I voted FOR as I believe the Starknet protocol has reached a mature stage both on the technical and on the community level. All the devs that worked on the protocol did a great job and it’s time to begin the journey that will bring us towards a fully operational state where Starknet will be able to express its great potential.
I am voting For.
This version introduces all important elements necessary for the transition to Cairo 1, decentralization (with intermediary compilation to sierra), and improving computational cost.
Tested the new version by deploying a few contracts on testnet and fees are indeed non negligibly lower.
However the documentation needs to be update (Tutorials; fees; how tu use the new skip_validation flag…)
First a thank you to those who allowed me to vote.
I voted for based on the decrease in costs, the proofs, and moving Cairo along. The developers seemed excited about the upgrade and I didn’t hear any cons expressed (although I’ve only heard the first half of the community call) so it seemed like a non contentious vote. I have much to learn.
I don’t see any reason to vote against it.
I vote for
It is a mojor step toward the mass adoption and expansion of starknet ecosysteme
Hi folks! The Builders’ Council has met and decided to vote FOR on the Mainnet upgrade to alpha v 0.11.0, with some remarks to improve the process and level of confidence in future release. We are extremely happy to be part of the first vote on Starknet Mainnet, and will strive to document and improve the process.
- The Builders’ Council is an assembly of 17 builders selected by the Starknet foundation for their contribution to the Starknet ecosystem (Builders Council post).
- The Builders’ Council holds 1.2Bn worth of voting power, representing 23% of the voting of the 1st phase of Starknet governance (First Phase of Governance post), delegated to this address: builderscouncil.starknet.eth.
- Voting happens with a single majority vote among the 17 voters, according to the criteria below.
- Each member of the builder votes FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN on the following criteria, then gives a final vote (FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN) that counts for the final tally:
- Stability: is the upgrade usable and stable enough in terms of usage, documentation and tooling?
- Features: does this upgrade introduce interesting features that would enable new capabilities on Starknet? Are they sufficiently tested?
- Security: Does this upgrade provide the sufficient guarantees that it will not introduce security risks to the Starknet network?
- FOR: 4
- AGAINST: 10
- ABSTAIN: 3
- FOR: 15
- AGAINST: 2
- ABSTAIN: 0
- FOR: 1
- AGAINST: 1
- ABSTAIN: 15
- FOR: 12
- AGAINST: 2
- ABSTAIN: 3
The Builders’ Council therefore votes FOR on the alpha v 0.11.0 upgrade to Mainnet.
The Builders’ Council is excited about the new features introduced by alpha v 0.11.0, particularly the possibility to deploy Cairo 1.0 contracts. We believe this upgrade to be a necessary and most needed step towards the advancement of the network. That being said, the Council would like to take this opportunity to point out some shortcomings. The testing period of 6 days is too short for the Council to fully understand and test out the upgrade, we would rather have two weeks to be more confident about our vote. Aside from this, the lack of documentation, code examples, references and explanation of the release made the process of testing and understanding it particularly challenging. We expect future releases to include code examples, ensuring libraries are up to date and functioning. This upgrade introduces Cairo 1.0 to Starknet but the documentation is lacking for everyone to try it out and test it extensively. The Builders’ Council will abstain from engaging its responsibility on the security of the upgrade if audit reports and security reports are not available, we choose to defer to StarkWare and their internal review process.
The Builder’s Council is willing to vote Yes on alpha v 0.11.0, noting it is fully backwards-compatible. We will expect a higher quality of deliverables and tests for alpha v 0.12.0.
Please find a list of proposed remediations below.
|Six days to test is too short||Increase testing time to two weeks on Goerli and expand voting time accordingly.
Ensure integration is on par with testnet so builders can use it to test.
The Builders’ Council would like to have access to the integration environment to test the upgrade in advance
|Testing is difficult due to tools not being updated on time||Tools should be updated to support the testnet upgrade before promotion to Mainnet. For example: starknet-rs, pathfinder, starknet.js, etc.|
|Testing is difficult due to lack of documentation||Next upgrade should include a clear documentation and list of testable use cases directly in the update documents.|
|It is challenging to properly assess the security implications of the upgrade||If any audit has been done by StarkWare either internally or externally it should be documented and referenced in the update documents. While this is not possible, the Builder’s Council will abstain from voting on this point and will trust StarkWare’s expertise.|
|Changes should be better documented||The fee address was changed and the Council members realized this while updating their systems. This should be more clearly communicated.
In GitHub - starknet-edu/deploy-cairo1-demo, GitHub - starkware-libs/cairo: Cairo is the first Turing-complete language for creating provable programs for general computation. is not tagged for the release.
Thank you very much for reading.
The Starknet Builders’ Council
Tx hash: 0x89f13ca00ec9c0cc3381500c6fc146732b61acaf3d3c0d2b57e4f73ba176d65c
Thank you for sharing the results of the builders’ council, it’s cool to see that the council will vote as a coalition. Are there any documents that talk how those members where elected and for what period of time?
Also wondering what is the quorum needed for this snapshot proposal to pass? do we need 50% minimum, is it less or there is no minimum quorum?
Sorry if these questions are answered somewhere else I just couldn’t find the information.
For Starknit, this is a historic event, and the first governance vote marks the success of the main network upgrade. This is the realization of starknet’s commitment to decentralization, ensuring that every community user has a voice in the future development of the network. "Personally, I believe that the benefits of v0.11.0 upgrade outweigh the risks, and I am happy to see Starnet have a bright future of sustained development.
Voted “For” after the Community Call which cleared up some confusion.
No worries at all.
- Information about the Builders’ Council can be found here: StarkNet Builders’ Council - Mission Statement. The members of the Council were chosen by the Starknet Foundation for ther work and contribution to the Starknet ecosystem (technical expertise, domain expertise, community leaders). The council’s mandate will be reviewed after the end of the First Phase of Governance.
- There is no quorum for the snapshot proposal to pass during the first phase of Starknet governance.
Thank you for sharing. I really appreciate specific feedback that the council has offered. I understand that there maybe a conflict of interest on the security front, but is there another way for the community to receive feedback in this areas? Perhaps can make comments from their personal accounts?
The Council abstained from voting on the Security of the upgrade not because of a conflict of interest but because we felt we didn’t have sufficient information to engage our responsability on this topic. We chose to trust StarkWare’s internal processes.
Hey Builder’s Council,
I just want to start off by saying how excited and grateful I am for this whole collaborative process. It reminds me of watching my one-year-old kid learning to walk these days. Even though he’s just taking his first steps, it’s honestly one of the most exciting things to see. That’s how it feels to be on this journey with Starknet Governance as we take these early steps together.
Big thanks for the dedication and hard work you’ve put in, and for the practical and constructive feedback you’ve provided.
Here at StarkWare, we’re definitely taking your suggestions on board and are committed to working them into our future release processes. We still need to have a detailed discussion, but we get that it’s important to extend and improve the integration and testnet periods. Specifically, we’ll make sure there’s enough time in the integration environment after the code freeze – that’s something we missed this time around. You guys were spot on about how crucial that is for tool readiness. And yeah, we’ll be increasing the time on testnet, just like you recommended.
Once again, I really appreciate all your valuable input, and I can’t wait to see what we can achieve together as we continue working on Starknet
thanks for the salvation have a nice day
Thank you so much for pointing me to the right places with your previous response. Highly appreciated!
Regarding security, I wonder if there are any more bug bounties apart from the ones on immunefi? Also, it might be beneficial to display the audits that have been done already and for which parts of the protocol.
In your perspective how could the builders’ collective also participate in the future when it comes to security?
Voted for - it’s been a while since we’re preparing for this update, its necessary to enhance the performance
Voted for- glad to see another milestone we achieved. I’m looking forward to the upgrade! Cario will bring a whole new world to blockchain.
I voted “for” because I believe this is a solid step forward in the positive direction for the future of decentralization on starknet.
I don’t have the right to vote, but I’m still here to vote for you. Cario is a very important upgrade. Starknet governs what it feels like to be on this journey together.
I agree on the Security side, we expect more transparency regarding this. We didn’t feel like we had sufficient information to provide an opinion on this matter, in the future should audit reports be provided to us we can review them and vote accordingly on the matter.