Sustainable Emission Reduction (SER) Pre-Proposal

Total Supply figures both in CMC and CG are out of whack.

CG: 1,525,220,027
CMC: 1,146,111,711

I could have used the CMC number if I had to make it look worse. But I used 1,380,339,114 from poktscan (which I consider more reliable) for my mental math.

But that’s not the precise point I was making about POKT, so please don’t get fixated on that one thing. We will miss the forest for the trees.

I agree with @RawthiL that both 3 billion and 2 billion are arbitrary numbers, and therefore my challenge is to be aggressive if we are setting a “soft cap”- A) (Market Cap (MC)/Fully Diluted Value (FDV)) as close to 1 as possible, and B) That will bring predictable timeline for max supply to hit to something more reasonable instead of a ridiculously long one of 15+ years from now. That just doesn’t help what we are trying to solve here, which is to turn around the supply side narrative and sentiments in POKT’s favour. We have to make this work!

And therefore I am challenging to put 2 Billion on the table, and then discuss measurable tradeoffs and risks (IF ANY).

1 Like

Wanted to add a few:

A) We are talking about supply side economics here, and not demand side. This is no way to undermine the importance of demand side and I also don’t see any conflicts anywhere, they are mutually exclusive. Moreover, an aggressive change in the supply side (narrative) complimented by “right” kind of marketing (narrative building) could boost demand for speculative buying and investment for the token itself. And that’s not detrimental in anyway.

B) Here is some content about the importance of FDV from an OG Jordan Fish (aka Cobie), who has been around for 12 years in the crypto space and there are only a handful of such kinds, and 2 respected VCs with clean reputations, who are also ETH bulls:

Btw, I am not just sharing content from random CT/YT influencers to make a point. These are thoughtful examples.

FDV and MC/FDV are important metrics, specially for lesser known/small cap projects.

C) I want to reiterate that Sustainable Emission Reduction (SER) - #10 by Caesar is still my idealistic view point, where I suggest a holistic introspection of everything around the POKT token before deriving the supply side model. My idealistic stance and in that my agnostic stance to SER have not changed.

However, that may not be very pragmatic and we desperately need positive catalysts in this project. Plus as I said, I am not seeing conflicts and detriments in the present and in the future.

My assumption is that SER is likely to move to the proposal and voting stages and given that assumption, I want to support in the best possible way given my exposure to markets and narratives. Therefore my request to discuss and debate the aggressive option on the table to move the needle.

It is difficult to either be against or in favor of this proposal as it is, but I’m inclined to be more on the “against” side.

In one hand this proposal tackles a recurring problem of the Pocket Network that is inflation. It proposes a way to make emissions more predictable. On the other hand it relies on a MaxSupply, which is a whole concept on its own and this proposal cannot function without a MaxSupply. Moreover the MaxSupply s being chosen lightly and it does not seems to be a step towards a Floating Supply (which I believe to be more inline with the POKT token).

Now, I fear that if this proposal passes and we set a MaxSupply as defined here, the news about POKT having a max supply will be more important than the fact that this proposal tried to fix inflation. Then, if any value is set today, we will need to stick to it or any future value will not be credible.

I agree with @Caesar about the narratives and the problem that this proposal creates. Proposing a value too high like 3Bn wont have any real effect besides filling the checkbox “has a max supply”, this wont attract many investors (only the dumb ones). Also, setting this value too low, will put the tokenomics into an unnecessary stress. Reducing too much the tokens available to mint wont magically drive the price up and will only (potentially) benefit current holders, not future investors.

I think that the best way would be to target inflation rates and not max supply. We need to estimate (under different scenarios) where the token supply will lie once application burning hits and target that zone. I think that narratives can be build upon an strong and consensual tokenomics model, it will require more work but will bring better results. (I do not want to mix subjects here, so I wont go any deeper into this.)

Thank you @Caesar and @RawthiL for good discussions. I will updated the table to show all the way down to 2.0B max and I will add a column to show the time period to halving the inflation. I think “time to inflation halving” is the best way to compare inflation

What I am inclined to do is separate this into two proposals. This one would focus on the framework with a default, less aggressive target to take effect March 1, with a companion concurrent proposal focused specifically on right-sizing the target value. There is precedence for this approach with PUP11/13 and PIP22/PUP21. I would invite @Caesar to co-author the second companion proposal. Let me know if this approach makes sense.

I will respond the the rest of the recent discussion shortly. In the meantime, @RawthiL can you please expound on the following:

As far as I can tell, the proposal is perfectly compatible with the goal of eventually hitting a zone where app burn balances emission, while scratching the investor/market place itch of “what happens with token supply if there is significant delay in app burn turning on.”

What I meant is that the the target value, the MaxSupply proposed here, is not the result of analyzing the growth of the network and the app burn scenarios. The proposal is compatible with it, but there is no analysis nor narrative that indicates that the proposal was written in that spirit.
Also, if only the narrative about this proposal being an step towards a floating supply is added, then the analysis would be lacking.

The proposal is simple and thus it is compatible with many scenarios. It just sets a growth speed and a max supply. Being simple is good and is versatile enough to adapt to many scenarios. However, I’m more interested in the “why” than in the “how”.
Why are we going to select these parameters and not others?
Currently the proposal only answers this question based on arbitrary selected MaxSupply and a given time to inflation halving.
In order to understand and accept that this proposal is just an step towards floating supply, much more analysis is needed as there is no reason to think that the selected values are the correct ones.

Thank you for the clarification

Lots of helpful analysis and added viewpoints.

It seems we can either:

a) Cap supply at the proposed 2bn, 2.5bn, 3bn numbers.
b) Create a floating supply.

I suggest two things for next steps:

  1. another proposal where Ramiro/MSA/Others are compensated to continue profish’s work, and build out the research/models to be able to forecast both a floating and fixed supply under different scenarios with reasonable confidence.

  2. When this work has been completed and the community has had a time to read and react, @JackALaing can set up a debate, similar in style to the one we had for FREN, where community members (Caeser, Ramiro, MSA, Vitaly etc) can discuss the proposals so that the community can come to hopefully a general consensus that is backed with good data/analysis to vote on.

I veer towards the idea that it is better that we have a single proposal and implementation on a ‘cap’ or similar, than implement one number and supersede it with another - explaining the narrative will get lost and it’ll make us ‘look’ untrustworthy even if we’ve clearly signalled and explained it beforehand.

I am taking everything under advisement. In meantime, I am going to ask you to expound on the following same as I did for @RawthiL … I fear the term is being used as a catch-all bucket
without actual meaning.

I have expanded Table 1 and added the following paragraph just above table 1 :

Great discussion!

I am sensitive to the following before I share further thoughts:

  1. This can’t merely be an intellectual exercise. Something really positive needs to come out of this, otherwise we are wasting our time and we will lose trust in the community as @Cryptocorn said.

  2. I would be lying if I say that I am not watching the lack of traction in POKT’s price in the current market. That’s my day job.

I would urge us to not be in the “lets just build and ignore the market” zone. That’s generally doesn’t end well. Let us do everything (check all the boxes)- that would be my humble request. And there are experts building and shipping, so there is no conflict here.

Token value is at the centre of this proposal (without mentioning that explicitly). I understand very well who can discuss price and who cannot; this is a community-run initiative and therefore there are no restrictions.

Which leads to:

a) We desperately need positive catalysts in this project- inflation cuts, successful V1, relays/more chains, partnerships, dapps, major exchange listing, etc. All of them will somehow contribute.

b) Time is also of essence; sure we need to come up with a robust and sustainable solution for inflation reduction and supply control but we need to be time-conscious.

  1. Having a narrative and building that narrative don’t have to be cringe and scammy by default. I see many coders and builders averse to any kind of narrative building. Referring to my earlier statement- let us plz check all the boxes.

  2. I hope we are not going to get push backs from the node runners. I am not sure what their % is amongst the DAO voters. Pocket is not in the business of running nodes- I agree with the sentiments I have read, including from our dear friend Vitaly. On a related note- 13% staked ETH VS 59% staked POKT, that should tell us something.

Value accrual to the POKT token will ultimately help all stakeholders (including node runners) and alleviate many current problems.

Now-

I would want this to be collaborative within this core group and therefore have consensus. Clearly @RawthiL is not convinced, and therefore I agree with @Cryptocorn that we have to integrate his views and solutions into this.

Which leads me to @msa6867 's question-what exactly does he mean by floating supply.

My guess is that it relates to what pro fish was/is modelling and is similar to ETH’s tokenomics. But I would let @RawthiL explain.

At this moment, we are discussing SER and then we have pro fish 's unfinished model. Is there a way to make this into one instead? There are different ways to do it- one way could be elimination or deferral by prioritisation.

Basically we need to optimise our time, effort and resources.

And if this requires to make this a paid project, why not? Therefore I am open to @Cryptocorn 's suggestion.

But I request you all to focus on consolidation please and concentrate time, effort, resources in one common project/mission.

@msa6867 , I would suggest to wait before creating further drafts/proposals. We all need to align first. Also btw how many years will it take to hit max supply of 2B?

1 Like

Yes. I think that the token supply would reach a point where it stabilizes due to application burn or any other burning mechanism. This is something similar to what ETH managed to do, even more, there are some people saying that it is now deflationary which is even better for people holding bags (I think). If we can credibly show that we are building a tokenomics model heading that way we can align inflation controls and narrative.

How much time do you think that we have to deliver such model?
There is much to learn and it wont be ready in a week. If I recall correctly profish was talking of months for developing it as a community driven project.

Re profish: apart from his “something like ethereum” comment I do not think he was focused on developing any particular tokenomics - he repeatedly said he was deferring to the community to do that; rather he was focused on building the sandbox (using cadcad / radcad) where Pocket tokenomics modeling could take place in a community-driven, unified manner. I will continue attending the handover calls and going through his repository, but if time is of the essence - and I tend to agree w you @Caesar that it is , then we will probably end up finalizing a proposal and bringing it to vote prior to having a team-driven endeavor to model everything out in cadad / radcad

Re two proposals - feedback received; I will drop that idea and focus on building consensus on some value within this proposal

Re floating supply: I agree that this is the end goal for Pocket and always has been. I believe that SER is 100% compatible with this and indeed is more compatible with this than “do nothing” What do I mean: Suppose burn turns on and ramps up but plateaus for a long season to a lower number than current 690k/day. In the do “nothing” we still end up with unbounded increase to supply for a long period of time even after burn starts. With SER, the slow but relentless drive to throttle down scheduled emission means that the schedule will cross below the plateau at some point at which time burn-emission float stability can be achieved at some level that is lower than the scheduled max, Please see again figures 7 and 8 of the proposal. The same balance can happen with “do nothing” but only after burn exceeds 690k per day and after new governance action to set the relationship between burn and emission. Note that if SER is put into place, it naturally and gracefully balances burn and emission without follow-on governance action, but follow-on action would still be useful and needed if the desire was to push Pocket to become deflationary.

This is the wrong question. Asymptotes never reach, only approach, the asymptote theoretial max value. Thus it takes infinite time to reach 2B. Please see expanded Table 1. This shows that it takes 1.3 years to close by half the gap between current value and max value. Thus current = 1.5B, 1.75B in ~April 2024, 1.875B in ~July 2025, etc. By comparison, the having period for 3.0B is 4.1 years. Thus current = 1.5B, 2.25B in ~ Feb 2027 etc.

Perhaps a better question to ask is "how long does it take for inflation to drop below 2% I use 2% here because as I have been digging deeper into the tokenomics of other tokens, I was surprised to learn that tokens I thought had max supplies do not, but that some sites such as gc stop “counting” once inflation falls below some threshold. See eg this statement re solana: "First things first: Solana does not have a capped supply, though you will find plenty of websites that incorrectly suggest it does. (CoinGecko, for instance, pegs total supply at 508 million.) However, its inflation rate is scheduled to decline to 1.5 percent annually around the 500 million mark, which some analysts conflate with a cap on supply. " For max=2B it takes 3.6 years for anual inflation to fall below 2%. For max=3B it takes 11 years for anual inflation to fall below 2%

For better or for worse, DAO voting membership has skewed more heavily toward node runners than other stake holders due to quirks in relative difficulty of achieving badges on various paths. By and large we have a great group of node runners who are vested in the long-term success of the project. That being said you cannot ignore their willingness to vote their own self-interest if they perceive a proposal would put them out of business.

I am mindful of this and of Vitaly’s arguments in general. On the other hand POKT is in good company in its percentage of staked tokens compared to various altcoins and is not an outlier in this regard. See eg cardano with 72% of tokens staked, solana with 77% of tokens staked, etc

1 Like

This is a summary of where I think things are at:

(1) SER defines an “outer envelope” supply curve in absence of burn; Once burn turns on it will cause a stable float lower than the max. With follow-on governance action burn can also be managed to cause Pocket to become deflationary.

(2) Within this envelope, further pressure/incentives/disincentives beyond that established by the supply envelope can be created via the ProposerAllocation and DaoAllocation knobs. Use of these knobs may in fact create win-win scenarios such as creating negative pressure on the servicer front while bolstering DAO coffers (especially if PEP-49 passes) and/or increasing network security by incentivizing more highly-staked validators.

(3)To go forward with SER is de facto a deferral of Vitaly’s demand-centric approach until V1 when we will have per-chain, per-region knobs that can be managed to balance RPC demand and RPC-service supply. Work on the demand-centric front should continue in earnest in the meanwhile in preparation of V1.

(4) Sentiment seems to be in place for a supply envelope that asymptotes to between 2B and 3B; I have not seen any advocacy for a value outside this range. I am hopeful that our continued discussions can focus on quickly finding a consensus value in this range followed by bringing SER to a vote. This is not meant to shut down continued discussions on the demand-centric front, but is simply a matter of prudence wherein I think creating an envelope is superior to “doing nothing” between now and V1 and I do not see any hope for a demand-centric approach to work prior to V1. I am quite confident that whatever happens post-V1 once we have per-region, per-chain control, it will work within the envelope set in place by SER as long as the asymptote in SER is not set too aggressively. I invite all active participants in this discussion who have advocated for a certain max value to summarize your arguments for that value (@Cryptocorn and @Caesar at 2B, @msa6867 at 3B) and for those who have not (e.g., @RawthiL ) to define criteria that they would like to see satisfied in the process of coming to a consensus.

An overall opinion as part of the GRIP

This discussion is going beyond initial scope of this pre-proposal. Originally the pre-proposal intended to set a MaxSupply and a exponential growth toward that target.
The pre-proposal never mentioned other intentions. If it seeks to include the topics that are present here, such as being an “envelope” to other floating supplies and so on, I would encourage the author to amend its text and provide the analysis to show all its claims.


Personal opinion on the current discussion

This resumes the main problem here.
Do we want to blindly rush into some MaxSupply or we want to build a strong model?

You cannot develop credible economics based on cryptic spreadsheets and promises. This is not the way I would like Pocket to grow, building something reliable takes time. We don’t need to accept the first proposal that appears in the forum. I don’t think that the timelines are so tight, do we need this next week? can we spare a month?

How do you expect to show that any of those claims could be credible outside this community without a tokenomics model?
We cannot go and send PMs to each web3 dev out there and convince them that this is the way and toss them some back of the excel calculations.

I cannot possible give a MaxSupply value, it would be highly irresponsible to just toss a number out there and hope for the best. I do not pretend to be offensive with those that gave a number, as any number would be arbitrary, I think that a MaxSupply is not necessary.
I feel that we are rushing into a bad decision without taking a minute to think. The only way that I believe that we can address the multiple problems that the community has:

  • Strong narrative regarding the future of the token (@Caesar )
  • Concerns about stake % of tokens and cost of the network (Vitalys argument)
  • Concerns about the rentability of the small node runners
  • Effects of burn mechanisms and many V1 features.
  • (and probably many others)

is by means of an in-deepth model. A model that any member of the community can understand and action on it.

Until we reach that point, I will not be in favor of any major change like this. Maybe this pre-proposal is perfect, but I just cant now and I wont take your word for it.

I will take this under advisement and amend text as needed. I do not think I am introducing anything new in the comments… perhaps a new word in the comments section(using the word “envelope” to describe the projected supply as a function of time in the absence of burn), but not a new concept (see eg the discussion surrounding Figures 7 and 8 that describe burn creating a balance that settles on a lower stable value than that implied by the MaxSupply.

Re personal opinion: I think what ethereum has done with their modeling is great, and it is a lofty goal to use such a tool for Pocket Network. That being said, ethereum is in a lonely minority for that level of sophistication and most projects that have well defined tokenomics got there on nothing but a white paper, and possibly - but not always - a spreadsheet. Even in the case of ethereum, the cadcad model came out way after most of the tokenomics were already in place. I do not agree that waiting months to develop in-house Pocket DAO expertise in cadcad before making any move on reducing inflation is the answer. I a m proposing to take a step in a rather obvious right direction as a follow on to WAGMI and FREN (both of which went into effect without the benefit of cadcad) while in parallel building on what @profish started.

Perhaps Adam’s original “tenthing” proposal would have been superior to the final version of WAGMI, and yes WAGMI and FREN and now SER had/have an element of arbitrariness to it. But who in the community thinks that Pocket Network would be in a better place today if a year ago we opted to “do nothing” and let inflation rage at 300+% under the paralysis of not having yet created an in-depth sophisticated simulation model or scientific rationale for every parameter choice? I am sure there is not one. Tell me one other project that does not have a degree of arbitrariness. Is bitcoin’s halving every 840k epochs totally sceintific with zero arbitrariness in the choosing of 840k and not some other value? And all the altcoins since then? The methodology proposed herein is nearly identical to the one cardano operates under both in methodology (define a max and each epoch allow a certain percentage of the headroom between current and max supplyto be emitted ) and in value (each month emit approx 1.4% of the headroom x, resulting in an identical 1.4% reduction in emission month over month).

For all the dissing of use of spreadsheets, a bit of background perspective on where I come from. When I did comm engineering for a major aerospace company, the reason I quickly rose through the ranks to becoming one of their foremost comm engineers is that when upper management needed answers to questions that couldn’t wait for the weeks to months it would take the OpNet team to simulate, a right-sized, pointed spreadsheet was usually able to answer their needs within hours or days. Nor have I seen credibility withheld from a understandable spreadsheet by decision makers out of bias against spreadsheets. Also, I seriously doubt that in-depth simulations tend to be more understandable or actionable than a spreadsheet. That being said, I see all the benefits of using cadcad going forward (uniformity, version control, creating branches, visualization etc etc) but disagree with the notion that developing a cadcad model is necessary before taking next governance steps to reduce inflation.

Very insightful arguments all round. May I suggest:

  • What is @RawthiL best guess estimate (I appreciate it’s an estimate) to get an MVP model out, if we pushed through a DAO proposal to give reasonable funding for the work? Would 4 - 6 weeks be a sensible number to get something out that could give meaningful insight?

  • While I agree we are not in a major hurry to pass a proposal - a month or two will not make a major impact, I also agree with MSA that long term sclerosis is just as unwise.

I appreciate i’m suggesting to put a lot of burden on Ramiro (and potentially MSA/others as well), but if acceptable to them, can we look at a timeline like:

  • End of Jan: proposal to build an MVP model continuing Profish’s work/investigating floating supply as defined by Ramiro.
  • Early Feb: Vote expected to pass, work on Model officially starts.
  • Mid March: model MVP can be used, gives suggested tokenomics with strong backing.
  • End of March: We hold a debate between various pathways forward for tokenomics. Hopefully consensus is reached, possible community polling.
  • Early April: publish a finalised proposal for vote and implementation.

Some specific replies:

Whether we meant to or not, and whether or not we have created a “narrative” around a max, anyone looking at the results of WAGMI/FREN (see Figure 1) over the last year would extrapolate that the intention of Pocket Network for the future is to asymptote to a max. Defining continued inflation reductions is the logical next step to WAGMI/FREN and as pointed dout, doing so happens to asymptote to a mex whether or not we choose to create a narrative around that or not. I hardly think this is a case of “blindly rushing” into anything. The WAGMI/FREN monthyl reduction path has been a year in the making and this followon proposal has been discussed, vetted and debated for the last month. To me this is completely orthogonal to building a strong simulation model.

This statement is full of strawman attacks. First, the tokenomics of a crypto token is way easier to describe and model than the economics of a token, For most tokens , te tokenomics exists officially only in a white paper without any companion spreadsheet much less sophisticated simulation model. No claim is made whatsoever in this proposal regarding POKT price, node runner profitability, or all the other things the occur in expanding from the “tokenomics” to the “economics” of Pocket Network. A tool like Cadcad is ideal for something as compex as a token’s economics; on the other hand it is way overkill for merely its tokenomics. Second, the concept of exponential decay of emissions via “Emission over an epoch = x% of headroom between current and max supply” is trivial to model whether via spreadsheet or any other mechanism and anyone could verify for themselves in a matter of minutes. There is nothing whatsoever cryptic about it. Third. what is mean in this sentence by “promises”??

What are you proposing could be accomplished within a month? Two months? See @Cryptocorn comment

You’ve lost me. Which claims?

The claim that (1) exponential decay of emissions asymptotes to a max? (this is trivial to verify)

The claim that (2) ProposerAllocation and DAOAllocation are knobs that can be used to divvy the total emissions between the groups ato create different incentive structure? (This is self-evident)

The claim that (3) this current proposal does not incorporate Vitaly’s viewpoints? That what Vitaly desires cannot realistically be executed prior to V1? That I suggest continued work continue on this front in the meantime? What could it even mean that this "claim: is not “credible”?

The claim that (4) all the suggested valuess to date fall in the max supply range of 2B to 3B (1.4% to 4.2%). This can be verified by reading the comments section.

Note that I was not asking you to give a MaxSupply valie; I was requesting - if you are willing - to give criteria you would like to see satisfied if this were to go forward

I think having a degree of arbitrariness is not the same as irresponsibility, nor is it unbounded arbitrariness. Solid cases can be made against too high a value (becomes meaningless and does not rein in inflation) or too low a value (harmful to retaining the quantity, quality and diversity of service providers needed). Thus there is a fairly narrow range (suggested as 1.4% TO 4.2% monthly emission reduction) to consider if one value of monthly reduction is better than another. Was Satoshi irresponsible in defining halving every 210k blocks? Did he have to wait for sophisticated modeling to choose that number over another. could bitcoin have worked just as well with a value of 150k blocks or 300k blocks?

1 Like

Hi @RawthiL and @msa6867 , as a co-collaborator and with your permission, may I please intervene and send an alert that this discussion might get personal and we might lose the great momentum we have managed to set so far. I could be wrong but I see unintended inferences and misinterpretations here and there; remote discussions (debates) on non-trivial subjects are tough :slight_smile:

We are yet to see alignment but I think we all would agree that the quality of discussion and the passion in the room have been high. We are onto something here!

Rest, will leave this to you entirely :slight_smile:

I will follow up with my thoughts on the agenda in a bit.

2 Likes

I am glad that it’s a wrong question because it leads me to the following question-

Do we even need to mention “max supply” anywhere in this discussion, which seems to be the root cause of the disconnect and a show stopper.

Why don’t we just stay true to the mission which is “Sustainable Emission Reduction,” in other words inflation reduction.

We are presently talking about accelerating the drop. Status quo is not acceptable (@RawthiL @Cryptocorn @msa6867). The community and the market are right in flagging it. We desperately need to change this.

Current Inflation: 16.8

Variables:
a) Final Inflation Target
b) Target Year of a)
c) To achieve a) and b) the required monthly inflation reduction

OR

Variables:
a) Final Inflation Target
b) Monthly Inflation Reduction Target
c) Target Year of a) based on c)

OR

XYZ

ABR (whenever introduced) could make POKT deflationary from time to time whenever the demand is bigger than emission. We don’t need to talk about max supply at all.

I think whichever approach we take, there needs to be some base assumptions, which we call “variable” in the beginning but become “target” once values are assigned.

I have been an ETH tokenomics bull myself but I have also been thinking. ETH has a plethora of utility, POKT doesn’t. In fact few might argue why do we even need POKT. Given whatever POKT does today and will do in the foreseeable future, wouldn’t ETH level tokenomics be an overkill and therefore redundant??

While SOL’s scope is also much bigger, its inflation schedule appears simple and easily replicable. At the same time, I don’t find any detriments and conflicts with any of Pocket’s other/larger objectives. Please highlight if any.

Here are the relevant links (which I am presuming @msa6867 has gone through already):

The attached graph is of Solana inflation reduction. FYI- as a side note…there is fee burn in SOL.

I will naturally lean towards assigning aggressive values to the variables if we arrive at that point. But let’s first discuss.

It highly depends on how long we take to agree in how to layout the base model and the number of contributors and how much time they can put into coding.
If we are looking only to model the major issues around the token inflation (emission, token price, relay volume and node runners incomes, to name a few), we could have the model ready in less than two months. Keep in mind that this is not only a model, it is also an app that can be easily used by anyone (we could also ask the DAO to host it for free).

The model does not need to cover every single aspect of the network in its infancy, only what we more need. Later this model can grow to any other aspect of the network.