The revision，I'm sorry about my proposal :
I am sorry that my proposal only considers the system and the market, not considering that the change of this matter will cost the developer a lot of time and energy, so I hope this proposal will be rejected, and I am sorry for my poor consideration
Here's the developers have to say and I can't agree more：
The remark in the referendum is vague; it's only a signal in favor of or against redenomination, but doesn't state when it would take place or a strategy to handle it.
Redenomination doesn't require anything for the protocol itself, but it requires tons of work interacting with users, wallets, custodians, data aggregators, and other people/teams affected by the decision. It probably falls on Parity/W3F to handle that.
a plan from the proposer of how they'd help make this happen is not developed.
the denomination of KSM doesn't change the economic properties of the network, so the argument that this is to bring Kusama into alignment with Polkadot doesn't hold much weight -The actual work required from a wallet perspective to track at a certain timepoint (like we had in Polkadot) and then dealing with all the messaging around it is not an easy job and requires a complete strategy by many teams, and this is not needed today.
The confusion this proposal will create if passes will be higher than its benefits: this proposal will not necessarily lead to better system testing accuracy and better market validation.
It is simply not a pre-condition for the network to prepare for slots auctions.
Kusama is a running network, with enabled transfers functionality, unlike Polkadot when redenomination happened: this makes things much more complicated when dealing with this kind of proposals.
Previous proposal:
Reason for that:
**Cumulus master is already v1,Parallel chain slots may be auctioned at the end of the year.
I think keeping KSM and DOT consistent will lead to better system testing accuracy and better market validation.
We all hope the Kusama parallel chain auction goes smoothly and has complete consistency with the main network Polkadot.
Splitting KSM will make the kusama parallel chain slot auction and polkadot slot auction smoother and more consistent.
**
In brief the proposal has the following four effects:
The total allocations of KSMs will increase one hundred times from ~10 million to ~1 billion. KSM allocation balances will increase by a factor of one hundred, such that 1 KSM (old) will be 100 New KSMs. The distribution of KSMs does not change, and holders of KSMs still own an equal share of the network as before the change. The precision of KSM will change from 12 decimal places to 10 decimal places. The main benefit of this change is to avoid using small decimals when dealing with KSM and to achieve an easier calculation system, the same as in the Polkadot redenomination of DOT.
What does this proposal change?
The proposal is a change to what magnitude of units is considered the KSM, and does not imply any technical consequences. The lowest unit of the KSM, the Planck, does not change. Rather it is the number of Plancks that make up one KSM that does.
Let's consider how many Plancks constitute a single KSM before the change. Since KSM has 12 decimal places, it would be:
1,000,000,000,000 Plancks = 1 KSM
All KSM allocation holders will keep the same number of Plancks after this change, however where the decimal is being placed will be moved:
Before the change the decimal was here
v
1.000000000000 KSM
100.0000000000 KSM
^
After the change the decimal will be here
This decimal move means that:
10,000,000,000 Plancks = 1 KSM
This change does not modify the overall allocation of KSMs at the Planck level, and the network share of individual holdings remains exactly the same.
It does change the fractional divisibility of the KSM from twelve decimal place to ten decimal places.
In the most basic terms, the proposal is only to change what is called a "KSM".
What is the system remark?
The system remark is the utf-8 encoding of the first two sentences of this document.