[DAO:d713dcb] Can ZK-Proofs enable VP Delegation confidentiality?

Governance
1

by 0x55651e399ca32d7e2f44034fb62996937af0bc49 (Ozymandias)

This is a Poll to ascertain the feasibility of VP Delegation confidentiality, while remaining on-chain, with the use of ZK-Proofs.

It is not meant to be a discussion of whether VP Delegation should be done. This can be performed in a separate Flow.

It is simply meant to elucidate the technicals of whether or not it can be done.

  • Yes, ZK-Proof math is powerful
  • No, there’s always ways to tell
  • Maybe ? I’m not an expert
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

ZK-Proofs can enable VP Delegation to remain confidential even while on-chain.

It can also let Delegators confidentially know about any re-delegation of their VP.
Hence control is maintained, since VP can be taken back at any moment.

It is fairly straightforward to implement using Multi-Party-Computation, which a network of Catalysts can maintain with ease.

3

Yes, this is completely viable.

I love the idea of using zk technology for privacy and untraceability in the DAO. Also there are other use cases like proof of uniqueness to prevent duplicate accounts in voting or proof of humanity to prevent bots.

I work in www.privado.id and we have this tech ready to use. Happy to help here!

2 Likes
4

I believe it would make sense to implement Proof of Personhood (PoP) with ZK-Proof as the first step. This would allow each delegator to prove their uniqueness without sharing personal identity information

ZK-Proofs prioritize privacy, which is fantastic! However, in governance systems, transparency is critical, especially if anyone can create multiple Ethereum addresses or accounts. This concern becomes even more significant with the emergence of Autonomous AI agents

At the very least, a Community-Based PoP System should allow VP delegation anonymously only for those who have been verified. This would be a good initial step toward balancing privacy and accountability

What could happen if ZK-Proof is implemented without PoP (Proof of Personhood)?

  1. A person could create multiple accounts and control multiple delegations anonymously, gaining disproportionate influence in governance decisions

  2. It would benefit whales and other entities with significant resources to create or incentivize multiple identities

  3. Smaller community members could feel left out if they perceive that large entities with anonymous delegations, without the possibility to trace, dominate the DAO

  • Clarification: By default, Ethereum addresses are already anonymous. Adding anonymous delegation on top of this could further discourage smaller members from participating
  1. A ZK-Proof-only system without PoP could compromise decentralization by enabling anonymous centralization of power. This undermines the values of a fair and open ecosystem

For now, Trancparency should be prioritized to enhance trust in the DAO and to prevent Sybil attacks by focusing at first on developing PoP/PoH as the foundational base!

5

Can ZK-Proofs enable VP Delegation confidentiality ?

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, zk-proof math is powerful 49% 300,727 VP (13 votes)
  • No, there’s always ways to tell 0% 0 VP (1 votes)
  • Maybe ? i’m not an expert 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 51% 310,939 VP (10 votes)
6

You are mixing two different problems.
On the one hand, there is the question of Confidentiality.

Voting should always remain transparent. Accountability is paramount.
But support must remain confidential.
Keep in mind that in Democratic countries, presidential support is itself kept very confidential.

Here is a clear example of why VP delegation must remain confidential.
Imagine a few users have established themselves as White Knight VP Whales, who have indeed been voting in favor of initiatives which really do benefit the progress of Decentraland.

Now a new user comes in, who is actually fairly rich.
They know how to build stuff !
And they want to wow the tourists that visit Decentraland.
And who knows, maybe even make a little coin at the same time.

So they buy a lot of MANA, and purchase a lot of LAND.

And then they want to delegate the VP.
“For the good of Decentraland !!”
What better way to ensure that the worth of the land will remain ?

But the newcomer doesn’t want to dabble in any kind of politics.

(INSERT HERE THE MISSING OPTION TO AUTO-REDELEGATE VP)

With VP auto-redelegation, all the newcomer needs to have is a trusted friend who knows more about DCL than they do.
A friend who will already be auto-redelegating to another user they trust, and who knows even more about DCL, and who the really good White-Knight Whales are.

So automatically, this newcomer’s VP should land onto one of those White-Knight Whales.

For the good of Decentraland !

Now… Imagine a Corrupt Whale :whale2:
A big White-Knight Whale keeps thwarting their vile initiatives !

Think about what happens when this corrupt whale is able to see who is delegating VP to their “enemy”.

Rich delegators will quickly become targets of choice !
Harassment… threats… and even hacking attempts :skull_and_crossbones:

That may quickly make this rich user cancel his delegation.
That may even make them leave and never come back.

Hey… does this sound familiar to anyone ? :thinking:

7

And on the other hand, there is the question of Proof of Personhood.


This is completely false.
Influence in governance decisions comes from VP.
Even if someone creates extra users, they will have to have their VP shared across all of the accounts.
In the end, the total influence of the person remains the same.

Thus, for the DCL DAO equation, worrying about a Sybil Attack does not make sense in the first place !

First of all, smaller community members already feel “left out” even with all the transparency.

But more importantly… the users who own Decentraland are the LAND owners, not the gamers.

Worrying that the gamers may be feeling left out of the DAO proceedings is just getting it all wrong :upside_down_face:

This is speculation. You need to prove this with simulations.
Algorithmically, as long as the centralization is done in a decentralized way, the end-result remains decentralized.
As long as voting remain transparent, all that matters is how much support there is, not who is providing that support.

As discussed in PMs, PoP/PoH does not prevent sybil attacks.
The possibility to hire actors to stand in for the PoP/PoH validations clearly nullifies any kind of certification !