Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docs: clarify vesting terminology as time lock escrow + distinguish between common legal vesting terminology #10662

Closed
4 tasks
Tracked by #9958 ...
hxrts opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 16 comments
Labels
T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation.

Comments

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor

hxrts commented Dec 2, 2021

Summary

Legal vesting has a specific meaning that does not map to how "vesting accounts" are currently implemented.

Problem Definition

This terminological confusion has tripped up many entities with whom the ICF has interacted.

Proposal

Change all instances of "vesting accounts" to "locked accounts" or similar.


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

Can you explain what parts have tripped up people? We already stray from normal vesting nomenclature, but vesting is a common term within this space.

Id prefer to bring the current vesting design within scope of the needs instead of changing the name as it will greatly confuse the ecosystem.

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

If we do it in the code as well, then this is a breaking change, and we should do it together with: #9958

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

If we do it in the code as well, then this is a breaking change, and we should do it together with: #9958

I'm quite opposed to unneeded breaking changes. Users already complain about this, let's first understand the problem/

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

Well, we want to move vesting out of auth anyway - there are other problems related to that.

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

Well, we want to move vesting out of auth anyway - there are other problems related to that.

def fine with this change since it enables more things, but renaming the module should be done after we understand the problem.

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

@hxrts could you define what the problem you are running into?

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor Author

hxrts commented Dec 7, 2021

Vesting is the delivery of payment contingent on some behaviour (i.e. staying at a company for X years). When we write ICF contracts that use "vesting" in the SDK we always need to clarify that this is unlike legal vesting in that delivery is guaranteed. The SDK's notion of vesting is actually a timelock escrow.

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

tac0turtle commented Dec 7, 2021

Vesting is the delivery of payment contingent on some behaviour (i.e. staying at a company for X years). When we write ICF contracts that use "vesting" in the SDK we always need to clarify that this is unlike legal vesting in that delivery is guaranteed. The SDK's notion of vesting is actually a timelock escrow.

Vesting is intended to be used in both cases, we don't have functionality to claw back the tokens but there is an issue for this. I know teams using it as vesting accounts for contributors that stay x amount of years at the project and also different reasons.

I'm still not a fan of causing an ecosystem rename/breaking change like this in light of our users complaining about how we are doing many breaking changes.

@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor Author

hxrts commented Dec 7, 2021

At the very least we should provide further clarification in the docs.

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

yea, happy to change docs. Want to edit the issue with a focus on docs and we can add labels to get help on it

@hxrts hxrts changed the title Change vesting terminology to locking Docs: clarify vesting terminology as time lock escrow + distinguish between common legal vesting terminology Dec 7, 2021
@hxrts
Copy link
Contributor Author

hxrts commented Dec 7, 2021

Cool done

@JimLarson
Copy link
Contributor

FYI, Agoric is implementing a variant of PeriodicVestingAccount that has separate schedules for vesting (subject to clawback) and unlocking (not subject to clawback), with a clawback operation where the funder to order the transfer of all unvested funds to another account.

The name of the account type is TBD, but probably ClawbackVestingAccount.

Issue: Agoric/agoric-sdk#4085

@tac0turtle tac0turtle added the T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation. label Jan 17, 2022
@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

@JimLarson clawback functionality would be amazing. Is this work complete? Can I see the code?

@JimLarson
Copy link
Contributor

@alexanderbez Sure! The PR is in development, but we're trying to get it merged into our fork this week-ish. See agoric-labs#155

Don't be dissuaded by the "draft" status - we're doing some branch and PR shennanigans. Go ahead and comment.

The documentation is a little sparse at the moment - refer back to the design notes in Agoric/agoric-sdk#4085

Related issues: #9959, #10493

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

we are renaming vesting to lockup in the new accounts module. The term vesting shouldnt be present in the next release

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

the new vesting accounts were named lockup to avoid this confusion

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation.
Projects
No open projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants