See my comment above @RawthiL. @poktblade was speaking out of conjecture, not facts.
This kind of conversation is veering away from what would be the best altruist solution for POKT and it’s customers to discussion chain node pooling.
I would be happy to discuss chain node pooling, how it provides decentralization of POKT node ownership, address chain node over provisioning (which is the largest cost to the POKT ecosystem), and how it incentivizes independent node runners (who took a real hit when providers were capturing market share with closed source geo-meshing, which POKTScan addressed )… but this thread is not the place. PNI was the first to publically discuss it as a ecosystem strategy in October and it is frequently talked about in Node Runners Office Hour, and we’ve been sharing our work on it on since October… so there is a rich history of this convo which we can have elsewhere.
My Ask To Everyone…
Let’s please keep this conversation focused on the proposal and it’s merits.
Let’s also keep our conversation fact based and considerate of all parties
This is not a funding proposal, it’s a proposal to perform a service to the DAO to address QoS inefficiencies that are effecting POKT customers. While others have submitted proposals for services (like DAO contributions and research), this proposal is about a technical service to address specific needs and involves DA, PNI, PNF, POKTScan, Node River, Breezy, and qspider. Feel free to check out my comment above
If others have a solution that is more distributed, better quality, more accountable, and they feel it will better serve the DAO, they are welcome to do a proposal of their own
Added a ~$20k reimbursement
Added a $8k administration cost
One-Time Reimbursement: ~160k POKT + ~$28k
Monthly: 100k-150k POKT + ~$13k (please see Budget for more details)
“This helps bootstrap the cost of running the CC infrastructure and CC Towers while CC gets off the ground to generate its own revenue”
^ All that sounds like development and management costs, and using DAO funds to get CC to become a viable business.
I am not doubting for a bit that this is not a good service, its just the numbers don’t make sense to me, give me some good solid numbers so I can compare easily. For example, our cost per relay comes out to be x, if you used a competing service it would be y. and so on.
I think where we differ is I wouldn’t call that “development”, but I would call it management cost (which is why this is a service proposal, not a funding proposal).
To be specific about infrastructure costs, more than 1/3 goes to the tower providers since they have been running CC Towers for the altruist network since January. While they have fronted the cost of running these CC Towers, this was a way to alleviate the continued cost until the public service for POKT node runners is off the ground. At this point they have only been running CC Towers for the benefit of the altruist network, so a supplementation makes sense (much like the supplementation for those who would run rare chains).
DA has our own infra costs as well. We’ve spent thousands a month at times just on running out CC testing to ensure capacity and QoS. We are asking for less than $2k to DA to help cover those kinds of costs. Especially with helping launch a rare chain program (which we get no cut of and 100% goes to the node runners), there will likely still be yet more infrastructure required on our side to ensure quality and accountability.
I believe our infra ask is more then understandable, especially considering the amount of work and cost we are taking on.
The POKT ecosystem (through PNI) has already been a customer of CC… I’m just now asking that it be a paying customer, just like the DAO pays for other contributors for their services (similar to community services or research services). Unlike past services though, we have already worked with PNF to provide oversight and have tangible monthly infrastructure costs.
As I mentioned in my proposal
If our providers hit profitability faster than expected, I am happy to discontinue the infra cost. We would still be offering the DAO much more involvement than we would other customers as the DAO has special needs for transparency and oversight compliance with PNF. This is unique compared to any regular CC customer… but the goal is just to supplement some of the infra costs in the very short term.
I open to any feedback about our ask. I did try my best to be as pragmatic as possible.
Regarding the relay structure, I would refer to this section as I laid out the exact calculations.
Can you clarify if the rare-chains portion of the proposal is for specifically and only the three named chains (so that if other chains are found to fall below acceptable QoS levels a new PEP would be needed to fund those new chains), or is for those three chains at the moment plus open-ended addition of other chains in the future according to PNF discretion based on QoS metrics on other chains?
My two cents on this proposal for what they are worth. I strongly support the idea behind this proposal. Not only because I am involved but primarily because I do not see a path forward for independent node runners to continue to exist. I am unaware of any cloud providers where one can rent hardware in all three regions to run a Pocket node as well as 15 chain nodes at the current price $10.85 USD a month. Chain pooling gives node runners, independent and providers alike the opportunity to reduce their infra costs. LeanPokt paved the way for this and I believe a solution like CC is the next step forward not only for v0 but in preparation for v1. Finally, all node runners no longer have to sell all their earned tokens at the end of the month instead of re-staking them which from my point of view, from the tokenomic standpoint, this could reduce the tokens in circulation tremendously. This is a net positive.
The sentiment I gather from the responses thus far is that CC can be monetized outside of the Pocket Network while the DAO is funding it in its infancy while it provides support for the Altruist. That is indeed a great and fair point. The solution I propose is the following:
CC will continue to support the Altruist network and bill the DAO on a monthly basis for the current top 15 performing chains. Subjective to re-evaluation as these chains change based on performance.
The DAO will offset 100% of the cost of running all remaining chain nodes plus labor.
DA to agree that these nodes would not be participating in any other activities without a proposal voted on and passed by the DAO.
With these two adjustments, I believe DA can proceed to participate in the open free market if they see fit while the DAO focuses purely on reducing the cost of operation for running the Altruist Network. Do keep in mind, for PNI to deploy and maintain their chain nodes, they need to have one or many employees. As a business, they have to offer these employees both salary and benefits packages. For perspective, community members, such as myself, @qpsider, and others are currently doing so for free.
Let’s not deviate from the bigger picture. Less waste of any form in the network is a net positive for everyone.
It IS materially different, because you’re reselling my infra to other node runners and whoever else. What say do I have in that? So basically, no one is allowed to serve altruist traffic unless DA can resell your backends to whoever they want?
Hey Ian, working through @Breezytm’s comment at the moment, but wanted to address your comment real quick.
We are not reselling your infra, nor do we have access to it as you are not currently running a CC Tower. I listed our current CC Tower operators above, so I don’t want there to be confusion regarding who the CC Towers are.
I wouldn’t call getting paid by the DAO for a service of value as “reselling”, just like I wouldn’t call the DAO funding a research grant as “reselling words on a piece of paper”. Someone has to do the work to bring everything together and ensure the service is quality (just like researching something for the DAO), so I don’t agree with the concept that DA (or anyone for that matter) should do technical work for the ecosystem without at least minimum compensation.
There is a path to self sustainability for CC through serving POKT node runners, and I’m very transparent about that. But right now, the altruist network is our only client as we have been focused solely on it since January, so I personally believe that is proper for the DAO to be a paying client for the sake of all those involved with CC.
DA’s total cut each month for altruist work will likely be $3k to $4k per month. I personally do not see that as a huge ask, especially since up to half of that helps covers the associated infrastructure costs.
If anyone has specific complaints about the amounts, I’m all ears, but I’d ask that comments on pay or cost be put into proper context. I’m being very transparent and answering every questions I can
Heading back to working on @Breezytm’s comment, as I think it did a good job bringing a lot of comments together. Can’t stay online long, so will likely post tomorrow. Thanks all
You would be in the case that the 18 altruist networks I’m currently serving would have to run under CC in order to remain serving altruist. To be clear, you and Fred said connecting my chains to CC is materially no different than connecting to PNI altruist manager. But it IS different, because under CC you would be reselling my infra at your discretion.
Thank-you for this summary. Fortunately we built CC for accountability… literally:
Users can’t abuse CC (without being noticed)
DA can’t abuse CC Tower Operators (without being noticed)
CC Community Tower Operators can’t abuse rare chain operators (without being noticed)
PNF controls all DAN funds.
The ONLY WAY for CC to abuse a rare chain would be for DA, CC Tower Operators, and the rare chain operator to create a secret cabal to launch a secret service. Considering the parties involved (DA, POKTScan, Node River, Breezy, and qspider), we can absolutely agree to
I am happy to require DA and all CC Tower operators to agree to this. CC is designed to only serve POKT, and we are happy to make any formal agreement with PNF to put any doubts to rest.
If the DAO is going to supplement a node, it should be able to benefit on-chain traffic, not just altruist traffic, and be available to ALL POKT node runners equally. CC provides a distributed, neutral, QoS vehicle to do just that for the first time.
The Solana Foundation sponsored the deployment of an infrastructure pool back in 2021. The difference here though is that a POKT solution should only accessible to POKT nodes.
CC provides a permissionless vehicle to do this, as any user can signup their POKT nodes and CC is able to verify if its being used for POKT traffic by monitoring on-chain proofs.
If the rare chain issue is going to be addressed by the DAO, it should addressed for both on-chain traffic and altruist traffic, thus CC makes sense… hence this proposal.
Conclusion
This proposal is predicated on 2 questions:
What is best for POKT customers with regards to the altruist network?
How do we address rare chains in a fair, transparent, scalable manner, for both on-chain and altruist use?
Regardless which route we take, CC providers as well as some independent providers are currently providing support to ensure the continuity of the network with the assumption of getting their nodes reimbursed with a forward plan. I hope DAN can be that solution.
To be clear, on a technical level there are significant differences between how Pocket connected chains with their recent altruist manager and how Community Chains connects chains. CC has no central hub that balances traffic and such. People don’t just share endpoints with us and we add them into a mix. We work with providers and they host a CC tower on their own hardware, in their own data center. All traffic is routed via DNS according to location, so if a user (PNI or node runner) makes an RPC request to our network, they get a response directly from the nearest tower. There are no extra hops and no central CC server that manages traffic. We are a distributed network and all requests go directly to our providers.
No, we don’t resell anything from our providers at our own discretion. As Shane said above, all traffic from our users goes directly to our providers. Our providers can verify the numbers themselves and will know if we send them extra traffic.
Absolutely. We are making an API endpoint which will spit out altruist stats. Right now, it will show a maximum of 24 hours worth of data with data points at five minute intervals which poktscan can utilize. Each item will include the number of relays by chain over those five minutes and the region. You will be able to pass in an optional time number and if provided it will only send you data points since then (but, still within that max 24 hour range).
Apologies for missing this question. Happy to provide clarification.
Those listed are only three and does not represent all that may require supplementation, however those are the three most expensive and elusive chains due to their resource requirements and service time requirements. This is why I focused on them as an example, as they are the majority of what rare chains would cost. More in depth look at all chains will be begin following this proposal, as mention
PNF will be providing complete oversight and will be managing all funds. They will pay the rare chain operators directly. The DAO will also have insight into what chains are being suppliment, their cost, and the provider.
PNF is also ensuring that rare chains supplementation is within the nature of this proposal. If after more research it looks like rare chains supplementation will cost more than expected, then PNF can require more DAO approval. However, right now it looks like rare chains will around $10k or so, and all costs will be shared with the DAO.
UPDATE: Building off of what @RawthiL suggested about providing an API to POKTScan, CC can also provide a report feed to Discord on the hourly metrics. This means that general data can be accessible directly in Discord, and then POKTScan could have the more detailed view once they integrate the API.
When we say “could” here we mean “will” assuming that Pocket will give us a Discord webhook URL for the hourly stats. It will be the first time the community has real time altruist stats and will allow us to move altruist discussions out to the community where they belong.
This question, the purpose/reason for CC, and our accountability architecture has already been addressed numerous times in this thread (link, link, link, link, link). I also addressed this question in Discord when you, crabman, and myself were chatting.
As you may recall from yesterday, @JackALaing talked about the accelerating the decentralizing of v0 gateways. For decentralizing gateways, there has to be access to a neutral altruist network (regardless of if roll-over get patched at some point). PNI’s recent issues with DFK (where large amount of traffic started going to altruist because of Portal issues), shows that gateways need fall back systems in-case they start to struggle. DFK was a gateway issue, not a protocol issue, and CC was heavily used to ensure POKT customers were not interrupted.
PNI hasn’t offered to pay for CC as a neutral altruist option… so feel free to convince them I feel it’s best that the DAO be a part (note the Summary) and CC will already be making chains neutrally accessible to all node runners.
)… but this thread is not the place. PNI was the first to publically discuss it as a ecosystem strategy in October and it is frequently talked about in Node Runners Office Hour, and we’ve been sharing our work on it on since October… so there is a rich history of this convo which we can have elsewhere.
I feel it’s best that the DAO be a part (note the