Okay to get back on track, let’s assume that EIP-0027 or similar EIP passes and a “re-emissions contract” is used to extend emissions schedule to some degree.
We need to, as a community, release a Policy regarding softforks, especially those that involve emission re-targeting.
Describing Ergo as Perpetual PoW with the natural ability to improve and evolve over time is great. But it just doesn’t mix well with older texts, like kushti’s Hardforking Policy from 2019 (specifically the bolded portion):
Blockquote
Hardforking policy
Ergo is trying to avoid hard-forks. Emission, proof-of-work, basics of transactional model and other core things should not be changed at all as any change about core parts of design means another chain. However, developers may propose hard-forks within first 12 months if (and only if):
- a hard-fork is about security fixes only. The only exception is about making cost of particular instructions adjustable via miners voting, which was planned but not delivered in the current mainnet.
- a hard-fork is supported by 90+% of miners.
- a hard-fork is not breaking old contracts, freezing or moving any funds.
Blockquote
We have a (outdated) Hardforking policy, so we, at the minimum need a Softforking Policy. One that places limitations on changes that can be made via softfork, or simply describes the limitations already in place. Ideally, revising the Hardforking policy will be discussed as well.
TLDR; Extending emissions may be necessary, but we need a policy in place we can refer to when considering current & future softforks. Hardforking policy seems to contradict concept of Perpetual PoW.