I’m seeking clarification from Rich on this… He made a comment today in TG chat that indicated I may be wrong on this assertion…
Always get confused about this. PNF has the Portal API in their GH repoistory, PNI owns a hosted version of the Portal and PNF owns the gigastakes apps delegated by the DAO? Aside the point, we rely heavily on the Portal as selling points on why the price should be increased. You can still see it in the current written proposal. I find it odd we are not factoring “a portals price” into the relay cost. The parameters justifications in general are still leaning towards the arbitrary side here
First two sound right. I do not know about gigastake; need to get educated on that.
Yes re “still rely heavily on the Portal as selling points” not to mention hopelessly enmeshed, no matter how many times Rich tries to educate on the difference from a bizdev point of view.
Agreed that the parameter justifications in general are still leaning towards the arbitrary side here, but I think my preferred go-forward is for this proposal to move forward and then revisit with a new proposal to overhaul this portion of the parameter space
This probably isn’t a blocker.
When we turn ABR on, I imagine (please don’t quote me on this) we could code it to either:
- respect existing app stakes to be staked forever (essentially grandfathering in current paid users), or
- we start burning all stakes (thus making the current App stakes owned only until ABR starts)
I imagine the community will have arguments for/against both cases. I don’t have a strong opinion on it. That seems like a separate DAO discussion for the future.
I know it may seem material now, but there is just no way of us knowing how that will play out.
If anyone wants to draft a stronger model, that is a route we can go. However, I don’t think that precludes approving PUP-23 so we at least improve the current situation.
To be honest, I think the optimization and the giga brain math is really crucial on the node side.
On the dApp side, we are effectively clearing a hurdle for app stake costs, and then let optimizations happen by the different portal operators. The community can propose different strategies to make the hurdle for app stakes more dynamic, but - keep in mind - all the PnL will be done by the portal operators. Or in the future the DAO can continue to use the current methodology and just raise the hurdle.
Approving PUP-23 doesn’t prevent us from propose new and different models as we more data points become public and baselines are established. In fact, I would personally like to contribute to those in the future.
3 Likes
One of the more important sets of data we will need on the DAO side is what exactly was promised to Dapps along the way, if all the appropriate wiggle-room language with caveats etc is in the language for any bizdev that is closed, then I’d say that we have options at the DAO level when we cross the ABR bridge. If, on the other hand, Dapps were promisied “lifetime” then I don’t see how DAO can easily yank that away without generating tons of ill-will, i’m guessing a mixed bag of grandfathering and moving current to ABR will be needed according to the language of what was promised at the time of closing the original sale. I know PNI is hesitant to share too much with DAO at this juncture but I would ask at a minimum that good annotation be made per client so that the DAO will be able to act prudently when ABR becomes a reality.
2 Likes
I would just respectfully strongly suggest closely following SEC vs LBRY happening now and really reconsider using the words “market maker” (which was literally the trigger in that case). This is not a good time at all to assume you can safely establish what is, or is not, an SEC matter.
2 Likes
Agreed on the use of “market maker”, and my alternate suggestion resolves that concern. I’d move that @RichCL update the proposal to remove the use of that phrase, and adopt a method similar to what I’ve described. While I do follow most active litigation in the space (and even subscribed to PacerMonitor to track such), and don’t see a strong comparison to be made between LBRY and POKT, I agree this doesn’t need the use of an outside service. The Foundation can serve this role.
1 Like
Whatever moves the project (protocol and gateway) toward full decentralization in haste and the token toward full utility without blurring lines is ideal and will always have our support!
2 Likes
Had some time for everything to marinate. This sums up my thoughts as well and makes sense given it’s the stairway to sustainable economics. Raising 7x doesn’t seem to be that deal breaking to me anymore. I do believe the whole idea of setting it next to other node providers in general is pretty arbitrary and not sustainable (what if they decrease their price 10x too?), but something is better than nothing and that’s the step forward, finally got the memo!
There’s a good chance that our price actually still has to be on the higher end if we’re talking about portal + network costs to truly make this sustainable. But atlas, I hope the conversations don’t stop here and what was written in this proposal is used for future ones as well to truly get us to sustainable economics. I’ll be supporting this proposal
Thanks Rich and everyone else for weighing in
3 Likes