Menu Close

ICON (ICX) Yellow Paper Has Been Officially Released

The ICX Yellow Paper contains key operational policies on Governance, Transaction fees, and IISS

Great news for the ICX community! The ICX Yellow Paper containing main operational policies is now open to the public and it contains some great info!

According to the development team of ICX, their team has been highly committed to ensuring decentralization of the ICON Network while addressing currently existing blockchain and cryptocurrency problems. What does this have to do with the ICX Yellow Paper?

The ICX Yellow Paper is an outline of the path they plan on taking towards full decentralization of the coin.

ICON has improved the existing ‘Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)’ to prove various items. Some items related to network activity, such as smart contract executions, proof of stake and more. This is measured by using the ‘Delegated Proof of Contribution (DPoC)’ consensus algorithm based on ICON Incentives Scoring System (IISS).

Together with Community Representatives (C-Reps), ICON will also elect Public Representatives (P-Reps) who represent the interests of the entire network, in this way ICON will build a balanced ecosystem by collecting diverse opinions from all the participants within the network.

The quote that mentions ‘Hyperconnect the World’ that is presented in the White Paper has been explained in further in the ICON Yellow Paper. As the function of ICON Network has expanded, ICON now introduced more detailed fee structure, supporting a Smart Contract Executor (DApp) in order to operate its service reliably.

The Three Documents of the ICON (ICX) Yellow Paper:

. ICONstitution and Governance,

II. Transaction Fee, and

III. IISS (ICON Incentives Scoring System)’ and will be released sequentially.

Ⅰ. ICONstitution and Governance — Released
The ‘ICONstitution and Governance’ paper is a reference manual about the ICON Constitution and Governance model.

The model is based on three main principles that constitute ICON Governance (Interchain, Decentralization, Contribution), it specifies the rights and obligations of each participant and representative in the ICON Network. In addition, it explains the key devices (progressive suggestion, resolution) and the process of decision making. This is important for anyone who wishes to make decisions related to the blockchain, etc.

THE ICX YELLOW PAPER:

ICONstitution
and Governance
ver 1.0
EN
Table of Contents
SECTION 1. Introduction
Philosophy of the ICON Republic : A Thousand Blockchains
SECTION 2. ICONstitution
Article 1 (The Principles of the Constitution)
Article 2 (Rights of the ICONist)
Article 3 (Duties of the ICONist)
Article 4 (Representatives)
Article 5 (The Authority of a Representative)
Article 6 (Duties of a Representative)
Article 7 (Election of a Representative)
Article 8 (Disciplinary Actions Against a Representative)
Article 9 (Introduction of Resolutions)
Article 10 (Adopting Resolutions)
Article 11 (Implementation of the Resolutions)
Article 12 (Scope of the Constitution)
Article 13 (Amendment)
Article 14 (Effective Date)
SECTION 3. ICON Governance
3.1. Introduction to ICON Governance
3.2. The Principles Underlying the ICON Governance
3.3. Trust Mechanism of the ICON Network
3.3.1. Delegated Proof of Contribution
3.3.2. The System for Proof of Contribution: ICON Incentives Scoring System
3.4. The Composition of ICON Representatives
3.4.1. The Representatives of the ICON Network: C-Rep and P-Rep
3.4.2. Qualifications for a C-Rep and P-Rep
3.4.3. The Role and Duty of C-Reps and P-Reps
3.5. Decision-making
3.5.1. Decision-Making in the ICON Network
3.5.2. The Decision-Making Procedure
3.5.3. Progressive Suggestion
3.5.4. Resolution
3.6. Effective Date and Amendment of Constitution
03
03
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
09
09
10
10
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
17
18
19
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 1. Introduction 03
Philosophy of the ICON Republic : A Thousand Blockchains
Introduction
SECTION 1
“What was important for us was less our working together than this strange fact of working between the two
of us. We stopped being ‘author’. And these ‘between-the-twos’ referred back to other people, who were
different on one side from on the other. The desert expanded, but in so doing became more populous.
This had nothing to do with a school, with process of recognition, but much to do with encounters.”
What Deleuze refers to as the death of ‘author’ and the expansion of the desert overlaps with the
phenomenon seen through the emergence of many blockchains after the disappearance of Satoshi
Nakamoto, the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper. The birth of multiple subjects simultaneously brought about
by the death of one. Without his disappearance, would it have been possible for a myriad of blockchains to
arise? In that sense, it is ironic that the Ethereum Foundation, which emerged soon after Bitcoin,
has Vitalik Buterin, a centralized subject amidst demand for decentralization.
“A book has neither object nor subject. It is made of variously for matter, and very different dates and speeds.
To attribute the book subject is to overlook this working of matters, and the exteriority of their relations.
It is to fabricate a beneficent God to explain geological movements…A book is an assemblage of this kind,
and as such is unattributable. It is a multiplicity-but we don’t know yet what the multiple entails when it is
no longer attributed, that is, after it has been elevated to the status of a substantive.”
When the world stipulates a center and the metaphysical origin, it becomes linearly arranged. Objects are
assessed and fixed in a hierarchy depending on their resemblance to the origin. Opening the horizon of new
technology and being the first mover of the industry stakes a center to the origin of decentralized blockchain.
A blockchain that most resembles or that is most connected to the origin, and those who deify them.
Those that segregate parties who praise other blockchains. While they seek decentralization, they may well
be on the road to centralization.
The irony is most evident when people advocate their own favourite blockchain, yet speak of the philosophy
of the decentralized blockchain. In fact, this intrinsically implies centralization in transcendental awareness.
Delueze alerts such transcendental centralization by illuminating the concept of deterritorialization and
reterritorialization1
.
1 Deterritorialization and reterritorialization is a dual concept; deterritorialization represents escaping a structure or a system,
whereas in reterritorialization that escaped state leads to a new structure or a system. Territory defines environment where
production happens. Though territory is an indispensable factor for production, desire has tendency to constantly flow into new
connections, and environments. Deterritorialization is constant movement to escape given territory, and this also entails formation
of new territory leading to reterritorialization.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 1. Introduction 04
2
A-parallel evolution is defined as the interaction of two non-related entities. For example, bees and flowers do not
evolve parallel to each other. Bees and flowers use each other to breed their species. A bee can not live without
flowers that give food, and flowers can not survive without bees that carry pollen. They de-territorialize each other,
but they are causal to each other. Thus, bee and flower can achieve a-parallel evolution.
What Deleuze refers to as deterritorialization always leads to reterritorialization. The problem is not with the
formation of new territory, but rather when it is not followed by deterritorialization. Blockchain must not be
fixated in one order, but must continue its “a-parallel evolution”2
and constant modification. As such, the
ICON Republic is structurally composed of lines of articulation segmentarity, strata and territories; but on a
movement side that brings changes to these, it was designed to involve lines of flight, movement
deterritorialization and destratification.
Therefore, the design of the ICON Republic, as stated in the preceding White Paper, lies on Rhizomatic
Philosophy. Below are brief citations to explain 6 principles of the philosophy.
6 Principles of Rhizomatic Philosophy
1 and 2. Principles of Connection and Heterogeneity
Any point of a rhizome can be connected to any other and must be. This is very different from the tree
or root, which plots a point and fixes an order.
3. Principle of Multiplicity
It is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, “multiplicity”, that it ceases to have
any relation to the One as subject or object, natural or spiritual reality, image and world.
4. Principle of Asignifying Rupture
Against the oversignifying breaks separating structures or cutting across a single structure. A rhizome
may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new
lines.
5 and 6. Principles of Cartography and Decalcomania
A rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model. It is a stranger to any idea of genetic
axis or deep structure…The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing… It constructs the
unconscious. It fosters connections between fields, the removal of blockages on bodies without organs,
the maximum opening of bodies without organs onto a plane of consistency. It is itself a part of the
rhizome.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 1. Introduction 05
Creation of manifolds from continuous connections and without being rooted in a single point. Cutting across
structures and starting up again on new lines, not amenable to any structural or generative model,
the world is itself susceptible to constant modification. A world where there is no single entryway but multiple
entryways. And its entryways can be exits and exits can be entryways. This rhizomatic world is what the ICON
Republic pursues.
Moreover, the rhizomatic world that the ICON Republic pursues must be distinguished from a world of roottree
multiplicity. A root-tree multiplicity is different from that of a rhizome. The form of decentralization that
we build is of the rhizomatic multiplicity, not the root-tree one.
Root-tree multiplicities are macro-multiplicities that are “extensive, divisible, and molar; unifiable, totalizable,
organizable”; and on the other hand, micro-multiplicities are “molecular, libidinal, intensive multiplicities
composed of particles that do not divide without changing in nature, and ‘distances’ that do not vary without
entering another multiplicity.”
The interchain protocol designed for the ICON Republic deploys the rhizomatic multiplicity method.
It does not follow common methods used by other well-known blockchains to tackle scalability issues.
Blockchain must be cautious of the Root and Tree concepts. ICON does not create child blockchains.
The ICON Republic resents centralization in transcendental awareness via specific blockchains, but accepts
existence of diverse and novel blockchains. The ICON Republic is a plane(Platform) where there is no
center, but only generative relationships. When relationships between objects are fixed, there is no longer a
relationship, but rather a traditional form of centralized substance.
There is constant transpiration ‘between’ objects. ‘In-betweens’ ceaselessly modify. Within chaos, cosmos is
formed, modified, and broken. Neither cosmos nor chaos, it is chaosmos. Establishing ‘and’, following the
dynamic streams of life, forming, modifying, breaking ‘and’, introducing the creation of fixated differences,
such is the manifestation of the ICON Republic.
Then, what is the force behind movement ‘in-between’ such diverse objects?
“This production of new needs is the first historical act.” Satisfaction of needs leads to production of new
needs, and relationship matures via relational network, flow, and interaction.
Desires are incessantly plural and multi-dimensional. We need to create a plane of consistency(plan de
consistence) to embrace these desires.
Though plural and multi-dimensional desires are deployed on ICON’s plane (Platform) as multiplicities,
even then their relations on the ICON platform are still a plane. Plane refuses verticality. Its very existence is
intended to operate as relationship, not a transcendent.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 1. Introduction 06
Everyone’s ‘Blockchain’, yet no one’s ‘Blockchain’. Endless expansion of ‘A Thousand Blockchains’, rather
than centralization under ‘one Blockchain’. This is the world that ICON pursues.
This article is a tapestry3
of many articles. It was not written by a particular individual, rather merely
transpired ‘between’ us. To reach the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says “I”.
This is the path ICON is destined to take.
3
Although cited references ought to be revealed, this introduction is not written by a particular individual, rather
generated via interchain of many writings from various authors. Therefore, references are omitted. Authors of the
cited references as well as all the rest are writing this introduction.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 2. ICONstitution 07
ICONstitution
SECTION 2
Article 1 (The Principles of the Constitution)
1. The ICON Network pursues decentralization, which is the fundamental philosophy of the blockchain
paradigm.
2. Each Community has its own autonomy and can freely interconnect with the ICON Network.
3. The ICON Network fairly recognizes the contribution of all participants.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 2. ICONstitution 08
4. A P-Rep is elected from candidates who do not represent any specific Community as ICONists.
5. Each representative shall meet the minimum technical specifications necessary to generate blocks
in the ICON Network.
6. Other qualifications of representatives shall be determined through the consensus amongst
representatives.
Article 5 (The Authority of a Representative)
1. Each representative is delegated through the authority of ICONists and has decision-making authority
within the ICON Network.
2. Each representative has the right to verify and generate blocks in the ICON Network.
Article 7 (Election of a Representative)
1. Each representative shall be elected according to its respective contribution to the ICON Network.
2. The number of representatives shall be decided through the consensus of the representatives, provided
that the number of C-Reps and the P-Reps shall be equal in principle.
3. Each potential representative shall be a candidate for either the C-Rep or P-Rep position, but not for
both.
Article 6 (Duty of a Representative)
Each representative shall perform the following duties in good faith for the ICON network.
a. Duty to manage the ICON Network.
b. Duty to participate in the governance of the ICON Network.
c. Duty to protect the ICON Network.
d. Duty to nurture ICON Network.
Article 8 (Disciplinary Actions Against a Representative)
1. If a representative fails to meet the qualifications set forth in Article 4.5, the representative shall be
removed from the representative position.
2. A representative may be subject to disciplinary actions if any of the following occurs:
a. Contravention or refusal to obey the resolution under the Constitution.
b. Interference with the unimpaired operation of the ICON Network.
3. A representative may introduce special resolutions to remove representatives pursuant to Article 8.2.
and the representatives so removed shall be forbidden from becoming a representative again
thereafter.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 2. ICONstitution 09
Article 9 (Introduction of Resolutions)
1. Each ICONist has the right to submit a progressive suggestion for the betterment of the ICON Network.
2. Representatives may introduce a resolution for voting either by selecting some or all suggestions
submitted pursuant to Article 9.1. or by introducing its own suggestion.
3. Resolutions shall consist of general resolutions and special resolutions. Special resolutions that specify
to the Constitution or other issues that have significant impact on the ICON Network shall be special
resolutions.
4. The contents and results of the resolutions and voting thereto shall be open to the public.
Article 10 (Adopting Resolutions)
1. Each representative has an authority to make decisions on the proposed resolution with a voting
power commensurate to the amount of its own and delegated authority.
2. General resolutions shall be adopted by vote approved by a majority of the total amount of
contribution which participated in such decision-making within a specified timeframe.
3. Special resolutions shall be adopted by a vote approved by at least two-thirds of the total contribution
which participated in such vote. The quorum for such vote shall be one-third of the total contribution
either owned or delegated to all representatives.
Article 11 (Implementation of the Resolutions)
All ICONists, including the representatives, shall conduct the approved resolutions in good faith.
Article 12 (Scope of the Constitution)
All ICONists are subject to the provisions of this Constitution.
Article 13 (Amendment)
A proposal to amend this Constitution shall be adopted by special resolutions of the representatives.
Article 14 (Effective Date)
This Constitution shall be enforced on the date of its promulgation.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 10
ICON Governance
SECTION 3
3.1. Introduction to ICON Governance
Ever since Bitcoin introduced a reliable method for creating trust in peer-to-peer networks, there have been
heated discussions regarding how decentralized public blockchain networks ought to be operated.
Unlike the conventional network environment, where a single trusted entity processes all tasks, the public
blockchain network environment needs a way for all participants to agree with mutual understanding given
the large number of unspecified participants autonomously conducting their tasks. This situation is not unlike
our traditional society composed of people. People establish a singular law and order under which everyone
can build a trustworthy society through mutual understanding. Similarly, a decentralized peer-to-peer
network can operate with the highest degree of reliability given the ability to conform to the consensus of
its participants, thereby allowing participants of free-will to self-govern their network within a given economic
structure.
For this reason, the ICON Governance is designed to ensure that numerous heterogeneous communities
can reliably connect to each other by a commitment to each community. To this end, the ICON Network
allows each heterogeneous community to elect its own representative, allowing representatives to transact
within a single network consensus rule on behalf of each community member. Thanks to “the principles of
complement and balance” , the ICON Network’s rules are fairly operated by representatives who are situated
outside each of the heterogeneous communities. This framework enables participants to reach consensus on
issues both inside and outside the ICON Network that are difficult to determine through code.
ICON Governance measures the contribution of all ICONists involved in the operation of the ICON Network
in accordance with a specified evaluation system and distributes reasonable compensation accordingly.
Through this system, each representative can objectively evaluate one’s contribution to the ICON Network,
whether through delegation from other ICONists or one’s own contribution. In the ICON Governance, an
ICONist who has made a sufficient contribution to the network is considered credible and is qualified to be
the subject of major decisions in the network. This approach makes it possible to prove a variety of
contributions to the ICON Network, as opposed to merely proving stake, as in the existing “Delegated Proof of
Stake” approach.
The aforementioned processes are provided to the ecosystem through the ICON Network software, which is
implemented in the form of blockchain ledgers and smart contracts. This ensures that the ICON Network is
designed to enable the process of implementation and verification without an intermediary, thus making it
safe for a myriad of heterogeneous communities and representatives to have mutual reliability.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 11
3.2. The Principles Underlying the ICON Governance
Governance of the ICON Network embodies the following principles.
1) Decentralization
The ICON Network is implemented as a decentralized blockchain network without a single authority
to distribute the power of the network to representatives. Since decentralized networks do not have a
single entity controlling the network, no participant can arbitrarily terminate, manipulate or attack the
system. A decentralized environment allows for autonomous governance of the ICON Network, creating
a situation in which anyone can access and modify the technology, no one entity arbitrarily operates
or owns the network, the network is physically distributed, representatives do not have any social
relationship, and the economic structure is decentralized.
2) Interchain
The ICON Network is based on interoperability, which enables the sharing of information by connecting
communities while still preserving their independent governance structures. Each Community can
connect to another Community or individual ICONist through its representative, which is connected
to the ICON Network. To this end, the ICON Network focuses on supporting multiple communication
channels, decision-making structures, and compensation models as to allow multiple individual
networks to organize under a mutual understanding. The ICON Network respects the independence of
each blockchain community and does not interfere in their governance structures, but must also ensure
the security of the interchain network.
3) Contribution
In order to create trust between various participants in the network, the ICON Network quantifies
contribution of participants with an objective methodology. The ICON Incentives Scoring System (IISS),
which is embedded in the ICON Network, is used for economic compensation and policy decision
making. Each ICONist’s contribution to the health of the ICON Network is evaluated fairly, and such an
ICONist holds voting rights in proportion to such contribution.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 12
3.3. Trust Mechanism of the ICON Network
3.3.1. Delegated Proof of Contribution
The ICON Network not only supports fast, uncompromising agreements through Loop Fault Tolerance
(LFT), which is an enhanced BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) algorithm, but also supports faster consensus
by creating a group among trusted nodes. Therefore, the ICON Network has a decentralized governance
structure based on indirect democracy, in which participants elect representatives and delegate voting
rights. This method of ensuring all ICONists to participate (either directly or indirectly) in generating blocks is
effective for forming a governance structure that connects countless external communities.
To determine a reliable representative, the ICON Network evaluates all participants according to their
contribution to the network and quantifies them. Given a fair assessment of their respective contribution and
the corresponding rewards, participants will develop and propagate the ecosystem, ultimately increasing
its value. Participants with sufficient contribution can be judged to be credible and may be selected as a
representative. In the same vein, reliability can be proven by receiving delegated contributions from other
participants. The delegated contribution is an indicator that the participants are trusted.
The central philosophy of the ICON Network reward distribution is fair compensation based on relative
contribution. Each participant can demonstrate their contribution through the ICON Network’s unique
contribution evaluation system. In the end, contribution is the most important value shared within the ICON
Network, and therefore will be the sole standard in the network. Delegated Proof of Contribution (DPoC), as
described herein, is the sole justification for electing representatives.
3.3.2. The System for Proof of Contribution: ICON Incentives Scoring System
For fair and objective operation of the network, a proper contribution evaluation scheme is necessary.
The ICON Network measures and evaluates the contribution of all ICONists’ network activities through the
“ICON Incentives Scoring system” (IISS). The IISS is a contribution evaluation system for an individual ICONist
calculated with weighted evaluation of several different metrics. Each ICONist is rewarded based on their IISS,
and may delegate their IISS to a specific candidate in a representative election vote. The details regarding the
evaluation system and standard for proof of contribution can be found in the ICON Incentives Scoring System
(IISS) document.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 13
3.4. The Composition of ICON Representatives.
3.4.1. The Representatives of the ICON Network: C-Rep and P-Rep
In order for the ICON Network to maintain its highest level of reliability, the representative position
must be held by an ICONist who sufficiently contributes to the ICON Network or has proven reliability by
receiving delegated contributions. To ensure reliability, the ICON Network will select C-Reps (Community
Representatives) and P-Reps (Public Representatives) to generate blocks and participate in decision-making.
Among the candidates, only the representatives who rank in the upper spectrum of the contribution
levels can be elected as a C-Rep or P-Rep. In addition, the representatives can be changed at any time
depending on the contribution level, governance status and purpose of the ICON Network.
1) C-Rep
A C-Rep, representing a Community connected to the ICON Network, is elected via autonomous
decision-making within the respective Community in accordance to sufficient contribution verified.
A C-Rep is a connection between ICON Network and Community, validating transactions on the
ICON Network. A C-Rep proposes and votes on policies that represents interests of each
Community.
2) P-Rep
A P-Rep, unlike a C-Rep, represents ICONists who do not belong to any specific Community.
It is elected by evidencing its sufficient contribution to the ICON Network or by receiving sufficient
delegations from other ICONists. A P-Rep also verifies transactions on the ICON Network, but
unlike a C-Rep, it proposes and votes policies that maximize overall ICONist interests of the ICON
Network. A P-Rep possesses the same authority and duty as a C-Rep.
3) The Principle of Complement and Balance
The ICON Network has created a governance structure that elects a C-Rep for each Community
in order to connect several communities, and devised a complementary system to make this
structure more balanced. Electing a P-Rep, who pursues the interests of the entire ICON Network,
allows representatives with different interests to work together in the same decision-making
process. C-Reps reflect their interest in each Community while P-Reps consider the betterment of
the entire ICON Network, thereby creating a more stable and balanced governance of the ICON
Network. This is a reliable governance structure that not only can embrace diverse opinions from
ecosystem participants, but also solve the biased decision-making problems of the existing
delegated consensus models.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 14
3.4.2. Qualifications for a C-Rep and P-Rep
Both C-Reps and P-Reps undertake duties as representatives and thus are required to meet certain
qualifications. First, each representative must be an ICONist and shall meet the ‘minimum contribution’ that
is automatically calculated on the ICON Network. Second, each representative shall meet the minimum
technical requirements necessary to generate blocks on the ICON Network and keep the network stable.
These are the minimum eligibility requirements to become a representative on the ICON Network, and
additional requirements are determined by consensus among the representatives. Candidates that meet the
aforementioned minimum requirements will be given the opportunity to compete for delegated contribution
from the broader Community of ICONists. Those with the highest level of delegated contribution from other
ICONists will be elected as a representative.
3.4.3. The Role and Duty of C-Reps and P-Rep
As representatives of the ICON Network, C-Reps and P-Reps shall maintain the ICON Network with the highest
level of reliability and maintain an environment that allows ICONists to contribute to the network.
1) Duty to Manage the ICON Network
Providing an uninterrupted environment by offering computing power to the ICON Network
is a fundamental requirement of the representatives. Specifically, the representatives process
all transaction types, conduct computational tasks, and propose blocks. In this process, each
representative agrees to a set of processing algorithms to validate the results. This duty is of the
highest priority, as it is the foundation of a secure and valuable blockchain network.
2) Duty to Participate in the Governance of the ICON Network
The ICON Network is a dynamic environment. Participants come and go, as do their respective
opinions and interests. With this in mind, representatives must reflect the opinions and interests
of their constituency, making sure to adjust as necessary. Such adjustments can be made through
proposing entirely new policies or changes to existing policies. ICONists can submit a ‘Progressive
Suggestion’, and their respective representative is obliged to actively review such suggestions.
3) Duty to Protect the ICON Network
The diversity of participants in the ICON Network and the value created by the ecosystem can
always be exposed to a variety of risks. This refers to all forms of criminal activity and abuse, such
as network failures, attacks, fraud and collusion. Each representative is obliged to protect the
ecosystem from these risks.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 15
4) Duty to Nurture ICON Network
Although the ICON Network is an ecosystem composed of many different communities, each
representative has an obligation to nurture the network as a whole. This is accomplished through
efficient communication between Communities and the broader network of ICONists. ICONists and
their respective representatives must ensure the independence of each Community through an
unrestricted environment. Inclusive governance leads to a larger network of Communities, thus
increasing the value of the broader network.
3.5. Decision-making
3.5.1. Decision-Making in the ICON Network
Decision-making in the ICON Network is the process of reaching consensus on a specific topic. The true value
of the blockchain is revealed through the decision-making process. Network participants can participate
directly or indirectly through voting or delegation, respectively. Representatives receive delegations, undergoe
decision-making on given suggestions via a separate communication channel, and their votes are weighted
by the sum of their individual contributions and the contributions delegated to them. Decision-making
extends to a large spectrum of aspects including modifications to native technical configuration within the
ICON Network (On-chain Governance4
) as well as improvement and addition of new functions to the ICON
Network pertaining to discussion outside the ICON Network (Off-chain Governance5
).
In general, decisions on the ICON Network can be determined through voting among representatives and
the results can be applied immediately to the ICON Network. However, in the case of decisions that need
to be made outside the ICON Network, everyone can express their desires through an open ‘Progressive
Suggestion’, which allows all participants of the ICON Network to pursue their self-interest. In the case of
decisions that have a material impact on the ICON Network, each representative can make decisions by
introducing a special resolution on a separate channel among the representatives.
A progressive suggestion with sufficient support from the ICON Network will be reviewed and developed
autonomously by developers who are willing to contribute to the ICON Network. The representatives vote
on the resolution, and determine when to apply the contents of the progressive suggestion. Otherwise, each
representative may review a suggestion as needed, or introduce a resolution according to a progressive
suggestion by itself. Each representative then performs a vote on the resolution among the representatives,
while developers review the implementation of technology. Through these procedures, the ICON Network
allows developers, representatives and all ICONists to create and modify ecosystem rules in a decentralized
manner.
4
‘On-chain governance’ refers to a decision-making structure that is changed and processed within a blockchain
system.
5 ‘Off-chain governance’ refers to a decision-making structure that is discussed and performed outside
the blockchain system.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 16
3.5.2. The Decision-Making Procedure
1) Governance Channel
This channel is used for discussions regarding the overall ICON Network ecosystem, including
the ICON Network operations, governance structure, and monetary policy. It is organized in the
form of a public forum and, although these decision-making processes take place outside of
the ICON Network, the issues discussed within the forum provide important ideas for improving
the ICON Network. All ICONists can easily suggest ‘progressive suggestion’, recommend such
suggestions, and interact with one another through a familiar interface seen in many public
forums. On this channel, a progressive suggestion can be posted freely by all ICONists.
2) Representative Channel
This channel is used by C-Reps and P-Reps to make official decisions regarding resolutions.
Representatives can introduce resolutions discussed outside the ICON Network or submit
resolutions by reviewing ‘progressive suggestion’ submitted in the Governance Channel.
The resolutions can be divided into a general resolution or a special resolution depending on the
case, and a vote per each resolution is made. This channel allows only representatives to post and
vote on the resolution, but all activities within the channel are fully public and therefore anyone
can view the resolution.
3) Developer Channel
This channel is used for discussing the development of open-source projects related to the ICON
Network, potential technical solutions, and sharing technical documentation used to support the
ICON Network. It is a channel dedicated to the developer community and it contains public source
code repositories.
This channel allows developers to discuss technical aspects of ‘proposals for improvement’ in the
Governance Channel, new proposals submitted by the developer community, and resolutions on
the Representative Channel. Some of the content discussed in this channel may be submitted in
the form of ICON Improvement Proposals (IIPs). The Developer Channel is an off-chain governance
tool that exist outside the ICON Network.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 17
3.5.3. Progressive Suggestion
A progressive suggestion in the ICON Network is a form of expressing opinions that all ICONists, such as
developers, investors, C-Reps, P-Reps and application users can freely submit. A progressive suggestion is
submitted outside the ICON Network, but still has a significant impact on the ICON Network. It inherits the
spirit of open source communities. A progressive suggestion shall be presented in a form of a forum post
and shall be discussed autonomously in an open channel. The contents of the suggestion can be discussed
technically in the developer’s network and can also be discussed and introduced in the form of a resolution
by representatives.
3.5.4. Resolution
A resolution is a key device that enables the ICON Network to be operated by a proof of delegated
contribution system through demonstrated contribution. Representatives who have been delegated
contribution must operate the ICON Network autonomously without any central control, and have therefore
been given a tool to collect opinions of multiple representatives for decentralized decision-making in an
effective manner. By transparently disclosing decisions and voting in real time, each representative proposes
a resolution in the decision-making channels between representatives, ensures the objectivity in decisionmaking,
and creates an environment in which sound criticism could arise.
Each representative can create or change the rules of the ecosystem through submitting resolutions.
Resolutions include proposals for either policy or technological improvements. Representatives shall take
into account the environment of the entire ecosystem when introducing the resolution. For example,
representatives could formulate a monetary policy to maintain ICX stability through resolutions, which
necessitate careful judgment, as they can have an immediate impact on the economy of the network.
For this reason, each representative should consider the long-term health of the ICON Network when voting
on resolutions.
1) The Type of Resolution
The resolution can be divided into general resolutions and a special resolutions, depending on
the degree of quorum required. In the case of a general resolution, consensus is achieved by the
majority of the total contributions to the ballot. In addition, important issues such as amendments
to the Constitution, modifications of fee and the removal of representatives are to be proposed
under a special resolution, which is passed with two-thirds consensus. The stability of the ICON
Network is the most important requirement for the successful operation of the ICON Network.
Thus, the ICON Governance is designed to be unable to suppress minority.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance 18
2) The Proposal Introduction Procedure
A resolution is submitted in the form of a voting post on the Representative Channel and must be
categorized either as a general resolution or a special resolution depending on the nature of the
case. Representatives will voluntarily discuss such resolutions and then vote in proportion to the
delegated contribution.
3) Vote on the Resolutions
Each representative has the right to vote, which is based on each representative’s own contribution
as well as delegated contribution. In order for a general resolution to be adopted, it must be passed
by a majority of the aggregate amount of contribution that participated in the vote. A special
resolution shall be adopted by a vote approved by at least two-thirds of the aggregate contribution
that participated in the vote. Further, a special resolution must have a quorum which shall be onethird
of the aggregate contribution either owned or delegated to all representatives.
4) Implementation of the Adopted Resolutions
All ICONists, including the representatives, shall carry out and abide by the approved resolutions
in good faith. Under the duty of implementation, all ICONists are obliged to carry out and abide by
the resolutions passed by the representatives. If the representatives and the ICONists fail to do so,
there is no way to force implementation directly upon the resolutions unless the results of decisionmaking
are immediately reflected in the ICON Network’s contract. However, representatives
may vote on a particular disciplinary action to an ICONist for violating constitutional obligations
and may subject such ICONist to disciplinary actions. Similarly, if a representative contravenes or
refuses to comply with the resolutions under this Constitution it can be subject to a disciplinary
action. Depending on the severity, the representative may even be removed.
ICONstitution and Governance SECTION 3. ICON Governance end of document
3.6. Effective Date and Amendment of Constitution
This Constitution shall take effect on the date of its promulgation. All ICONists shall endeavor to ensure that
the enacted governance in the Constitution can be implemented as soon as possible.
The ICON Constitution acts as a guiding principle for ICONists and exists as an operating principle of the ICON
Network, and these principles shall not be easily changed.

Ⅱ. Transaction Fee
The ‘Transaction Fee’ paper describes the commission system of SCORE, the ICON Smart Contract implementation environment.

It addresses the concept and calculation of Step, which is a unit of transaction fee consumed when executing smart contracts. There will be also an introduction of Virtual Step which is a virtual transaction fee depending on the deposit period of ICX and its early withdrawal.

Coming soon!

Ⅲ. IISS (ICON Incentives Scoring System)
IISS is an artificial intelligence based system to determine the appropriate share of network rewards given to an individual ICONist (any member of the ICON Network) based on their relative contribution to the ICON Network.

IISS will assign each ICONist an “I_Score”, which is calculated using several metrics. The IISS paper includes the I_Score calculation methodology, an incentive and penalty policy, and additional information regarding the distribution of newly issued ICX.

Coming soon!


This is amazing news for the ICON community folks!

Spread the news and help others find out the great info!

Credits: https://medium.com/helloiconworld/icon-yellow-paper-officially-released-e311a3db91d

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *