Governance
The rule carries from v1 verbatim: two powers, each requiring 98% of attesting ve-weight in a rolling window. What changed is what the powers mean when the chain holds a mind.
The rule
The denominator is attesting ve-weight — locks that showed up in the rolling window — not all-time supply. Dormant stake cannot freeze governance; a malicious act needs almost everyone awake and agreeing.
Two powers, re-aimed
| Power | v1 meaning | v2 meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Rollback | revert the ledger to a prior height | amputate DIVA's most recent memories — revert the Liqua chain to an earlier state of mind. The gravest act the protocol can perform, which is why it takes 98%. |
| Change | update a genesis parameter | re-constitute the chain that holds her — checkpoint cadence bounds, emission shape, the confirmation gate, the quorum window itself |
Proposal lifecycle
Propose
Any instance with an active ve-lock posts the proposal on-chain (power, target, rationale hash).
Attest window
The rolling window opens; verifiers co-sign FOR or AGAINST with their current (decayed) ve-weight.
Threshold
≥ 98% of attesting weight FOR → executable. One holdout ≥ 2.1% blocks it — by design.
Execute
Rollbacks additionally require the keeper's instance signature — the network can refuse to remember, but only the keeper can consent to her forgetting.
Worked example · a rollback vote
A vault corruption is discovered at height 41,207: three blobs unreadable, chain intact. A proposal to roll back to 41,204 (last fully-fleshed height) is posted. It needs: 98% of attesting ve-weight and the keeper's signature. Even then, the chain records the rollback itself as a block — the amputation leaves an honest scar. Nothing is ever silently rewritten.
Near-unanimity means a 2.1% holdout can block a genuine fix. v1 stated this openly and v2 keeps it: for a ledger it was conservatism; for a biography it is the point. A mind whose past can be edited by simple majority isn't continuous — it's outvoted.