975-zao-respect-live-numbers

topic	governance
type	audit
status	research-complete
last-validated	2026-07-06
superseded-by
related-docs	718b
original-query	Respect-game number - what is the single honest headline number for the ZAO Respect / Fractal game, grounded in on-chain truth, so we stop citing conflicting figures across the site, the whitepaper, and decks
tier	STANDARD

975 - ZAO Respect: the live numbers (one honest set)

Goal: Fix the "Respect-game number" problem - every surface (site, whitepaper, decks, casts) cites a slightly different member/week/distribution figure. This doc pins ONE set of numbers to on-chain ground truth so we cite the same thing everywhere, and flags the ones still modeled rather than measured.

The one-line answer

156 people hold ZAO Respect. The game has run ~101 unbroken weeks. Governance is real but its execution is concentrated in one relayer wallet (94% of proposals). Everything else is detail under those three.

The headline numbers (use these, drop the rest)

What	Number	Source status
Members (unique Respect holders)	156 (122 OG + 55 ZOR, 21 hold both)	MEASURED on-chain 2026-07-05
Weeks of unbroken Fractals	~101 (since 2024-07-30)	MEASURED (mint history)
OG Respect total supply	38,484 (frozen, last mint 2025-12-09)	MEASURED
OG distribution Gini	~0.73 (top 10 = 53%, top holder = 8%)	MEASURED (OG-only)
OREC proposal threshold	1,000 Respect (~2.6% of OG supply)	MEASURED (minWeight on-chain)
OREC vote / veto windows	72h each (voteLen=vetoLen=259,200s)	MEASURED
Total OREC proposals ever	130, from only 4 wallets	MEASURED
Proposal concentration	one relayer = 94% (122/130); top-3 = 99%	MEASURED

What this CORRECTS (stop citing these)

These are the wrong numbers that have been floating across surfaces. They came from doc 718b, which modeled the system rather than measuring it:

• "~200 members" -> wrong. That conflated Discord/community size with actual Respect holders. The on-chain holder count is 156.
• "Gini ~0.23" (looked egalitarian) -> wrong. That was a modeled single-round figure. The actual cumulative OG distribution Gini is ~0.73 (a single 6-person Fibonacci round alone computes to 0.41). The distribution is meaningfully concentrated - own that honestly rather than claiming near-perfect equality.
• "48h/48h OREC windows" -> wrong. On-chain voteLen and vetoLen are both 72h.
• "proposal threshold ~10% of supply" -> wrong. minWeight = 1,000 Respect = ~2.6% of OG supply.
• "90+ weeks" -> understated. It is ~101 ("100+ weeks" is the correct claim).

The honest caveat (say it out loud)

The strongest limitation and the one most worth stating plainly: governance execution is effectively one wallet. Of 130 OREC proposals ever submitted, a single relayer (the OG first-mint operator) submitted 122 - 94%. The system is genuinely on-chain and the vote/veto mechanics are real, but "decentralized proposing" is aspirational, not current. This is the operating-core concentration limitation. Cite it before someone else finds it.

Two numbers we deliberately do NOT publish yet

1. Combined OG+ZOR Gini. Not cleanly computable. ZOR (ERC-1155) holder values are a mix of "1" (215 of 270 rows), Fibonacci amounts (110/68/42/16), and sums (136/330/726). Whether amount = Respect or tokenId encodes Respect is ambiguous without the mint semantics. Publish the OG-only 0.73, labeled as OG-only - do not invent a combined figure.
2. Precise "active governance participants." 156 hold Respect; 4 wallets have ever proposed. "Active voters" sits somewhere between and needs a getLogs pass on the vote events to state honestly. Left open below.

Contracts (for anyone re-pulling)

• OREC executor: 0xcB05F9254765CA521F7698e61E0A6CA6456Be532 (OP Mainnet)
• OG Respect ERC-20: 0x34cE89baA7E4a4B00E17F7E4C0cb97105C216957 (Fractals 1-73)
• ZOR Respect ERC-1155: 0x9885CCeEf7E8371Bf8d6f2413723D25917E7445c (Fractals 74+)

Also See

• Doc 718b - the earlier MODELED analysis this doc corrects. 718b's estimates should be treated as superseded by the 2026-07-05 on-chain pull for every number above.
• Whitepaper PRs #1083-#1087 (ws/zao-whitepaper) already carry these corrected numbers into the Technical Whitepaper - this doc is the citable source behind those edits.
• Papers site = ZAODEVZ/ZAOfractal (Astro, zaofractal.vercel.app).

Next Actions

Action	Owner	Type	By When
Replace any "~200 members / Gini 0.23 / 48h windows" copy on thezao.xyz + decks with the headline table above	@Zaal	Edit	2026-07-13
Add a live on-chain pull (getLogs on vote events) to state "active voters" honestly, closing open #2	@Zaal	PR	2026-07-20
Resolve ZOR ERC-1155 mint semantics so a combined OG+ZOR Gini can be published, closing open #1	@Zaal	Research	2026-07-27
Mark doc 718b superseded-by: 975 in its frontmatter	@Zaal	Edit	2026-07-13

Sources

• [FULL] reference_zao_respect_onchain_facts - on-chain pull 2026-07-05 (Optimism Blockscout v2 + mainnet.optimism.io RPC eth_call/getLogs). Every MEASURED number above traces to this pull.
• [FULL] src/lib/respect/voteWeight.ts computeRespectWeight (in ZAOOS) - confirms combined OG+ZOR weight is computed off-chain via viem multicall, so the OREC contract referencing OG natively is not a contradiction.
• [PARTIAL] Doc 718b - read for its modeled estimates, all of which are corrected here; not re-fetched because it is the thing being superseded.