PIP-28: DAN - Distributing the Altruist Network (Community Chains Introduction)

[shane]

Thanks for the feedback @msa6867. I appreicate the thought you put into this proposal.

@msa6867

There is nothing in the proposal that makes clear that this proposal is the official conduit for handover of Altruist responsibility from PNI to PNF.

For some context, I did have another version of this proposal where PNF was seen as the “manager” and owner of the altruist network. In working with them on the concept, they felt that they didn’t have the technical knowledge to truly be an effective manager.

With that feedback, I reworked the concept where PNF is not the owner of the altruist, but more of an overseer. PNF knows their strengths so this proposal was designed to compliment them.

@msa6867

It is not clear that this proposal in the conduit by which DA becomes the official desginee for managing Altruist.

The intention is not to put for every aspect of the altruist network on just one team, at least at this first pass. The idea is to have this proposal be an authorized “default” process for the altruist network. CC acts as the default for each chain it supports because we have built in QoS, multi-region, a payment model, and will provide transparency to the DAO. For the chains we support, we can provide the best default for the network ATM.

For some chains, there may a need to be some other solution depending on the situation. I think @fredt put it best with his comment

@fredt

• If chain is offered by Community Chains, CC will be the sole altruist provider for PNI
• If chain is not offered by Community Chains, PNI will utilize a multi-provider strategy for its Altruist support.

This is the kind of flexibility we need. DA can’t be responsible for every chain on POKT at the moment, and we don’t want to be micro-managers over every chain and how providers get paid in other systems. I want to make sure this proposal doesn’t become to complex of a system where there are a bunch of hard lines.

My comment to Art was coming from a place of concern that a non-production ready product would be a default since PNI technically has control over the endpoints. As I mentioned in my comment, I feel there is tangible value to using a production ready system like CC and I believe the DAO has the right to establish it as what I’m defining now as the “authorized default”.

Happy to make this clearer in my proposal @msa6867. Will update in the next 24h

If PNI or someone else want to offer the DAO another “authorized default”, then I do believe it should be through a transparent proposal as we have done that accounts for all the elements in my comment to Art. I don’t think that we need to make it bureaucratic with a proposal to require future proposals, but I feel this proposal sets a precedent on how altruist traffic should be systematically handled, especially when it’s effecting customer QoS.

@msa6867

(a)under budget section, do the tldr first followed by details … that way ppl don’t have to scan through an extremely long budget section just to know the tldr.

I did place a TLDR Budget section for that purpose PIP-28: DAN - Distributing the Altruist Network (Community Chains Introduction)

I’ll see where I can make some aspects of the budge more clear. Thanks for the feedback

@vlad

I would like to clarify and offer some transparency into how we are handling the Altruist currently and the development of internal tooling to help this process. This was done in isolation of Community Chains

Thanks for the clarity here @vlad. For greater context, we’ve shared our designs plans with PNI since November, over many calls, and have made changes due to PNI’s feedback. I greatly appreciate PNI’s willingness provide the same transparency here.

@fredt

I look forward to leveraging another new way to lower costs on the network and provide unstoppable backup infrastructure.

Thank-you for the continued support and all the additional clarity!