# Into the Gateway-verse: Bootstrapping a Multi-Gateway Ecosystem **URL:** \ **Category:** Foundation\ **Created:** [June 21, 2023, 5:55am UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532 "2023-06-21T05:55:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 31
**Author:** ![shane](https://forum.pokt.network/user_avatar/forum.pokt.network/shane/32/3038_2.png) [@shane](https://forum.pokt.network/u/shane)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 7:37pm UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532/31 "2023-12-07T19:37:17Z")
Firstly, thank-you for a direct response. I’ve asked some very basic technical questions multiple times over the past 6 months ([July](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532/13), [September](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532/23), and [this week](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532/26)) and there has been no response from you and your team. Literally not a single response to those questions. None of them are unreasonable by any account and it has been far from any kind of barrage (like maybe 4 questions ever 2 months… and most were repeats since there wasn’t an answer 😅 ). > [@poktblade](#): > > I honestly wholeheartedly disagree with your message. The repository is open and there isn’t any gatekeeping. I’m glad it’s open-source, but that is one piece of “the stack”. There are a number of modules that are supposed to attach right? That what isn’t clear… and why I asked: > [@shane](#): > > 1. Where do future modules expect to be placed in your stack? (Example: Will the QoS module connect into OS-Gateway, or does is interface directly with an LB like HAPoxy?) That question honestly shouldn’t take more than a minute to answer and would provide a lot of insight. Just understanding how your stack works allows us to properly understand the technical goals (not the high level, non-technical vision talk that has been the only thing shared). Your updates definitely lean towards you already having a solid idea of how this stack fits together, so I feel it’s perfectly natural to ask a few basic questions. You need to understand, that while some folks get excited about press release like updates, POKT is also a community of highly technical folks, and this initiative always encouraged asking questions. Questions aren’t being answered however, and instead there is an announcement about it influencing Shannon… so it is perfectly inline to ask questions, especially when it looks like there is some kind of gatekeeping. As I said, this initiative sounded much more open with information when it was announced, so it should be expected to have there a few questions. ## Consistency > [@poktblade](#): > > Before Shannon became a thing, there was extensive research done behind the scenes, and I assure you it was not with the entire community. Yet… no qualms on your end about that (nor do we mind either). It was actually very open… especially right when they started writing actual code. The prior protocol team hosted research community calls, and even posted their internal research calls. @RichCL and I would geek out to those on the drive to Tampa (good times my guy 😉 ) This team has been very open as well, especially with the architecture (which is what I’ve always been passionate about). It’s been very easy to be a part of Shannon in areas of interested, by asking questions both publicly and privately. I wrote the original [ADR](https://github.com/pokt-network/pocket-network-protocol/issues/14) in public to argue that gateways should be a central part on the protocol level, and that came after talking about it months prior. It was accepted by the team and no doubted had a place in starting this intuitive. WPOKT team was great as well. We built the wallet alongside them and getting access to information and resources while they were building was fantastic. Props to them as well. So like you, I have no issue with how their teams has been, and like you have been passionate about gateways (and literally from the start). > [@poktblade](#): > > This is a reoccurring theme where you try to paint out a negative light starting off with keeping “LeanPocket” and “Geomesh” closed source. Then once open source, you don’t contribute to any of the repositories. We don’t do client work directly… that has never been our focus. The reason I pushed back on LeanPocket when it was closed source was because the DAO was told that it would be made open-source, only after pay $2M… which also didn’t include the contributions from the Feather Client which addressed the Tendermint/validation issue. There is a lot there to have an opinion on, especially when it had to do with more than 10% of the DAO resources 😅 Suggesting my participation in the conversation was simply to stir drama is misguided. Regarding your version of Geomesh… I already stated my reasons [very clearly above](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532/10). That too was about DAO funds, not about the tech itself. I’ve never had an issue with folks building their own stuff, but it is totally fair to be involved in DAO discussions when it comes to funding and expectations. Let us not conflate my technical questions today with those other things in the past that were focused around DAO resources. I’ve been critical of POKTScan being closed source and receiving DAO resources… though they are very consistent with answering questions. If anything I’m consistent to a fault 😉 ## Moving Forward > [@poktblade](#): > > or… perhaps you’re just stirring the pot with senseless controversy and targeting us? lol… nope. We have built numerous products and tools that fit into the gateway ecosystem (QoS, LB automation, deployment automation, etc) and have been consistent with being in 99% of community calls. We are currently doing more wallet work, but after that there is a very good possibility we would to get our hands dirty in gateways. This type of deployment stack is literally in our MO (CC is literally a distributed gateway for POKT nodes). PNF asked for folks to let them know how they can be a part of the OS Gateway stack… but that is impossible if the basic understanding of the architecture is unknown and any technical questions are ignored. ![image](https://forum.pokt.network/uploads/default/original/2X/4/43f42c32e16e13b18a2ee26b28583a38db8250bb.png) It would be shortsighted to see gateways as a whole as a Nodies vision, or to judge who you think will be able to participate. Being interested in gateways isn’t like a bluff or something 😅 Overall, any technical questions or criticism from my side should not be taken personal. You were [critical of the DAO paying for altruist relays](https://forum.pokt.network/t/pip-28-dan-distributing-the-altruist-network-community-chains-introduction/4020/27) (which totaled around 4% of the value of this initiative), but it’s all part of the DAO process. > [@poktblade](#): > > But fine, let’s assume that your message is not bait. If you are so excited to contribute so early on, please send a message to me on Discord/Telegram/etc with an inquiry. If that is the way to have discourse on the basic architecture, then we can setup a time to talk. Seemed less efficient to me, but thanks for giving an option. Call incoming… ![goggles-on-pete-mitchell](https://forum.pokt.network/uploads/default/original/2X/a/aeb3cfa0be6d94dfb380f3c4d5245abd25a69b36.gif) --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.pokt.network/t/into-the-gateway-verse-bootstrapping-a-multi-gateway-ecosystem/4532)._