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?
1 Like
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 
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Addressing Breezy’s Comment
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.
cc @iannn 
A Singular Solution And Proposal
Regarding @msa6867’s point
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
are you going to provide any data endpoints for analyzing the CC traffic? It could be a nice thing to have on POKTscan
3 Likes
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).
6 Likes
Thank you. This answers one of my two questions, and is the answer I was looking for.
Can you please address my one remaining request:
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
A one line update has been made
4 Likes
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.
6 Likes
I’m in favor of this proposal passing.
From my view, Shane always has the best intentions in mind when it comes to Pocket Network.
Decentralized Authority for the win!
4 Likes
Just to be clear, this is not needed after v1 mainnet is out right?
Meaning Decentralized Authority will wind down?
How do we keep Community Chains from becoming a competitor to Pokt?
Why is PNI not footing this bill? Considering they were paying $250k/month and It’s only $60k in $Pokt?
2 Likes
Yes.
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 
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
doesn’t this show that PNI’s portal is shit?
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Just fix the rollover issue that Blade brought to light 8 months ago.
Issue:
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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