We’ve clearly stated a departure from POW to POS. EON can exist without being verified by the mainchain, given the way it was build, as what’s called a non-ceasable sidechain.
The Proof Verification Chain could adopt Zen, and be compensated through block rewards of Zen and Zen transaction fees. The attestation could be paid by a “committee” possibly of New Horizen Validators with ETH to the Ethereum network.
I think you may be overcomplicating this. Put simply, there are two networks. Horizen and Ethereum. Horizen validators get paid in Zen and those validators pay ETH for attestation. We’ve done the math. It’s about 90% cheaper to submit to Horizen and everyone gets compensated.
If a new blockchain is to be developed, why not keep the old blockchain and airdrop new blockchain coins to ZEN holders? New blockchains can also have new economic models
Mainly because it takes a massive amount of resources to maintain a blockchain, especially if you want it to evolve, be competitive, and actually do stuff. The idea here is to consolidate resources to focus on what we think would be the highest value competitive position for Horizen. We could have simply launched a new project, but are choosing to propose this as an upgrade to Horizen. We love Horizen
I think a point that may not be obvious is that we’re proposing upgrading all of Horizen into this New Horizen concept. This means the existing mainchain and EON would migrate into the proposed proof verification and settlement layers, and EON would migrate into (likely) being a ZK rollup in NH. The $ZEN block reward that funds PoW mining and the node programs would migrate into NH and fund critical infrastructure there. There has been talk about an $EON token, and if such a token were to be launched, it could also play a role in funding security for NH. One idea being discussed is that $ZEN would be the stake for the proof verification layer, and an $EON token could be the stake for the settlement layer, or vice versus.
The community can expect a series of ZenIPs covering key decisions as we move along and it makes sense to consider them. This ZenIP is an absolutely critical first proposal to see if the community wants to pivot to this new big purpose of Horizen being a sort of security layer for Web3, starting with ZK proof verification and settlement; or does the community want to stay with the status quo technology and mission of being a ZK-enabled network of blockchains? Some critical details, like upgrading the tech stack to new frameworks, like Substrate, like maintaining the same tokenomics, etc. are covered; but other decisions are left for subsequent ZenIPs.
I will clearly state my strong preference that we pivot to doing something much more relevant to Web3, which is exactly what this proposal is about. I could not be more excited for the NH idea of being a modular proof verification and settlement system–one that can be used across Web3 for any system that uses ZK–instead of competing with every other L1 and L2 out there, like we’re currently (unsuccessfully) doing. I love that we’d be the first and only modular ZK proof verification system in Web3. It’s much better to be the first and only player in a single segment than competing against hundreds of other general-purpose chains.
Well lets start with distribution of EON token. How do you believe it would be distributed? If you think all Zen holders will receive EON tokens proportional to their holdings, I believe you are wrong. And if so, that is like diluting the value of some company stock with issuing new stock.
some might be distributed to zen holders, but it would be for EON. it would enable increased security on EON. I really don’t understand why you see it as a new stock. EON is it’s own chain that uses Zen for gas…
If the same amount of funds stay in the ecosystem, introducing a new token will only decrease the value of other tokens in the ecosystem. What is the use-case for an EON token if ZEN is already used for gas on EON?
additionally, tokens usually attract new money. so I think your point is valid but doesn’t consider the attractiveness of a new token at drawing liquidity into the ecosystem
^^ this. A new token can be used for security of EON, which is distinct from the Horizen proof verification layer (or the current mainchain); it can be used for liquidity and usage incentives, for bringing in new users, governance (again, for a distinct execution environment, EON), etc. There are many reasons for another token, and I’m sure there are arguments against one. We should hear both sides and, like @john said, it should probably be a separate thread
I am sorry but I cannot support creating an EON token, where 80% of the use case intended to drive ZEN 's demand to go up will be given to EON. EON tokens would be minted out of thin air, and their distribution will not be in favor ZEN holders won’t it? I agree there should be a separate thread for this, but you are giving us phase 1 plans without revealing more important details purposely omitted. Why is it that ZEN cannot be used for a security on EON as well? I know we are not talking about this right now, but seems HL will be pushing it heavily after the phase 1.
We’re not talking about an $EON token in this proposal because it has nothing to do with it. Whether Horizen pivots into a modular security layer for Web3 or if it remains the current system is completely independent of whether there should be an $EON token. But you’re right in thinking that HL is in favor of such a token.
I think we should make this proving system a sidechain. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bath water. What if it turns out to not be any cheaper than proving on ETH? It’s only 90% cheaper which means if ZEN 10x it’s more expensive.
Hi everyone, Ive been an investor in Zen since the beginning. Im all for the proof verification/ settlement chains and POS being created, but whats disturbing is reading about a New Coin being created for Eon. While this may make sense from a tech pov, I agree with @Trololino about this being pure dilution AND not in the best interest for Investors in Zen and creates more uncertainty and confusion. An Eon token takes away from the Value of Zen, and my understanding is Eon was created to add value for Zen. No one including myself will trust putting their money into Zen if this community decides to dilute its value. By saying the Zen tokonomics wont change but then creating a new token is decieving in my eyes. I’ll be happy to discuss it in a new thread, but its hard for me to seperate these 2 things. Zen is in need of an identity, this identity encompasses the entire Horizon ecosystem of Zendoo, Eon, Zen token, ZK proofs etc. So a clear direction needs to be established before the pieces are added.
I’m really excited about the direction this project is taking! I just felt that this needed to be addressed: the whole L2 craze started because gas prices were skyrocketing on Ethereum, and we needed an alternative solution. L2s, being lightweight and low on gas, and using Ethereum for security and settlement, became popular.
We shouldn’t overlook the fact that the whole L2 scene started because of Ethereum. The host of dApps and the ecosystem it holds is vast. So I feel, that even though they are dependent on Ethereum, they want to be dependent on it. Also, the future is multichain, but that multichain future will also be limited to certain chains.
