Re rare chains, you have replied to my concern/suggestion with good content, but none of it engages the heart of what I’m addressing, so let me try again to clarify and condense:
(1) DAN for altruist failover and rare-chain support are different enough issues and same ballpark budgets (ie one is not a small supplemental add compared to other) that the DAO should have the opportunity to vote on them separately (whether via two different PEPs or by using a Snapshot multi-choice vote)
(2) If the DAO votes to subsidize rare chains, the subsidy should be to incentivize sufficient on-chain coverage to provide target QoS rather than to build up altruist back up to the unchanged, insufficient on-chain coverage.
Its not so much about the word as it is about the presumption that the two issues have the same level of support and should be lumped together. Anectodal support - of which I am sure there are many examples, does not mean that it would garner majority support.
And I guess it is a little bit about the world, and the ordering of the text of the proposal that may cause a casual reader (and voter!) to miss that this is two separate asks rolled into one. I’d sort of like to do an informal poll of all who have read this proposal to see how many understand that the supplemental budget to support the three named chains is larger than the budget of DAN itself.
Further where would one draw the line. It is not even clear if the vote is for specifically these these three named chains and no other or is open ended so that as new chains show need of subsidizing to maintain QoS the list will grow. Someone from pni or pnf dropped a line on TG today that contracts with 20 something new chains are in the works. How many of those are going to need supplementation? The way I view it, once you pass the low hanging fruit (ETH, polygon, etc) the chance of being too thin on chain support increases. Say 6 out of the 20 new chains need subsidizing. Now we’re talking $30k a month or roughly one third of the DAO monthly “budget” (as measured by dollar value of monthly DAO inflow)
I can think of several things that hurt POKT reputation more than this. That being said, you are right, this is an important consideration and could be a reason I would come out in support of a rare-chain proposal… given a chance to be considered in its own right in the manner the subject deserves rather than buried in the DAN proposal.
A counter argument against this is, where do you draw the line. IF PNI is selling chains that it can’t back up with node support, then let PNI clean up their own mess. I am all for offloading altruist costs to the community to help PNI extend runway to get to v1. I’m not sure I am all for the community paying for their mistakes in closing bad contracts. If they close a contract for a chain that costs 3x to support, then they should charge 3x the price and hand over two thirds of it to the DAO to provide the node runner subsidies. Otherwise we are just enabling PNI to enter into bad contracts. I mean, if PNI knows that we are going to bail them out every time they sign up a chain that doesn’t make sense for node runners to support, then they will never learn the discipline to do the math and say no to chains for which the business case does not close.
You are mixing apples and oranges. It is CC that binds the two topics, not altruist. If the DAO desires to subsidize rare chains, DA may be the best outfit to outsource to in order to utilize the CC architecture.
But not straight to altruist. The agreement would be to set up on-chain cc coverage sufficient to provide target on-chain QoS as needed to supplement current coverage. (some regions may not need subsidized cc coverage due to current non-cc coverage) Month end reimbursement would be to supplement as needed to break even. If break-even is $3000 (say $3400 less $400 because one region is not needed) and $700 worth of POKT was earned in emissions, then DA would reimburse the difference ($2300). All the cc gateway and nodes would double as altruist of course in case of fail-over, but this would incur no extra cost.