_philosophia )
Currently, citizens of Citizen House are mostly selected based on manually selected citizens and recommendations from those citizens. However, as pointed out in other threads(([optimism gov forum url]t/lets-talk-about-identity-in-the-citizens-house/2170/24), we should prepare for much more scalable criteria for the future phases and we believe that optimism community will be in need of data-based citizen selection soon, which will be more objective.
Concerning this issue, we would like to initiate a discussion on on-chain-based citizenship selection that can be adopted in later phases of Citizen House.
Benefits of adopting on-chain data
We pose the following benefits that can be acquired when we use on-chain data for citizen selection.
- Citizens could be selected more scalably
- On-chain proofs could bring more credibility to the selection process
- We could give more governance power to addresses who contribute more to Optimism community on on-chain
Our research direction on on-chain-based selection
Previous threads([optimism gov forum url]/t/lets-talk-about-identity-in-the-citizens-house/2170/6) argued that the citizenship grant process will be vulnerable to Sybil attacks and we also believe that on-chain-based citizen selection would be more vulnerable to those attacks.
To cope with Sybil attacks and possible threats on the grant procedure, we derived two cost functions that can be used to measure the robustness of the on-chain-based granting method: 1) the Nakamoto cost function and 2) the Gini cost function. The Nakamoto cost function measures the required cost for attackers to abuse the granting mechanism and attack the system. The Gini cost function measures how evenly distributed the citizenships are.
Based on the above indices, we can propose and evaluate on-chain indicators like the LP amount each address provides on OP-USDC pool, or transaction count and the amount of gas fee each address paid on the Optimism network.
For example, based on the acquired cost value for the provided indicators, we could discuss the suitability of the indicator and how each parameter, like the number of citizens selected from that indicator, should be tuned.
Of course, the abovementioned indicators are just example indicators that can be considered and we believe we should elaborate more on the selection of the indicators. Furthermore, we could harmonically use multiple indicators to make more robust criteria.
Last but not least, we want to stress that we are not arguing that on-chain-based selection should replace the current selection process. Rather, we want to argue that on-chain-based selection could be adopted in conjunction with the current mechanism to complement each other.
If you are interested and share your opinions on our approach, we will provide our research results in the next proposal based on your feedback (with raw data and analysis code).