Progressive Decentralization: The community now runs 66% of the network

I’m not sure I follow this?

This quarter (Nov - Jan), the devs plan on releasing a pDAO where PRV holders can vote on network changes. You can read upcoming changes on the roadmap: Incognito's Q4 2022: Technical Roadmap

Going back to 46% or 69% of validators provided by Incognito.

Even with pDAO, ultimate control will still lie with Incognito, or will the pDAO be required to make any changes?

Incognito is a community-driven project. It’s my understanding that all network impacting decisions will be voted on by the community via the pDAO.

Things like website design, app design, etc will probably not be included on there unless drastic. We will have more information about the pDAO soon and will have more through answers.

Yes, but unless it’s hardcoded as the only way changes can be made to the network, ultimate control will always lie with the Incognito team. With the recent rugpulls at Midas and elsewhere, I’m withdrawing all provide funds until I can feel a bit more secure with Incognito. I’m going to leave my validators running though, I feel it will be a good compromise versus pulling all my funds.


I understand. Please watch for our next few Privacy Newsletter Updates for more information regarding the pDAO.

@Linnovations and @fredlee

Writing such a long comment takes a lot of effort. I do appreciate that.
As a newcomer, I need time to gather information to address your concerns.

First of all, the core team only makes up 5% of the total PRV allocation. Compared to the 95% paid to the community, this is really a minority and ineffective. Note that the core team also needs funding to cover operational costs, research, and business expansion. You have been with us here for a while and the privacy ecosystem is getting more mature since then. There is no doubt that the rewards have been put to good use.

It goes without saying that for security reasons we should keep 34% of the fixed slots. To further explain, the market cap and stake value of PRV are still small, so we need to control a sufficient number of fixed slots to avoid creating invalid blocks.
To make it more decentralized, block proposal rights will be shared in a round-robin fashion. This means that community validators can propose new blocks, which is only done by fixed nodes for the time being. This was already mentioned in the technology roadmap here.

The next step is the decentralization of the Beacon Chain. As soon as the phase 2 of the Beacon decentralization is complete, the epoch’s rewards will be shared equally among all stakers in that epoch, regardless of whether the stakers are committee fixed nodes, community validators, or queued. Consequently, fixed nodes do not earn more rewards than community nodes as they do today.

When it comes to decentralization and transparency, our actions and results speak for themselves. Before we do anything, we always have a plan and the community is definitely notified in advance. After that, we will execute the plan firmly and connect it to the result, leading to the reduction of the number of fixed nodes and the increase of the mining reward.

As for missing notifications, it was my bad to miss this. A lesson is learnt. I truly apologize for the inconvenience.

We are also trying to use Twitter for more engagement. This news has already been updated and you can follow us on Twitter for the latest news. Notifications will definitely work next time.

Regarding your suggestion, you certainly submit your proposal to fund the DAO Treasury more as soon as pDAO is released, estimated next week.

Stay tuned!



The core team cannot arbitrarily change anything to the network without the consent of the community.

Take the increase in network fee to 0.1 PRV as an example.
This change will only apply when more than 75% of validators approve. Up until that point, the network fee remained the same.

1 Like

This is just fundamentally not true. The core team absolutely changed the fee arbitrarily and with authority. Maybe there needed to be consensus by the validators, but there is currently no mechanism for voting from the community. This may come with pDAO, but as I’ve said, unless the pDAO is programmed to not be reversible, the core team will always have absolute authority. I appreciate being given the chance to vote when pDAO goes live, I appreciate the chance to earn more validating. But all that can be taken away just as easily as it was given. For that reason, Incognito will remain custodial and I’ll view it as a risky platform to park liquidity. My hope is that eventually the core team will be able to give up their control and give it 100% to the community and make this 100% non-custodial and 100% governed by the community and have all validators treated equally. I understand the reasons for not being able to do that now, but moving forward is the only way I see that can promise the privacy of the network and also reduce risk for the actual user. Custodial services have proven to be very risky, even ones with doxxed developers, KYC, and contracts. I don’t think you’re gonna get people to buy in to this whole ecosystem if it remains custodial. I will be watching pDAO to see how that transpires, but as of now I’m in the process of unshielding all my tokens and will continuously swap my validator earnings to stable coins and unshield that as I earn it as well.


Mmmm. so I run several vNodes and I’m a technical novice, does my Nodes have a vote in the new fee proposal? If so, what needs to be done to participate in the vote?

But that aside, can someone please confirm, the fee structure has already gone up in the app, right?

@maisie / @2411 did the vote already take place?

Approve here means that your node is updated to the latest code version.

In other words, once you approve the proposal, you update the code of the node. If not, leave the node running normally without updating.

Regarding the fee, over 75% of the validators approved already and it is already in effect.

This is just fundamentally not true. The core team absolutely changed the fee arbitrarily and with authority. Maybe there needed to be consensus by the validators, but there is currently no mechanism for voting from the community.

As it has to be approved by at least 75% of the validators, it is impossible for the core team to make any updates without consent from the community.

Hey @2411, not sure if you know, but the latest script used to install Nodes automatically updates nodes. Have I got that right @Jared?

If this is correct, then there is no ability to opt-out as node automatically update, hence it will be a automatic “yes”.


Anyone can turn off this automatic updates by using the following:

sudo systemctl stop IncognitoUpdater.service
sudo systemctl stop IncognitoUpdater.timer

1 Like

Perhaps the reason why 75% agreed, was because by default nodes “automatically” update.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the decision to raise fees, however, I am learning the process and that voting is a binary mechanism:

  • A) To DISAPPROVE and leave fees as is - DO NOT UPGRADE (pause automatic node upgrade)
  • B) To APPROVE and increase fee to 0.1 PRV - UPGRADE (No action needed)

IMO, it would have been nice to have a separate Forum Post specifically the vote to increase fee, how to vote and when the vote deadline will take place.
Perhaps I missed the notifications on social media, For me personally an email update would have been courtesy.

Btw, thanks @Jared for answering my question about Node Updates. I’ve learnt something new as I was not aware I could turn off automatic updates.

IMO, it would have been nice to have a separate Forum Post specifically the vote to increase fee, how to vote and when the vote deadline will take place.
Perhaps I missed the notifications on social media, For me personally an email update would have been courtesy.

Thank you for your understanding @Linnovations.
A lesson is learned.
There will be a post to explain details and also an email next time.


Provocative proposition. I’d like to see the community exploring this more. I’m coming from another community that was supposedly a decentralized, community-driven project that turned out to be massively fraudulent and ended with one of the crypto space’s biggest community exploits. I agree transparency in everything is crucial to decentralization–and that the community’s power needs to be explicitly incorporated into code so that it cannot be reversed or circumvented. Code is King.

On another note, the community ought to agree on a central place where proposals sit to await community review and voting. Maybe this has already been addressed in the evolving DAO. I don’t use social media much but would absolutely check an agreed-upon proposal space frequently.

I know this post I’m reading is from Dec 2022 so I’ll keep reading in hopes of seeing these issues addressed (transparency, hard-coded community privileges/DAO authority, central proposal-review space). Thanks @Up2UrHeadlights !

1 Like

I agree with you, however, in practice this is easy but when it comes to actually coding it makes it not so easy to do.

We have this, (access from a desktop browser).


@Jared, thanks, again, for the comments. I don’t doubt that explicitly empowering the community in code is technically very challenging (and hats off to the teams wrestling with it!), but I don’t think we’ll attract a large community unless we can pull it off. There have just been too many instances of founding members of crypto projects abusing or even absconding with funds once projects become large enough. I don’t know how to do it, but there needs to be a hard assurance that, outside of investment risks people intend to take on, funds aren’t being mishandled.

Looking to the future, can we create smart contracts for p-assets guaranteeing anonymity, ownership, and exchangeability of the assets (pBTC will always be 1:1 exchangeable for BTC…) so no trust is needed? After FTX, Luna… potential investors/liquidity providers are going to want hard assurance.

Another big question I think especially the privacy crowd cares about is voter equity. How are votes counted? By volume of PRV held in wallets? So is it like voting in the US where more dollars buy more votes? Is there any way to get around this problem of disproportionate representation by the wealthy? It seems to me unless decentralization can solve this problem, it just replicates the anti-democratic real-world problem of the wealthy eventually taking control of community resources.

Sorry for the many questions. I REALLY want this community to work out and become THE DEX for crypto. And thanks for the link to the voting space.


Great questions @KNZ, I share the same concerns.

I wanted to share my views on this with the core team, but think a community call hosted by the core team would be a better approach.

I have some ideas on how to address some of your concern you’ve mentioned above around the ‘more money, more votes.’ which doesn’t sound like fair system to me. My idea revolves around rewarding usage of the incognito platform. The more active a user is on the Incognito platform, the more voting power is allocated to them.

For example (a very simplistic example), lets say we have two Users:
User A: has a small bag of PRV but logs in every week and places trades, uses the “Provide” services and add to some Liquidity Pools. Hence this user is very active on the platform, and
User B: has a huge bag of PRV but only logs into the platform to do a trade twice a year.

There would be a published algorithm that would give more preference to the active user (User A) so that they would get more voting power than the big whale (User B).

We then use the DAO Vote mechanism to approve code changes to the vote preference system code.

I’m open to having a more in depth discussion on this concept as I agree the @KNZ, this is very important for the success of this project moving forward and things need to be transparent. Decentralisation is key to this project’s survival given what has happened with Tornado Cash.

1 Like

Love it! I agree–unlike the real world, the cryptoverse can reward participation and community support more equitably than just giving the say to those with the deepest pockets. How do we get going a broader discussion of this in the IncognitoChain community?

1 Like

This would open the network to spamming by users to overinflate their usage/rank. Doing so would cause the blockchain to increase and thus put burden on the node operators to store more data for the sole purpose of users trying to get more say.