I vote for FOR.
It’s because we are ushering Cairo 1.0. Meanwhile it starts the journey which Starknet is growing from 0 to 1.
3 Likes
I fully support this upgrade as it is an important step in the development of the network and its governance, that is why I voted FOR.
Let the transition begin.
4 Likes
I voted FOR
Cairo 1.0 is a huge milestone for developer’s user experience and the upgrade of the network is necessary to enhance its performance.
3 Likes
Voted for - it’s been a while since we’re preparing for this update.
To all existing mainnet contract developers: good luck in the re-writing of the contracts in Cairo 1!
3 Likes
I voted AGAINST.
This version is definitly not ready. Links to published version does not included release note, tutorial to use it are not even using the released version mentionned. See
starkware’s video tutorial at 4:30
I’m sure Cairo 1.0 is huge milestone but I have no confidence this version is ready to deployed.
3 Likes
I’m voting for!
It represents a significant step for the network. Let’s go.
4 Likes
I voted FOR the proposal.
Regenesis has been a long time coming, time to kick it off!
- Cairo 1.0 code is always provable and is necessary for the security of the network.
- Cairo is getting a rust inspired makeover and the DX will greatly improve.
- Upgrade also includes a 5x reduction in network fees.
4 Likes
Tbh i have the same questions, sometimes i wonder, is Cairo 1.0 fully developed? Starknet alpha 0.11.0 will use the [Cairo 1.0-alpha.6 version], will there be big changes to subsequent versions? And most importantly, we need more resources/tutorials for mass adoption of devs.
BUT i voted for.
I’ve been learning basic knowdges of Cairo since 0.x version, we all know Cairo 1.0 is faster and more accessible for devs than Cairo 0.x version, and it introduced Sierra, which is a crucial property in a decentralized Starknet. We can’t let Starknet stay at the current alpha stage, the performance needs to be improved otherwise it can’t meet the basic requirements, so Cairo 1.0 is as important as other optimization methods such as the new sequencer together with papyrus full node and rust vm implemention.
And i believe the learning resources/tutorials will be abundant cause i know there’re so many talented devs dedicating to Starknet ecosystem and it just takes time for the work done.
7 Likes
I vote FOR
Off course!
scalability will bring people here and Account Abstraction will make them stay 
4 Likes
Voted :- For
Lot of time and effort went into development, a big milestone achieved. Happy to support it.
4 Likes
I have voted for. This is a necessary step in the evolution towards Cairo 1.0.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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…)
2 Likes
Definitely “FOR”
I don’t see any reason to vote against it.
2 Likes
I vote for
It is a mojor step toward the mass adoption and expansion of starknet ecosysteme
2 Likes
Starknet Builder’s Council voting report on alpha v0.11.0
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.
Context
- 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.
Voting method
- 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?
Voting results
-
Stability
- FOR: 4
- AGAINST: 10
- ABSTAIN: 3
-
Features
- FOR: 15
- AGAINST: 2
- ABSTAIN: 0
-
Security
- FOR: 1
- AGAINST: 1
- ABSTAIN: 15
-
Final vote
- FOR: 12
- AGAINST: 2
- ABSTAIN: 3
The Builders’ Council therefore votes FOR on the alpha v 0.11.0 upgrade to Mainnet.
Comments
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.
Action points
| Issue | Proposed remediation |
|---|---|
| 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.
Strangely yours,
The Starknet Builders’ Council
Tx hash: 0x89f13ca00ec9c0cc3381500c6fc146732b61acaf3d3c0d2b57e4f73ba176d65c
9 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Voted “For” after the Community Call which cleared up some confusion.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes