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


Why would our company wind down after v1?

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 :sweat_smile: 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.


Regarding question two, Decentralized Authority has been making software since 2020 including Node Launcher, Node Pilot, and many other libraries and services. Our business has always been and will continue to be about providing tools and services to support node runners. As such, we are very excited about the new opportunities for node runners when Pocket releases v1.


doesn’t this show that PNI’s portal is shit?


idk guys…all of this seems like a bandaid on a bandaid.

I honestly don’t know why we have an altruist back up anyway. Chain halts should never happen.
How come we are not throwing resources at that?

And if we HAVE to go this route, let PNI foot the bill. They the ones saving $250k surely they can pay for the development and upkeep.

I don’t doubt the intentions, I doubt the need and the dao paying for it.


Just fix the rollover issue that Blade brought to light 8 months ago.



Yes @ethen, this is a temp fix to an open wound right now. While it gets patched and begins to heal, this fills in the gaps.

I’ve been very open that DAN is addressing a short term issue and have been open about the long term solution in the Dissenting Opinions and in our Discord conversation several days ago.

This proposal was already submitted to the DAO for vote yesterday (prior to your comments), since it has been up for more than 2 weeks and there had not been any further feedback for several days. At this point I’m just repeating the same answers I already gave you, despite the fact that it has already been given to the DAO to decide.

While you may wish for there be no need for an altruist network right now, that is not today’s reality. Myself and others have simply been doing what we can to address this need, and be solution builders within the areas we can control. I hope that is something you can appreciate.


After v1 doesn’t matter because lots of providers will find it more convenient than running nodes themselves, and. CC is intended to be public and for any provider or user to plug in and out as they wish, right? I also imagine it will be marketed outside of the pokt ecosystem, because that’s what they should do.

Even if they don’t, if I’m a small node provider and I’m targeting hard chains, I wouldn’t want some large providers with lots of pokt stake to direct a bunch of traffic at my hard effort chains, just because I want to help bootstrap the altruist, and then a large chunk of that change goes to Shane and Ryan instead of my own efforts.

Furthermore, where does the buck stop on hard/rare chains? Velas is a solana fork, so is that going to be another drain on the DAO budget? I agree that PNI should be footing this bill and not the DAO when it’s their bugs that require the altruist to begin with.

1 Like

A bit of an aside, and maybe a dummy question, but feels like this is the best place to post this, since the big brains are engaged here:

Isn’t CC essentially a global load balancer, and offering the same service that DRPC advertises?

Belated edit: I support this proposal and can’t wait to use CC (Should have probably led with that, heh). I posed the question out of curiosity in regards to competitors in the RPC space, not out of a desire to criticize.

1 Like

If you want to run a rare chain on your own, go for it. If you want the DAO to supplement it’s cost, then it should be available for all node runners, which is what CC enables for the first time. Why would the DAO provide a supplement for a rare chain that only you and your customers get access to? That wouldn’t make sense.

Yes, we have a revenue model so that CC can keep the lights on. We have only made free software for node runners in the past, and this is a service that requires constant work from CC.

Your hosting company charges a 10% fee, and going through CC would be 9%. Very comparable, especially since others are providing you a distribution/QoS platform to get your nodes to more users.

PNI is supposed to be running altruist for new chains they launch, on their own dime. From my conversations with them, once a chain is established in POKT they will spin down their own infra and it can be picked up by community members.

1 Like

I’ll look to open a thread about chain pooling to discuss topics like that :+1:


why you ignoring the question. i think here is just fine.

Misskitty just asked you a direct question about Community Chains and your response was “thread something something discuss topics like THAT”

1 Like

We are not ignoring anything and I do not appreciate the false accusation. We have answered that question already from multiple angles in this thread so far. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion to reiterate it again, although if people want to have a fuller discussion about node pooling, then it does make sense to talk about it somewhere else rather than here in a proposal which has been posted and discussed for over two weeks and is now up for a vote.

CC is not Pocket and is not trying to be pocket. We are not a trustless, decentralized blockchain protocol like pocket and we don’t pretend to be. We work with proven, high quality providers allowing them to further monetize their chain infrastructure by providing RPC resources to Pocket node runners who cannot afford to run all chains. As such, we are the perfect solution for the altruist network at this point in time as well. We are almost exactly the kind of pooling solution that Pocket said in their state of the union last year that they hoped the community would develop and we have worked directly with PNI and PNF for months now in order to get this right.

All of that has been said before.

1 Like

I was running altruist under no expectation of remuneration in the hopes to help QoS for the network in the interim as PNI cut costs and offloaded to the community, and also hoping ultimately the need for an altruist goes away. (although I’m operating at a steep loss, and running certain altruist chains has limited my available resources significantly, so anything is appreciated if anyone from pni is reading…)

It seems your service price has changed several times. If I do recall, you first told me that you wanted 50% of rev when you approached me to run chains with CC, including for hard chains, and that you were charging users 20%. So to hear 9% now, great! I was never negotiated with re: hard chains, and this proposal was the first I heard about you guys taking no cut from it… I’m sure many providers are going to love your service, as many loved the neglected node pilot (and still use it). But I still don’t think the DAO should pay for it, and have already voted no.


I’ve created a thread for you to air your grievances :point_right: A Polite Conversation about Chain Node Pooling



Oh finally memes in discourse. Love it :heart:

@b3n my wish got fulfilled so soon!

“Make forum great again”


Could you please provide results of the “more research will be conducted” now that DAN has become an official part of the network. Results of this research are needed ASAP to inform discussions on PNF’s emissions reduction proposal

1 Like

Hey @msa6867, PNF has all that resarch already from us regarding what we have gathered in terms of resources to run different types of nodes and what it costs in the ecosystem and come up with our rare chain costs. I have been providing a lot information and resources to them over the past week for their research, which I’m sure will be a part of their survey results, so all is good on that front.

Regarding the results of costs for the rare chains, I published the report here :+1:

1 Like

Excellent. Thank you.

1 Like

DAN has ended.

At the end of October, Grove transitioned to their own backup node solution, making it possible to wind down DAN without effecting QoS. PNF, the managing party of this initiative, officially concluded DAN yesterday, with the last payments being made to node runners for their contributions in October.

DAN was started as a temporary way to distribute the altruist network, increase QoS, and reimburse the participating node runners in a transparent manner. It accomplished it’s mission and now is no longer required.

Shout out to all those who participated :vulcan_salute:


It’s been real :metal: