Currently the creation of markets is not incentivized. The only motivations at this point are enthusiasm and curiosity about the approximate likelihood of future outcomes.

The document at https://hackmd.io/@lZVVinJVS6WI4IpRgmbsLA/H17iRm6Kn proposes the necessary steps that have to be taken to make market creation more attractive and provide a reason for market creators to attract traders and liquidity providers.

Incentivizing market creation

Currently foreign tokens that have a number of fractional decimal places that is not equal to 10, the number used by the native token ZTG, cannot be processed in prediction markets as the fixed point math used is not capable to handle numbers with different numbers of fractional decimal places.

The proposal at https://hackmd.io/@lZVVinJVS6WI4IpRgmbsLA/Hyz0dJXFn describes the solutions and the recommended approach to deal with this issue, effectively paving the way to use any token in prediction markets.

- Some tokens can't be used in prediction markets because of how their numbers are written.
- People made a plan to fix this problem so any token can be used.
- The plan is explained in a website called hackmd.io.
- Once the plan is done, any token can be used in prediction markets.
- This will make prediction markets better.

Paving the way to utilize any token in the protocol

https://hackmd.io/@xIsGGVQ3R9Wmx7FbRS0HEw/SylDROaw3

Payment of fees in foreign currencies

Zeitgeist plans to add additional functionality that does benefit from using inflation as incentive to the runtime, such as the [Court](https://github.com/zeitgeistpm/zeitgeist/pull/976) pallet, which is close to being included into the main branch of the project and thus becoming a part of the runtime. To be economically sustainable, the decision to increase yearly inflation further (currently it's 5%) is not an option, quite the contrary; a reduction would be adequate, since the mint to burn ratio is completely out of balance due to a continuously low usage of the system.

The discussion I want to open here is about how much we can reduce the inflation caused by the collation system without harming the network. Collators should be rewarded appropriately in a way that covers all cost and provides some attractive returns for their service. On the other hand, delegators should receive an attractive APR, such that staking in Zeitgeist is lucrative from the perspective of a delegator, effectively ensuring that delegators don't simply withdraw their ZTG and stake on other platforms.

Here is a document that describes the yearly inflation to reward (in USD) ratio for collators: https://hackmd.io/@lZVVinJVS6WI4IpRgmbsLA/BygeToqf3
Currently Zeitgeist plans to release two more pallets that benefit from inflation, both having a higher risk involved than collation and staking and thus should receive more inflation. Even when splitting the current yearly inflation of 5% evenly amongst the three pallets, it would result in 1.66% yearly inflation per pallet. In that case, the formula derived in the document estimates a monthly return of approximately $90. As the price of ZTG rises, the monthly return would increase and inflation could be further moved to other parts of the system that involve more risk but encourage direct interaction with the core protocol.

In terms of delegator rewards, the current average APR is 20% as stated by https://stakeztg.com/. decreasing the yearly inflation caused by the collation system to 1.66% would result in an average APR of 6.6%, which is not very competitive. To provide about 8% average APR, 2% yearly inflation have to be allocated for the collation system. In that case, the collator reward would be approximately $110 / month.

Consequently, I propose that we reduce the yearly inflation caused by the collation system to 2% and allocate 3% inflation to the court system, until either one of those events occurs:
1. The ZTG price rises enough to further justify a reduction of the inflation
2. An additional pallet is included that benefits the protocol by utilizing tokens minted through inflation.

Zeitgeist is a project that wants to add new features to its system, such as the Court pallet. They need to find a way to pay for these new features without making too much new money. They want to reduce the amount of new money they make each year, but they also need to make sure that people who help run the system (called collators) and people who invest in the system (called delegators) still get paid enough. They have a plan to reduce the amount of new money they make each year to 2% and use some of that money to pay collators and some to pay for the Court pallet. They will keep doing this until they find a better way to pay for everything.

Redistributing inflation

To attract the community to contribute to smart contracts on Zeitgeist perhaps there needs to be consideration as to whether the following is required through registrars that are a known good and trusted with decentralised on-chain identities:

- Web3 decentralised and pooled independent smart contract auditors with their skills, experience, and competency specialisations assessed by an appropriate on-chain registrar, and their authority granted by on-chain governance.
- Web3 decentralised and pooled legal services and agreements.
- Web3 decentralised and pooled patent and licensing services.

**Motivations**

1. Community members may wish to build smart contracts that may be used in the Zeitgeist ecosystem.
2. Community members may wish to be protected by an appropriate level of insurance from risks associated with any of their contributions.
3. Community members may wish to use known good decentralised on-chain identity registrars to duly obtain assurance that their clients and other community members that they may wish to use as subcontractors or sub-consultants have on-chain DAOs with links to on-chain IPFS or similar records containing duly decentralised Web3 legal agreements, duly decentralised Web3 insurance coverage to an appropriate level of coverage that cover their scope of work, and that use duly decentralised Web3 patent and licensing, and have demonstrated on-chain that they comply with recognised ethical and business practices.
4. Community members may only wish to deal with on-chain DAO entities in the Zeitgeist ecosystem that have established an on-chain identity that is recognised by an appropriate registrar. 
5. Community members may wish for the insurance risks to be pooled to minimise the associated insurance costs. 
6. Community members may not want to be an employee of a fully insured fronting recruitment agency that is experienced in high risk that they could use between themselves (supplier) and a client in the Zeitgeist ecosystem when the solution requires high risk, such as creating a contract that could trigger impermanent loss if used in production and would require necessary safeguards, where the fronting recruitment agency would handle relevant legal agreements and insurance coverage for contributions.
7. Community members may not want to contribute directly where they would be personally exposed to risk, or through their own company where in each case they would need to perform legal due diligence and risk management, audits, and arrange relevant legal agreements and insurance coverage themselves prior to and in addition to any contributions, and where they may need to include clauses like "no liability, no warranty, time and material only, use the software at your own risk", so the agreement ends when they have used up the hours specified in the agreement.
8. Community members may want to know what licensing agreement is going to be associated with their contributions, such as whether there would be a requirement for derived work to also remain open source (e.g. Mozilla Public License).
9. Community members may be concerned that they cannot contribute meaningfully as humans with human responsibility if their contributions are uninsurable by traditional insurers, and they may resort to deploying autonomous solutions without revealing the identity of the author. 
10. Community members may be concerned that their contributions as humans with human responsibility may be diluted by malicious actors that generate and deploy malicious AI-generated solutions that resemble their solution in bulk that may cause them harm and where it is difficult to track and control to shut them down in a timely manner via on-chain governance. 
11. Community members may be concerned that they may be collaborating on contributions from other contributors that are from jurisdictions where it is illegal to do so, or where the contributions by others are actually illegal in one or more jurisdictions without realising it.
12. Community members may be concerned that their contributions may not be used as intended, for example they may be recognised as an author that contributed to a smart contract that was only for development purposes, but not for production use without first being independently audited by a decentralised on-chain identity with on-chain credentials and accreditation certifying their level of competence across various smart contract specialisations, and having been granted engineering authority as an independent auditor, but then if it was used and deployed by a self-proclaimed independent auditor, and if there was a lack of appropriate safe guards in-place on-chain like adopting a standard where the smart contract must provide evidence that it was duly audited by a recognised identity with engineering authority as an independent auditor, then its adoption may cause irreversible harm the original author or other stakeholders in the Zeitgeist ecosystem.
13. Community members may wish to be able to highlight that contributions that they make are to be for development purposes only, and that anyone wishing to use it must only use it for legal purposes (stating the obvious is necessary).
14. Community members may wish to be able to highlight that contributions that they make are to be for development purposes only, and that anyone wishing to use it takes full responsibility, and must duly obtain any international licensing (e.g. casino licensing), commercial gambling, and any PI/PL insurance that covers them for Web3 crypto-related risks beforehand, as duly required, necessary, or appropriate.
15. Community members may wish to be able to highlight that all costs associated with using their contributions are to be fully borne by those who adopt it and not the original contributor.
16. Community members may wish to request that unless explicitly specified in a separate agreement, that by them making a contribution it does not construe that they also have any post-contribution obligations, such as a requirement for the original contributor to actually use their own contribution themselves, or to maintain their contribution or the codebase(s) where their contributions are hosted after their contribution, since that could otherwise introduce unnecessary disputes.

**Potential Options for Consideration**

1. Establish a "Public Web3 International Legal Agreement to Protect Contributors".
2. Establish a "Public Statement of Web3 International Legal Risk Assessment Report". It could provide separate advice on how contributors and clients are being protected or not protected, exhaust avenues of potential exposure to risk, consequences of each risk on various stakeholders, and mitigation measures. It could cover each of the development, production, and maintenance phases of any contribution. It could serve to provide reassurance to regulators, clients, and contributors so that they know how to satisfy the minimum legal requirements by establishing the appropriate levels of protection for peace of mind.

- Each document would likely be prepared by a duly qualified international lawyer who has expert knowledge and experience not limited to cryptocurrency gambling, betting, and lotteries.
- Each document should be legally binding and verified by an on-chain identity that is an independent lawyer, and published on-chain on IPFS or similar on multiple chains, and linked to by a contributors DAO smart contract that is deployed on the Zeitgeist network, and be legally binding and accompanied by a translation that is written in a language that is accessible to all community members (absent of legal lingo, jargon and legalese).

- Note that the above do not constitute legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

Zeitgeist is a platform where people can build smart contracts. To encourage people to contribute, there may be a need for trusted on-chain registrars for decentralized identities, legal services, and patent and licensing services. 

Community members may want to use these services to protect themselves and their contributions. They may also want to know what licensing agreement is associated with their contributions and ensure that their contributions are only used for legal purposes. 

Establishing a "Public Web3 International Legal Agreement to Protect Contributors" and a "Public Statement of Web3 International Legal Risk Assessment Report" could provide reassurance to contributors, clients, and regulators. 

These documents should be prepared by a qualified international lawyer, legally binding, and verified by an on-chain identity. They should also be published on-chain on IPFS or similar on multiple chains and be accessible to all community members. 

Note that this is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

International guidelines to the community contribution framework on Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist plans to extend the chain to a hybrid chain by providing smart contract functionality, which allows developers to easily extend the protocol in respect to and beyond the prediction market functionality.

# Motivations
Motivations for this extension include that multiple projects signaled the intent to build on Zeitgeist, the attractiveness of being able to easily extend the protocol, the fact that writing pallets is complicated, slow, and requires review from the Zeitgeist team (scaling limited), and the potential for the low entry barrier to developing on Zeitgeist to multiply the pace of extension and increase use-cases for the Zeitgeist token. As a side effect, all the new uses cases of ZTG provide a better foundation for marketing.

# Options
There are two options for Zeitgeist in this endeavor, which include [pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts) and [pallet-evm](https://github.com/PureStake/frontier/tree/master/frame/evm). The team has talked with their advisory experts in the smart contracts field and has found that while [pallet-evm](https://github.com/PureStake/frontier/tree/master/frame/evm) provides full [Solidity](https://soliditylang.org/) and Metamask support, it cannot be ported to [pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts). The advisory experts recommended to use pallet-contract for numerous reasons that are outlined in the section "pallet-contracts".

# pallet-contracts
[pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts) is actively developed and receives a lot of attention from Parity. It supports [Solidity](https://soliditylang.org/) partially (some features like https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/latest/yul.html assembly are not supported), with full support planned. Ethereum RPC support is on the roadmap (implies Metamask support). [pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts) can be run in permissioned or permissionless mode and can call dispatchables and use [chain extensions](https://use.ink/macros-attributes/chain-extension) provided by pallets to interact with the pallets and retrieve data from pallets. [pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts) uses [Ink!](https://github.com/paritytech/ink) as the main language to write contracts, which is based on Rust and can be used by the team to quickly prototype solutions. Tooling already exists in the form of a [contracts frontend](https://contracts-ui.substrate.io/) and a [block explorer](https://astar.subscan.io/wasm_contract_dashboard). Zeitgeist can participate in an [incubator project](https://use.ink/ubator/) to get advice and audits from experts. The effort to integrate [pallet-contracts](https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/master/frame/contracts) without any [chain extensions](https://use.ink/macros-attributes/chain-extension) is [very low](https://substrate-developer-hub.github.io/substrate-how-to-guides/docs/pallet-design/add-contracts-pallet/).

# Potential risks
Potential risks include scarcity of computation time and storage space arising in the future, but both issues can be resolved by converting Zeitgeist to a relaychain on which the core prediction market functionality and smart contracts related to this live. Those risks do not harm the functioning of the core protocol at all, as the core logic always takes predence over smart contracts. Under the umbrella of the Zeitgeist relaychain, multiple Layer 2 chains that extend the protocol beyond the prediction market functionality could be onboarded as parachains (see figure 1). This effectively allows to scale potentially unlimited in terms of computation time and disperse the storage requirement to multiple blockchains. From a technical perspective, no more risks are known.

![Zeitgeist relaychain](https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1iKyxrbleNcXvFmuv218wK4zb5gbvHeQ0&export=download )
*Figure 1: Zeitgeist relaychain*

Zeitgeist wants to make their chain better by adding smart contract functionality, which will make it easier for developers to add new features. They have two options for this: pallet-contracts and pallet-evm. They decided to use pallet-contracts because it is easier to use and has more support. There are some risks, like running out of space or time, but they can be fixed by making Zeitgeist into a relaychain. This will let them add more features and keep everything working well.

Smart contract support on Zeitgeist

Currently the existential deposit for ZTG is 0.005 = $0.0032
The existential deposit for DOT is 1 = $5.42

To me it doesn't makes sense that we would allocate storage for $0.01 worth of one asset but not $5 worth of another. We should align the existential deposits so that the values are roughly equal

I propose we set the existential deposit of DOT to 0.001 DOT

Align existential deposits of foreign assets with ZTG

This discussion is about determining whether the value of enabling USDT on Zeitgeist outweigh the risks.
There are numerous ways how USDT could be utilized:
1. Using USDT in prediction markets
2. Using USDT to pay transaction fees (which can be automatically converted to ZTG regularly)
3. Using USDT as a reserve/lock for certain interactions (such as interacting with governance, creating markets, starting a dispute, etc.)

The usage of USDT might be attractive since it is a stablecoin and it's value does not much deviate from USD, which many people are used to hold. USDT has a relatively huge market capitalization. Since a lot of USDT is already in circulation, this liquidity could potentially attracted. In addition, many operations in the protocol require holding ZTG in form of bonds or to pay transaction fees. ZTG is still subject to significant price fluctuations which might disencourage locking ZTG for extended period of times for many actors in the system.

On the other hand, the more USDT is integrated into the protocol, the more a dramatic event within the USDT ecosystem affects Zeitgeist.

I invite the community to share their opinions and to take part in this decision. Also consider participating in an off-chain token holder vote at https://voting.opensquare.io/space/zeitgeist/proposal/QmNvE2u9sKNZKuuktiWHAZzj9vnHQwm9bVrBU8uyBgFoQk

- The discussion is about whether to use USDT on Zeitgeist.
- USDT is a stablecoin that has a value similar to USD.
- USDT can be used in prediction markets, to pay transaction fees, and as a reserve/lock for certain interactions.
- Many people might find USDT attractive because of its liquidity and stable value.
- However, integrating USDT into the protocol could also make Zeitgeist more vulnerable to any dramatic events within the USDT ecosystem.

Should USDT be integrated into Zeitgeist?

As we have seen, the lack of a clear plan for collators and/or lack of announcements about the number of collators, the tight number of collator spots and opportunistic capital has created a disenfranchisement of much of the early support which helped maintain the testnet and has supported the parachain and application from the very early stages.

So this discussion exists so that a concrete plan for the growth of the collator number is set or if that's not possible, to seek explanations as to why and to build alternative solutions that could help foster the collator community on Zeitgeist in case that the collator number HAS TO remain small.

As we have already discussed it on Discord:
There are two different paths for a governance referendum(s) could be made. 

1. To increase the number of collators to 24 in a single referendum as soon as possible. Thus doubling the possible available spots and including all the interested collators leave it there and create a new discussion if that number is not enough. This number will be significantly lower than Moonbeam's. The main pro is that this will take the shortest to occur.
2. To increase next to 16 collators as it was originally intended by the Zeitgeist team, wait a week, evaluate performance. If it goes well, move to 20. Rinse and repeat until we reach 32 a number that will be lower than Moonbeam original collator set and will suffice for all the interested collators as well as new collators with enough capital to make a bid. The main drawback is that this is more likely to create supporter disenfranchisement due to new capital and attention entering the ecosystem at a faster rate. This will take significantly longer than option 1.

Alternative options like rotating delegations could be worked in tandem with the collator number increase so they are not mutually exclusive. 

This are just numbers based on the appreciation of early participants who have an intention to participate based on https://collatorstats.brightlystake.com/zeitgeist so the numbers and time frame is well open for discussion as well as possible alternatives like rotation of delegations and many other possibilities not discussed here. So the intention is to start a broad conversation which ends up in concrete plans and changes hopefully.

Looking forward to hear the community's feedback

Zeitgeist is a platform that needs more collators to support it. Collators help maintain the testnet and support the parachain and application. There are two paths for a governance referendum to increase the number of collators. The first path is to increase the number of collators to 24 in a single referendum as soon as possible. The second path is to increase next to 16 collators, wait a week, evaluate performance, and repeat until 32 collators are reached. Alternative options like rotating delegations could be worked in tandem with the collator number increase. This is based on the appreciation of early participants who have an intention to participate. The intention is to start a broad conversation which ends up in concrete plans and changes.

Plan for Collators

https://hackmd.io/@1ypDLjlbQ_e2Gp_1EW7kkg/SkNsYuK7s

ZIP-3: Initial Predictions for CPMM

https://hackmd.io/@1ypDLjlbQ_e2Gp_1EW7kkg/BksyTQc-o

ZIP-1: Automated Arbitrage

https://hackmd.io/@1ypDLjlbQ_e2Gp_1EW7kkg/HJjUrG7-o

ZIP-0: Dispute System Overhaul

The idea is to define a minimum time that allows for discussion and community interaction before moving to an on-chain governance proposal on Zeitgeist. This is an informal measure and not strictly enforced but that should leave enough leeway between a discussion being created and some entity starting a governance proposal. 

Our proposed time for is 3 days allowed for discussion. Which could be increased if deemed necessary or when Governance 2 is enacted on Zeitgeist.

Define a Minimum Time for Discussion Before the Creation of Governance Proposals

You sold tokens at $1.25
Opened chart at $0.8
and price is $0.1 now

what will happen our investments ? I invested $2500 and it is $250 now ? and as I see, this token can't 10x, I want my money back !!!

for ico price : https://icodrops.com/zeitgeist/
to see how opened chart : https://www.mexc.com/exchange/ZTG_USDT
current price : https://www.coingecko.com/tr/coins/zeitgeist

Discussions